So where in the Holy Second Amendment does it say anything about "gov't tyranny"?

[jpak]

The new Gun Nut line of bull goes something like this...

"The Founding Fathers wanted us to have holy guns to defend us against the government!!!!!!!11111".

This is a bunch of made-up stuff.

The Holy Second Amendment speaks of a "well regulated militia" - regulated by the government.

Not a militia the opposed to the government.

The NRA can suck it.

yup

[rurallib]

1. right there with the part that says america is a christian nation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Why would it need to? n/t

[krispos42]

3. Are you planning on...

...spamming the forum with "So where in the Holy Second Amendment does it say anything about {insert random phrase here}"?


Because I have news for you... most of the words in the dictionary are NOT in the Second Amendment.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. does the admin agree with your definition of Spam?

[krispos42]

7. Dunno. I didn't ask and they didn't tell. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. well, there is something about spam in the ToS, I think.

[my boy x dog]

4. "Free state" nt

[jpak]

20. Free Staters are nut jobs

yup

[chicoguy]

5. you say "new Gun Nut line"

This argument is not new. Not sure what you are getting at.

[rl6214]

8. And another insightful and well thought out post by the anti gun zealots

[guardian]

9. "well regulated militia" - regulated by the government.

No. Back then 'regulated' meant efficient or orderly. It did not have the contemporary meaning.

[jmg257]

10. Just who exactly do you think was doing the regulating??

Let's see:

The Congress shall have the power:

"To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia..reserving to the States the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline proscribed by Congress"

Sure sounds like "government" to me.

[guardian]

11. irrelevant

The word did not have specific context to government back then.

[jmg257]

12. Irrelevant?! The Constitution is hardly "irrelevant"...and has many more words...

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

then just those in the 2nd amendment.

"The Congress shall have the power:

To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia..reserving to the States the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Sure sounds like "government" to me!

Edit: numerous ipad finger dinks

[Democracyinkind]

16. What do people subscribing to your beliefs make of, say, the Regulators of North Carolina?

Seems to me they understood "regulate" in pretty much the same way that I do.

[hack89]

17. Well run, efficient, smooth operating? That's how the Regulators would define it.

because they certainly were not rebelling to impose new rules and regulations. It was a movement against corrupt government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Regulation

[Democracyinkind]

23. The Regulators of North Carolina were not in favor of new rules and regulations?

Interesting take. Here's me, all the while thinking they were protesting the old rules and regulations, demanding new ones. Certainly, there is a normative dimension to the way the used "regulate" as opposed to the clearly descriptive sense that you imply. But of course, one can declared them anarchists in order to maintain consistency, I guess.

[hack89]

24. No - their issue was the corrupt enforcement of those rules

they wanted a honest, well run government.

[Democracyinkind]

28. ... one guided by rules?

I'm not trying to obtuse here. I see no difference in the word as they and I understand it.

[hack89]

29. Regulate refers to the desired end state

regardless of how it is achieved.

They wanted a well trained, equipped and disciplined militia. To that ends they guaranteed the right for citizens to keep and bear arms in their day to day life. They also passed laws regulating the militia and guns.

No one is arguing that guns cannot be regulated - even Scalia explicitly says that. But gun ownership is an individual right separate from militia service per the Supreme Court, President Obama and the Democratic Party platform. The issue is what constitutes appropriate regulation.

Because it is a constitutional right, gun laws are held to a stricter judicial standard then laws addressing non-constitutional issues. Research Strict Scrutiny - it explains very clearly why so many gun control "solutions" proposed here at DU are unconstitutional.

[holdencaufield]

13. The entire Constitution ...

... is complete with checks and balances AGAINST government tyranny as the framers were ever mindful of the tyranny of England they fought against only a decade earlier. However, our contemporary lawmakers are very resourceful.

[bubbayugga]

14. being necessary to the security of a free State obviously has nothing to do with govt. tyranny

so you're obviously right.

[jimmy the one]

15. 1828 definition of well regulated (takeII)

guardian: No. Back then 'regulated' meant efficient or orderly. It did not have the contemporary meaning.

Really? 'An orderly militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..'?

Conjures up images of a thanksgiving day parade thru town, sure to strike fear in the minds of invaders, insurrectionists, & tyrannical govts, eh? As sloppy as militia members could be back then, what with clothes brought from home, uncouth manners by some, 'disorderly' was as much the status quo, perforce.

Here's how 'regulate' was defined in 1828 by webster, contemporary to 2ndA 1791:

1828 Websters dictionary: regulate REG'ULATE, 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

In 1828 'regulate' meant either to adjust by rule or method, to put in good order, or to subject to rules or restrictions, or a combo of the three.
.. Even the second Def, to regulate the disordered state, conveniently implies to regulate to become orderly. So it seems that 'orderly' would be a desired result of regulation, 'back then'.

