The Second Amendment was created explicitly for that purpose.
Keep telling yourself that. How do you take up arms against a government of the people, for the people, and by the people without first separating yourself from said government, from the will of the people?
It is our VOICES, our BALLOTS, and if need be, our COURTS, that address abuses of government. Do you know what you get when you use firearms to protect yourself from government? You get your middle name published in the papers: Jared Lee Loughner. John Wilkes Booth. Lee Harvey Oswald.
Quote:
Jefferson wrote extensively about the need to keep the government in check and absolution of government when they overstep their bounds. The second amendment was added because the first thing to go with an oppressive government is weapon ownership.
Read it again: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the SECURITY of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The purpose of the militia was - and is - to protect the state, not to dismantle it.
While you're at it, read Jefferson's quote again:
[quote]
Quote:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
Are you seriously claiming that Jefferson recommends we violently tear the nation apart every 20 years, ousting our leaders, burning our previous constitution, and starting over from scratch?
Quote:
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
The forerunner of death to the public liberty is the ignorance, apathy, and misconceptions of the people. The more important the idea and the greater the misconception, the greater the discontent.
Quote:
... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.
It's quite obvious that Jefferson is addressing a leader. He's talking about the general public in the third person, and recommending that this leader destroy the danger of the people resisting governance not by disarming the people, but by killing their ignorance. Teach them, train them, involve them, and they will have no need to use their arms against you.
Quote:
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
What of the tree of liberty when there are no tyrants? Does it die off? Do we need to manufacture tyranny where none naturally occurs, to keep feeding the liberty tree? When we run around looking to become patriots by killing tyrants, and there are no legitimate tyrants available, we turn into Jared Lee Loughner.
It's quite ironic that the last two lines of this quote are so well known as to appear on bumper stickers, and yet the meat of his point is so overlooked. This statement supports transparency, training, and public involvement in politics, law, and government. It supports the right to keep and bear arms, but it is a guideline for a leader to earn and maintain the support of his people, rather than attempt to force them to comply with his wishes. It is a philosophy for PREVENTING violent overthrow, not a suggestion that it be done for trivial reasons.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
rivalarrival: Sir, I value your thoughts, somewhat different from mine.
reading the history, will enlighten the understandings. We cannot use today's thought language as the precedent set forth by these writers.
my original; post was directly copied; my second posting is a direct copy.
you can see my words, at the bottom;
it is easy to see why you view through todays eyes. it is easy to see how interpretations become the argument.
History values the rights of the people, coming from an oppressed society. What each writer valued, was freedom, what each writer opined,
preserving the rights of the people.
convoluted, not really; placing todays value convolutes.
__________________
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
Some people really need to learn from History and see the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Many did not think that it was needed since it was so obvious, others were not so trusting. It was also mentioned that the people need the means to remove a government which is not doing the will of the people. Yes, if everything worked correctly, then it would not be needed, but it is a last resort option, which is perhaps why politicians want the people disarmed.
You suggested that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from the government that was being created by the constitution. ....
The system of checks and balances - where there are separate entities creating and executing law, and a third to address questions of law - are the means provided by the constitution to protect people's (and state's) rights from governmental abuse.... .....
Taking up arms against a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is an attack against the people. We resolve our political differences with our voices and with our ballots, not with our guns.
So are you saying that the government that was put into place by the founding fathers has not changed? I say based on past experience we definitely cannot assume that the checks and balances continue to represent the will of the people. We cannot predict that our government will continue (or even IS) being "constitutional".
Our voices are sometimes ignored. Sometimes the results of ballots are questionable. I am pretty sure that there are several dictatorships out there where there are "ballots".
rivalarrival: Sir, I value your thoughts, somewhat different from mine.
reading the history, will enlighten the understandings. We cannot use today's thought language as the precedent set forth by these writers.
my original; post was directly copied; my second posting is a direct copy.
you can see my words, at the bottom;
it is easy to see why you view through todays eyes. it is easy to see how interpretations become the argument.
History values the rights of the people, coming from an oppressed society. What each writer valued, was freedom, what each writer opined,
preserving the rights of the people.
convoluted, not really; placing todays value convolutes.
The fact of the matter is that we, today, are not a people coming from an oppressed society. Our lives have very little in common with those of our earliest forefathers. We don't live under the thumb of a foreign dictator. We have the ability to demand justice of our government. We can bring suit against the President himself, or any member of Congress, or any judge, or any other government official. These are rights our forefathers did not inherently possess; there was no means to hold the King accountable for his actions. They had to kill and die to gain these rights; we do not. Our forefathers created a system ensuring that the man armed with the biggest guns could never prevail against the man with the best ideas.
