I want to know how the next SC appointee would view this statement

[lazer47]

"The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others"

[Buzz Clik]

1. Any rational human would view that as a threat of physical violence.

I find it childish, but I'm not a candidate for the Supreme Court.

[lazer47]

2. The quote has 2 distinct parts, which do you find childish??

I didn't make the statement, just asking..

[Stellabella]

3. Because it's a threat.

If you can't see that, you aren't reading the entire statement.

What do YOU think it means?

[lazer47]

8. It means this

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~Thomas Jefferson

[Buzz Clik]

17. No, it does not mean that at all.

Jefferson was stating that sometimes we need to defend ourselves. He was not making some ominous threat that "if I consider your actions to be in violation of my rights, I might shoot you."

[Occam Bandage]

30. He was referring to societies, not to individuals.

Jefferson wanted greater public ownership of guns. However, he didn't suggest that as a means of proposing the citizenry shoot up the place whenever they thought their rights were violated. Rather, he felt (as did Washington) that a standing army was a tool of tyranny, and therefore national security should be provided by an armed populace that could be called to muster in times of crisis.

This dream lasted only a few years; gun ownership was rare, as guns were expensive to buy (maybe $5000 in 2009 dollars for a basic musket), expensive to maintain (requiring a complete replacement of every single part every eight years of storage), and useless outside of war. The United States quickly realized it would require a standing army after all, but yet the second amendment remains: a relic in search of a purpose.

[Stellabella]

40. No, it doesn't.

It means that if you don't support the second amendment, we'll use our guns and come after you.

Twist and spin it all you want, that's the first conclusion most will reach.

[patriotvoice]

4. Which is exactly how the Founding Fathers meant it: a warning to would-be tyrants.

They had, you know, just come out of exactly the same situation themselves.

[lazer47]

6. You will understand the following,

"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms".

[jwirr]

14. Who said that one?

[Buzz Clik]

16. And free people in this country bear arms. I do. Do you?

However, people who threaten other people with gun often find themselves no longer free.

[lazer47]

18. It always amazes me at the amount of people who feel threatened

when people stand on the second amendment, and take all the other amendments for granted..Freemen don't have to threaten, they just have to be vigilant in their beliefs.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Gee, I can't imagine why people in this country are a bit edgy about gun violence.

And, my friend, this is a threat: "The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others." I don't have to feel threatened by it because it was intended to be threatening.

[lazer47]

21. You are very very wrong, However I am not eloquent enough

to explain why it is not.

[Occam Bandage]

29. It is a threat, and the fact

that you cannot articulate a non-threatening meaning suggests to me (though I could be wrong) that you simply take the statement's non-threatening, positive nature as an article of faith.

The statement is the following: 'if I think my rights are being infringed, I will shoot people to seek redress." This is a threat.

[Stellabella]

41. In other words, you can't.

That much is certainly obvious.

[Baby Snooks]

22. It is what it is...

And if a president ever were to declare martial law and suspend civil liberties in order to overthrow the government, quite a few Americans would pick up their guns and overthrow it right back. And that IS why we have the Second Amendment. And most likely the only reason why Bush and Cheney didn't "go there" is because they realized quite a few Republicans would pick up their guns.

[lazer47]

24. No matter what we do,most will never understand ,until it is to late

[Occam Bandage]

28. Not at all.

There's absolutely no evidence any Founding Father ever believed anything like that--and all believed that rebellions within a republic ought be quickly and violently crushed.

[patriotvoice]

37. Hardly. Since others have said it already and more concisely than I would:

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4

For a concise historical perspective, including writings from the Founding Fathers as well as historians since. Start at page 85 and read on. I will give you Thomas Jefferson (pg 97) as a sample:

"A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. ... {W}hat country can preserve it{}s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms, the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, & pacify them."

On edit:
Formatting.

[TahitiNut]

35. It is far better that the politicians fear the people than that the people fear the politicians.

NEVER forget that.

[Occam Bandage]

36. In a healthy republic, the ballot is the source of that fear.

In a crumbling dictatorship, it is the bullet. I would prefer we remain a country where disputes are settled with ballots and not with bullets.

[TahitiNut]

38. When has one ever existed for long??

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

39. Republics?

They seem to be doin' all right as an institution. It's true that people don't often best utilize the power of the ballot, but that doesn't mean we ought to trade elections for armed revolt as a means of changing policy.

[Old Codger]

5. Truth N/T

[cali]

7. I think obsessive focus on the 2nd amendment is absurd.

[lazer47]

9. Without it you couldn't even make that statement,,, nor have a free

internet to post it on,,,,,

[cali]

11. no, my friend, you're confusing the first amendment with the second

It's the former that protects my speech, not the latter.

[lazer47]

15. You would not have the First without the Second,, not confusion,, reality

[baldguy]

10. The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to ensure armed rebellion by a minority is possible.

It exists to ensure the security of a free state by means of a well regulated militia.

