Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[regent]

Amazing , that is the exact question King George asked the colonists as they were telling him" Bollocks, go fuck yourself".

.

I thought the Revolutionary War was over before they wrote the Constitution, and even later added the Bill of Rights?

The right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness is an unalienable right which does not depend on the Constitution.

The stupid op who began the thread forgot that people have an inherent right to crush tyranny.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force. It was intended as a means of propaganda.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Whenever someone says, "Show me where X is in the Constitution", they are speaking from ignorance. Whether it is about gay marriage or automobiles or guns.

There is a whole body of evidence as to the intents behind the words in the Constitution, as well as an even larger body of legal precedents which flesh out those words.

One which specifically addresses your question can be found in the Federalist Papers written by the men who knew better than any of us what the intentions behind the second amendment were. This one in particular was written by James Madison, my favorite of the Publius triad:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

Then why don't our lawmakers swear an oath to defend the Federalist Papers?

 

[Synthaholic]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Um, no. That is not how it works. If laws are unconstitutional, they are not laws, thus nothing about them is enforceable.

According to your idea of how our government works, Congress could pass a law that says everyone in Fairfax County, VA must be executed by the end of next week. So, all these persons in FFX County would have to prove they shouldn't be executed by the end of next week.

That's absurd.

Sure they are enforceable laws! Until a high enough court rules otherwise. That can take months or years. During that time, the law is enforceable.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand what the founders meant by the second amendment?

 

[Synthaholic]

To keep government in check:

Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Noah Webster:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.

Well, isn't that interesting! It shows the limited thinking and imagination of the day. Of course, in 2013 we could NEVER constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. Our "regular troops" are on duty 24/7 and have vastly superior firepower and myriad ways to subdue any of us.

This helps to demonstrate that the thinking behind the 2nd is outdated.

 

[del]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

the entire point of the constitution is to keep government in check.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I shouldn't have to read Jefferson's private papers to learn his feelings. On page 334, no less.

You don't have to. The courts do that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

You claim to be a thinker, so think about this....what do all of the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights do?

Is your answer that they all keep the government in check?

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

You claim to be a thinker, so think about this....what do all of the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights do?

Ummm....Uhhhhh....<Jeopardy song plays>......

Go back to hannity where you are King of the Retards.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It's written on the heart of every patriot. Oh, wait. some have no heart. Would that be you.

You're always good for a hackneyed cliche, Beckster!

 

[Synthaholic]

The topic title asks where it is written. More than enough written evidence has been provided.

The OP attempts to narrow the goalposts by asking a question that basically implies the Constitution would have to be thousands of pages long to satisfy the ignoramuses who ask "show me in the Constitution" questions because they are too dense to understand the implied rights and powers in that document. They need everything spelled out for them.

Well, it is spelled out for you. You have been shown where.

Deal with it.

"Yeah, why do we even need a Supreme Court - all this stuff is OBVIOUS!!!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Um, no. That is not how it works. If laws are unconstitutional, they are not laws, thus nothing about them is enforceable.

According to your idea of how our government works, Congress could pass a law that says everyone in Fairfax County, VA must be executed by the end of next week. So, all these persons in FFX County would have to prove they shouldn't be executed by the end of next week.

That's absurd.

But they have to be ruled unconstitutional. Any law not challenged successfully in the courts is constitutional by default.

 

[Contumacious]

I thought the Revolutionary War was over before they wrote the Constitution, and even later added the Bill of Rights?

The right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness is an unalienable right which does not depend on the Constitution.

The stupid op who began the thread forgot that people have an inherent right to crush tyranny.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force. It was intended as a means of propaganda.

I totally forgot.

The US Constitution has been abolished and substituted by the Communist Manifesto.

Yassa Massa, I knows that ain't got the right to resist tyranny.

I be rolling over and playing dead.

Fuck you now.

.

 

[Synthaholic]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason


Those took me about a minute to find.

If these were such important sentiments, shared by the founders, why are they not included in the Constitution?

I shouldn't have to read Jefferson's private papers to learn his feelings. On page 334, no less.