It is true, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. But what's equally true is that we can never move forward when we are stuck living in the past. Should we ignore over 200 years of history, over 200 years of contributions to our society by countless millions, and revert to our earliest days? Our society is shaped not just by these founding fathers, but by everyone who has built upon their creation. Not only can we judge our earliest forefathers by today's values, but we must do so, lest we repeat the mistakes of the intervening generations.
Look at what they created! Look at the constitution! Read it! Read what it says on the subject of grievances! Does it say they should be resolved by musket fire? Of course it doesn't! But somehow, we delude ourselves into thinking that because our founding fathers tore down a government to achieve their goals, we ourselves should tear down a government to achieve our own goals. Forgotten in our desire to emulate these true patriots is that the system we would tear asunder is the system they created!
As gun owners, we need to stop offering our permanent solutions to the temporary problems within our government. We need to stop threatening the people and the government of the people with violence should they ignore our demands. By insisting that we will us violence to protect ourselves from the government, from the will of the people, we only instigate the oppression we seek to prevent.
It is our VOICES that protect our rights, not our guns. The moment we take up arms against our neighbors is the same moment we lose our right to participate in our own governance.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Some people really need to learn from History and see the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Many did not think that it was needed since it was so obvious, others were not so trusting. It was also mentioned that the people need the means to remove a government which is not doing the will of the people. Yes, if everything worked correctly, then it would not be needed, but it is a last resort option, which is perhaps why politicians want the people disarmed.
Paranoia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
So are you saying that the government that was put into place by the founding fathers has not changed?
No. I will say that it has been greatly improved upon.
Quote:
I say based on past experience we definitely cannot assume that the checks and balances continue to represent the will of the people.
You don't have the right to run for office, vote, or present your case before a court?
Quote:
We cannot predict that our government will continue (or even IS) being "constitutional".
Then why haven't you brought a suit against the issues you see as abuses? Also, just because you deem them to be unconstitutional, or not representing the will of the people doesn't mean that you are correct. Even if you disagree with a court ruling, you have recourse to challenge the ideas by inciting the people to act. That you can't get either a judge or the people motivated to do something about it may indicate that the problem is not with the government, but with yourself.
Quote:
Our voices are sometimes ignored.
Of course they are. Not everyone can have his way. The purpose of politics is to figure out how best to resolve the inherent conflict of mutually exclusive ideas. Some people WILL be ignored. Until we can create a method where everyone can get everything they want, some people aren't going to get what they want. You don't get to pick up a gun and shoot someone else's congressman because you didn't get your way.
Quote:
Sometimes the results of ballots are questionable. I am pretty sure that there are several dictatorships out there where there are "ballots".
Which only demonstrates a need for better electoral security. Abuses in any one of the systems available to redress grievances are addressed by other systems available to redress grievances.
For those of you who are still unconvinced that guns don't protect us from our government, consider how we would accomplish a violent overthrow of our government. Would we act as individuals, shooting elected officials? That doesn't work out so well - ask any number of political assassins. How about squads of people? That doesn't work out so well either, ask the Branch Davidians. No, we would need to build up armies of likeminded people, all willing to kill the people who disagree with their goals. Huge armies, a vast support network. We would have to earn the trust and faith of the people in order to mount an offensive against the elected leadership of our nation.
Anyone seeing the paradox yet? Even assuming elected officials are corrupt, they are still elected, by a majority of the people who choose to vote. Once you have sufficient support to take over the government by force, you need not fire a shot - you can simply order your army to the polls.
So, how, exactly, can a gun EVER be used by the people, against a government of the people, without incurring the wrath of the people? IT CAN'T.
Our guns protect our security from criminals and foreign tyranny. They do NOT protect us from our government of the people. We certainly should have the right to keep and bear arms. Threatening our government with violence makes us, in a very real sense, terrorists. Where the people don't fear our guns, they have no incentive to take them from us. My fear is that the misguided patriots who think they will protect us from our government are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for destroying our liberty. This idiotic rhetoric needs to stop, lest we alienate the people and turn them against us. The fact is that when you threaten my government, you threaten me, and when you threaten me, you threaten my government. We like to quote old slogans, well, here's a couple:
Along the same lines: "United we Stand, Divided, we Fall"
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
..........Once you have sufficient support to take over the government by force, you need not fire a shot - you can simply order your army to the polls.
So, how, exactly, can a gun EVER be used by the people, against a government of the people, without incurring the wrath of the people? IT CAN'T.