It's been obsolete since we've established a permanent standing military.

[lazer47]

12. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

[Occam Bandage]

27. That is indeed what the amendment says.

But the amendment is entirely obsolete now. The gun-owning populace is no longer considered to be the nation's primary defense against our neighbors on the American continent.

That is not to say that gun control is compatible with the second amendment; it isn't. But the second amendment is now about as relevant as is the passage in the Magna Carta dealing with the payments owed to knights for services rendered.

[baldguy]

31. Gun-worshipers have a basic obtuse misunderstanding of the meaning of this amendment.

It provides the legal basis for the form & means of defeding the country - nothing more. Since WWII we've maintained a permanent military force to defense the country, militias have become less important.

The rights "OF THE PEOPLE" shall not be infringed. That phase is used consistently throughout the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as a group, and not individuals. (Compare with the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th amendments which refer to individuals specifically, most often with the word "person" or "persons". In the Constitution, the phrase "the people" is not synonymous with the word "persons".) Such rights can and do have individual restrictions placed on them all the time - the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...", but it can restrict where that assembly can take place, and determine when and if such an assembly ceases to be peaceable & disburse it. It does not mean you & your friends can gather anytime, anywhere & for any reason.

Similarly, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." does not mean you can own & carry any type of firearm anytime, anywhere you wish, for any reason. The state can and does place restrictions on both individuals and weapons - up to and including total prohibition.

Of course, like most other Republicans, gun worshipers refuse to accept standard definitions of common English words when they contradict their dogma.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Gun ownership is an individual and not a collective right,

and will remain so until Heller is overturned. Which is not to say I disagree with your assessment, but the Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution.

[depakid]

44. What part of constitutional jurisprudence do you not understand?

Given your sttement, likely all of it.

:eyes:

Confirmation yet again that the degree of a person's gun nuttery is inversely proportional to their level of knowledge about the law.

[sampsonblk]

13. I would like to see that last ruling overturned

Quickly.

[fasttense]

19. It wasn't until most other civil rights were taken away that Hitler took away

the people's guns. First he took away freedom of speech, the right to own property, privacy rights, election rights, freedom of movement and gathering, habeas corpus, trial by jury and other civil rights. Finally when the mass rioting and killing he encouraged had fully intimidated normal people, and most civil rights were destroyed, then he took the people's guns away.

If having guns is such a useful defense against tyrants, why are guns the last thing taken from a downtrodden citizenry? In almost all tyrannical dictatorships, civil rights are the first things taken away and guns are last.

[baldguy]

23. Because guns provide a false sense of security.

Like Linus and his pet blanket.



As long as he has it he's content & blind.




But if he loses it, he will do anything to get it back. Nothing else matters to him.

[CTyankee]

25. This is true. It is the hallmark of tyranny to shut down the press as the first order of business.

n/t

[Occam Bandage]

26. As a gross misunderstanding of American history.

The Founding Fathers were united in their belief that the Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion should be crushed quickly and violently. They were absolutely adamant that there exists no right to rebellion in a republic.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to encourage an armed populace as a defense against external and internal threats; they believed that standing armies were inconsistent with freedom, and that therefore security ought be provided by the militia (meaning an armed, male, landowning populace that could be mustered in time of war). Which is not to say that anyone actually bothered arming themselves; firearm ownership in America was so low as to be nearly nonexistent until the Industrial Revolution and the post-Civil-War era. Hence the government encouragement; Colonial history (especially during the French and Indian Wars, of which many of the FFs were veterans) is rife with examples of the states calling musters in times of crisis and finding that few showed up, fewer still owned guns, fewer still owned working guns, and still fewer knew how to use them...which then resulted in the British Regulars doing most all of the fighting, which meant a permanent British military presence in the following decades, which meant higher taxes and infringements on civil liberties. The Second Amendment represented something of a republican (in the original sense) dream of a country without an army controlled by the state. However, as the United States soon found, the militia wasn't any more competent or armed in the new Republic than it was in the Colonies, and America soon found itself with a standing army and navy.

There's no evidence whatsoever that any of the Founding Fathers ever intended the Second Amendment to serve as a citizen check on the government, nor would that even be a realistic goal, given the pathetic rates of gun ownership and gun literacy among early Americans that the amendment was hoping to discourage.

[baldguy]

33. +1

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. Whiskey Rebellion...good citation there.

I had forgotten about that.

[Stellabella]

42. Thank you!!

That's exactly right. And I hope the Secret Service and FBI start visiting those people who are fomenting violence with such statements.

[JayMusgrove]

43. I am about to be flamed for this, but

the founding fathers never imagined high-powered automatic rifles.

The ones that kill cops.

I am really tired of Democrats who profess more faith in their guns than in a democracy and a system of criminal justice, as imperfect as both of those are, it leaves more cops and innocent people alive than possession of automatic rifles does.