What's your basis to support collective bargaining, privacy and abortion again?

They are all derived from Constitutional decisions by SCOTUS.

Do you have any decisions from SCOTUS that spell out that one of the reasons for the 2nd was as a deterrent to the U.S. government's over-reach?

 

[Lakhota]

Got any Jefferson love letters? They weren't included in the Constitution, either.

 

[regent]

The right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness is an unalienable right which does not depend on the Constitution.

The stupid op who began the thread forgot that people have an inherent right to crush tyranny.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force. It was intended as a means of propaganda.

I totally forgot.

The US Constitution has been abolished and substituted by the Communist Manifesto.

Yassa Massa, I knows that ain't got the right to resist tyranny.

I be rolling over and playing dead.

Fuck you now.

.

You don't have roll over and play dead, you can respond to the argument in my post?
We have every right to resist tyranny in our government with the vote and other lawful means but not with armed resistance. There are numerous examples that so far armed resistance to our govenment has not worked. Perhaps those throughout our history that have resisted the government with arms believed they were fighting tyranny.

 

[Contumacious]

if these were such important sentiments, shared by the founders, why are they not included in the constitution?

I shouldn't have to read jefferson's private papers to learn his feelings. On page 334, no less.

what's your basis to support collective bargaining, privacy and abortion again?

they are all derived from constitutional decisions by scotus.

Do you have any decisions from scotus that spell out that one of the reasons for the 2nd was as a deterrent to the u.s. Government's over-reach?

read my signature dumb fuck.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force. It was intended as a means of propaganda.

I totally forgot.

The US Constitution has been abolished and substituted by the Communist Manifesto.

Yassa Massa, I knows that ain't got the right to resist tyranny.

I be rolling over and playing dead.

Fuck you now.

.

You don't have roll over and play dead, you can respond to the argument in my post?
We have every right to resist tyranny in our government with the vote and other lawful means but not with armed resistance. There are numerous examples that so far armed resistance to our govenment has not worked. Perhaps those throughout our history that have resisted the government with arms believed they were fighting tyranny.

Excuse the fuck out of me dumb ass.

But the last election confirmed that the Parasitic Factions constitutes over 50% of the electorate.

So long as Parasites and those who depend on the federal government for the sustenance get to vote they will vote for whomever promises the most.

.

 

[regent]

[/B]


I totally forgot.

The US Constitution has been abolished and substituted by the Communist Manifesto.

Yassa Massa, I knows that ain't got the right to resist tyranny.

I be rolling over and playing dead.

Fuck you now.

.

You don't have roll over and play dead, you can respond to the argument in my post?
We have every right to resist tyranny in our government with the vote and other lawful means but not with armed resistance. There are numerous examples that so far armed resistance to our govenment has not worked. Perhaps those throughout our history that have resisted the government with arms believed they were fighting tyranny.

Excuse the fuck out of me dumb ass.

But the last election confirmed that the Parasitic Factions constitutes over 50% of the electorate.

So long as Parasites and those who depend on the federal government for the sustenance get to vote they will vote for whomever promises the most.

.

Yep, sounds even a little like capitalism?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Any law not challenged successfully in the courts is constitutional by default.

Not quite. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional inherently. The fact that a court has not yet declared it such does not eliminate its defect. If it did, then no plaintiff would ever have standing to seek any form of relief, and no law could ever "become" unconstitutional by subsequent judicial review.

The constitution itself does not explicitly grant the judiciary the power to rule a law unconstitutional. Instead, it grants to the courts judicial powers. The courts interpret the law, including the constitution, to determine the correct way to apply the law to cases and controversies. When a law is constitutionally defective, then the correct way to apply that law is to set it aside completely. Therefore, in ruling laws unconstitutional the courts do not exercise an explicit power that they are entitled to so exercise at their will. They are executing their judicial powers, and in the course of doing so, have the responsibility to identify such incongruities in the law.

Before this fateful day in court occurs, however, the law in question is already defective by the constitution. However, because no body of government has the official power to settle such a question, the law must be presumed constitutional for purposes of executing the laws of the land.