{as 3ib} You seem to harp on singling out one particular definition of 'regulate' & trying to apply your own favorite, while disallowing for the others.

[safeinOhio]

18. Nice post

Welcome to DU and the anti-gun safety forum.

[hack89]

25. It also meant well trained and equipped.

"A well trained and equipped militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.."

[ileus]

19. You need to post this over at AR15.com

I don't think any posters here believe in attacking our government.


Maybe post a poll with your questions here. It'd be interesting to see the answers.

[Remmah2]

21. Bran!

A well regular militia we shall have.

[tama]

26. From wiki

Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[121]
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[48]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The "gov't tyranny" is what e.g. Jefferson speaks much about and what is implied in clear terms in Declaration of Independence, which no doubt many confuse with Constitution. Jefferson stated many warnings against standing army and banks, and would quite likely consider the current government of banks and for the banks, supported by standing army and MIC, a tyranny.

I don't like NRA any more than others here, but better to keep arguments sound and sharp. And peaceful revolution by civil disobedience is much more preferable to what is going on in e.g. Syria, but that is generally and in terms of OWS etc. a strategic decision, not set in stone.

[jimmy the one]

27. Scalia knows more about guns than money minded hamilton

wiki: The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court {justice scalia} stated that "he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia

And of course justice scalia prevailed in his 2008 ruling, what did alexander hamilton know, eh?

Read what Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in early 1800s':

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations.
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."

When Justice Story observed in his final sentence - that militia indifference might gradually undermine all the protection intended by the 2ndA - he could not possibly have been referring to an individual RKBA disconnected from militia, since it was a militia disconnect which was his concern about undermining the 2ndA.

Also note story's use of 'the people', clearly white males aged 17 - 45 eligible for militia, not 'all' the people as argued by rightwing. And of course the 'organization' story refers to is the militia.

(believe it or not, scalia twisted story's quote above, to support for the individual interpretation)


PS: Thanks, Ohio!

[tama]

30. Very well

Layers disagree and twist their interpretations as is their profession, and no harm done becoming educated of those arguments. More generally, the question between "well regulated militia" vs "standing army" is very important. Little search brought this article:

http://www.kortexplores.com/node/110

Small excerpt:

The members of Congress had good reason to fear their own army only a little less than they feared the British. True to form, at the close of the war against the British, the officer corps of the Continental Army did attempt to betray the principles they had sworn to defend when they plotted to install Washington as monarch.

The moment when Washington refused the crown offered by the officer corps is possibly the single most critical moment in our nation's history. Every other revolution before and since has inevitably faced just such a moment of truth, and in every other case freedom and liberty have been betrayed. But Washington was a truly great man capable of vision far beyond his own personal interests.

In stark contrast to the lesser individuals who made up the officer corps, Washington truly believed in the principles he professed, and understood that those principles were far more important than the short sighted self-interest that so dominated the rest of the officer corps. Freedom survived the attempted treason of the officer corps only because Washington did what was unthinkable to the rest of the army leadership - he refused to betray his principles for personal gain.

Popular history continues to admit that Washington turned down the crown, but focuses entirely on the significance of Washington's actions and the personal integrity he demonstrated in refusing this great honor. Little attention is given to the hard fact that in spite of every effort by the Continental Congress, even the patriots who had gone to war to defend freedom and liberty were unable to resist the temptations of power.

While the attempted treason of the Colonial Army officer corps gets little attention from modern promilitary revisionists, it didn't go entirely unnoticed when it came time to write the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The attempted betrayal of the officer corps had confirmed the view that maintaining a standing army was too dangerous for a free nation to risk. The only military force that would not turn on the citizenry was one composed of the citizens themselves - a citizen militia.

I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions of the article, but it's also clear that NDAA is just another step in the long and gradual "military coup" by standing army and MIC, of which an US president warned more than 50 years ago. And as standing army (not all soldiers, but the institution) serves in the end those who pay them, they serve the banks and financial industry that can create money at will.

BTW I just read that in Ecuador a small tribe is ready to go all the way to defend their children's right for livable environment, against oil industry, government and army.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. It doesn't. Neither does the first amendment. Next question.

[TxVietVet]

32. The Second Amendment was created to control slaves, their escape and their uprisings.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[gejohnston]

34. according to a Handgun Control Incorporated board member

in 1998. His paper offered little to no primary source documents as evidence. His explanation was that "they were speaking in code."

[beevul]

33. Its right there in the authorization clause. N/T