Our guns protect our security from criminals and foreign tyranny. They do NOT protect us from our government of the people. We certainly should have the right to keep and bear arms. Threatening our government with violence makes us, in a very real sense, terrorists. Where the people don't fear our guns, they have no incentive to take them from us. My fear is that the misguided patriots who think they will protect us from our government are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for destroying our liberty. This idiotic rhetoric needs to stop, lest we alienate the people and turn them against us. The fact is that when you threaten my government, you threaten me, and when you threaten me, you threaten my government. We like to quote old slogans, well, here's a couple:
Along the same lines: "United we Stand, Divided, we Fall"
I do understand your points. But as soon as we say something like "oh, we don't need guns except to protect ourselves from foreign invaders and criminals", some genius down the road will say "Oh, we don't need guns at all because we have the police for criminals and a military for defending from foreign invaders".
Also, you speak greatly about gathering support and going to the polls etc..
Well, support is not the only thing that wins elections. MONEY wins elections. We have outside influence impacting our elections. Again, I say we cannot predict the future.
Maybe right now we could say that weapons are not necessary to maintain our freedoms. Once we concede something like that, there is no going back.
I could go on about the problems with what our government has become but it would begin to stray far off topic.
I do understand your points. But as soon as we say something like "oh, we don't need guns except to protect ourselves from foreign invaders and criminals", some genius down the road will say "Oh, we don't need guns at all because we have the police for criminals and a military for defending from foreign invaders".
I agree, there is a danger of this happening, but this danger exists in either case. A person making such a claim today can point to the fact that we appear to be ready to instigate a violent uprising as further evidence that our gun rights should be restricted.
Obviously, the police can't PREVENT crime, they REACT to crime. Sure, they can drive around in their cruisers, make bad guys think twice before committing a crime, but they can't be everywhere at once, nor do we want the oppression that would result from a "Big Brother" police force capable of being everywhere at once.
But, because they cannot prevent crime, and their reaction time is far greater than that of a victim of crime, there is, of course, no legitimate reason to disarm any potential victim.
Quote:
Also, you speak greatly about gathering support and going to the polls etc..
Well, support is not the only thing that wins elections. MONEY wins elections. We have outside influence impacting our elections. Again, I say we cannot predict the future.
Money hasn't been given the right to vote. Money wins influence, and influence wins elections, but money isn't the only source of influence. The worst tradition in our nation is the idea that politics, religion, and controversy are impolite to discuss in casual company. Think about that - we've declared it rude to talk about political issues. It's impolite to ask a person how they intend to vote, or ask them to justify their political stance! We've declared that our differences in these areas are so significant that we can't discuss our own governance without setting formal boundaries.
Certainly, I see the reason why we've done this, but that doesn't change the fact that we give up our influence when we refuse to use it. We choose to vote based less on what our friends and neighbors think and more on the opinions of professional lobbyists.
Quote:
Maybe right now we could say that weapons are not necessary to maintain our freedoms. Once we concede something like that, there is no going back.
This issue was conceded sometime shortly after the Civil War. We haven't generally acknowledged concession, but there was a quiet moment in time where it became more feasible to challenge our government with words than it was to challenge it with force. Honestly, I think that undefinable moment is when our nation became truly great.
This isn't a defeat - just a recognition that there is a time and a place to use our guns, and that time and place is not when we are having an argument with our neighbors. We can't resolve our differences when one side leaves the table, saying "Do what you want, but if you don't do what I want, I'll kill you"
Quote:
I could go on about the problems with what our government has become but it would begin to stray far off topic.
Fortunately, we're not limited to this particular thread. I look forward to arguing these issues in new topics.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
rivalarrival: Sir, paranoia; I disagree, history throughout the world agrees with me.
Taking our percieved rights. England being 1 Japan 2 examples
it is proven; we will agree, more capital pushment doesn't reduce violence.
Dissecting the Constition in these countries; did it does it quell violence.
Japan has a prison system; a real one
England is under advise
ment to reestablish the rights to family; i.e. citizen having the right to purchase own and shoot.
Covering 4 thoughts, nope; only one.
redressing the Constitution; is this your process. Obviously you are convinced; and then the argument becomes a total waste.
Discussion, more than happily, points to a learning process. Dictating, isn't learning,
Were I to waste the energy, 'disecting each' of your thoughts. hmmm; what have I learned.
The real question; is; the Constitution. Not how that you willing ready to give away, to suit your thought process.
Now! were I a lawyer, self serving, any word posed; could be manipulated to fit what ever means I chose or choose.
That being said; the study of all writers, the time that these writers posed the wording, how the wording is or isn't posed
Should it be face value? Should it to mean what you are choosing it to mean.
I don't find your thoughts arguable; you have decided, you have the answer, there-by creating a waste of thought.
Benjamin; with 8 colonies, hmmm point to ponder
__________________
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
Linear Mode
