Good read on repealing 2A

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Engine4

    Curmudgeon
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2012
    6,983
    I'm glad others can write so well that I can refer back to. I could never put my thoughts into words as well as the author.
     

    GolfR

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 20, 2016
    1,324
    Columbia MD
    Very interesting, I never knew this. How can anyone dispute the fact that the 2A was put in place to pall citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government? With the context put in place by the preamble, it doesn’t seem that there is any question.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Very interesting, I never knew this. How can anyone dispute the fact that the 2A was put in place to pall citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government? With the context put in place by the preamble, it doesn’t seem that there is any question.

    The Supreme Court has also ruled on it.
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,499
    God's Country
    I’ll add this great article.

    Interpreting the Constitution Contextually
    Details February 13, 2016 David N. Mayer
    https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3968-interpreting-the-constitution-contextually

    Not specificially about the 2A, but highlights that the context that existed when the constitution was written is often conveniently ignored. The basic tenant being that the context of the constitution was to limit the power of the federal government.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    It’s not there specifically to allow citizens to defend against a tyrannical government. Bringing out that notion always gets the antis talking about how you can’t fight a modern military blah blah blah.

    The issue is the right to defend yourself PERIOD. Against who (or what) isn’t something that it needs to get into. The founders had just lived through being told that all the defense they needed for ANY reason, even on a frontier farm or while traveling colonial wilderness roads, were the red coated fellows in the British army. And on that basis, they forced everyone to give up their personal arms.

    The 2A is written to make it clear that the government can’t do that, and (hence the first part of the 2A), even the inevitably necessary existence of a standing professional military can’t be used as an excuse to deny citizens their right to defend themselves, with arms.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    It’s not there specifically to allow citizens to defend against a tyrannical government. Bringing out that notion always gets the antis talking about how you can’t fight a modern military blah blah blah.

    The issue is the right to defend yourself PERIOD. Against who (or what) isn’t something that it needs to get into. The founders had just lived through being told that all the defense they needed for ANY reason, even on a frontier farm or while traveling colonial wilderness roads, were the red coated fellows in the British army. And on that basis, they forced everyone to give up their personal arms.

    The 2A is written to make it clear that the government can’t do that, and (hence the first part of the 2A), even the inevitably necessary existence of a standing professional military can’t be used as an excuse to deny citizens their right to defend themselves, with arms.
    Exactly. The Constitution specifically restricts the Feds from having the power to institute restrictions on arms. The 14th Amendment applies that to the States. They can’t repeal it. Not in spirit.
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,462
    MoCo
    Nice, concise read. It caused me to experience a bit of a revelation.

    We know that all rights, like 2A, are not granted by governments. The founders acknowledged that instead they have always existed. That is clear from the debate in the 1780's.

    Knowing that rights have always existed, the only logical conclusion is that all rights MUST be vested in individuals. Only individuals have always existed. States, militias, or any other creations of man are transitory. They come and go depending on the needs of human beings at that time. The only thing that has been constant is the human being.

    The founders recognized that humans have the right to be secure in the places they inhabit, to speak their minds, to follow their consciences, and so on. They used then-understandable terms like press, arms, persons, houses, and papers, or then-understood concerns like the quartering of troops, and so on, to put meat on the bones of those ideas. IT IS THOSE IDEAS that endure through time, notwithstanding the technology of the day and the words used to exemplify them. That is why the computer is protected by 1A just as the AR-15 is protected by 2A. They live or die by the same principle.

    No rights whatsoever are vested in states, militias, newspapers, radio stations, and so forth. Rights are vested in individual human beings. Human beings who join together to create newspapers or militias bring their individual human rights with them to those man-made creations, not the other way around. Even if you are not a part of a militia, or an employee of a newspaper, you still have all of the rights to arms, press, speech, and so forth.
     

    jrh0341

    Member
    Jul 20, 2017
    58
    This is a point I constantly have to bring up in these discussion.

    First, yes, just as the article explains, the Bill of Rights does NOT GIVE us any rights. Certain rights just exist, by our very status as free citizens. The BOR doesn't grant them as the Fed Gov never had the authority to grant or not grant these rights in the first place.

    All the BOR does is PROTECT those rights, but placing a specific list of restrictions upon the Fed, to ensure that they cannot try to interfere with citizen's rights.

    Second, you cannot "repeal" something from the BOR. Yes, the anti gunners will point out how "its a living document" "it was meant to be able to be changed". Yes, the Constitution is, BUT the BOR is a conditional document. The Constitution ONLY EXISTS ON THE CONDITION THAT THE BOR is honored.

    Anti-gunners who don't understand this have failed basic American history.

    WHY doe the BOR exist? Remember?

    Because many of the original representatives, the founders, the guys who actually signed the original constitution, DIDN'T AGREE TO HAVE ONE. They did NOT agree to even make a constitution, because they didn't agree to empower a federal government. They said "No dude. WTF would we create a federal government, when we JUST finished fighting a war to escape an unjust federal government? ALL federal governments oppress. All federal governments overreach and clamp down on individual liberty. Its inevitable. Its the nature of a centralized gov".

    So the other founders said "Wait, what if we PROMISE this government won't suppress people's rights?"

    "How can you promise that?"

    "What if, before we even get to the constitution, we draw up a prohibitive list? What if, to prevent this fed from ever trampling peoples rights, we enumerate a specific list of authorities this government MAY NEVER HAVE? All those things the old gov did to oppress us, we'll start from square one putting in writing that they may never have the power to do those things."

    "Hmmm... Ok. We can live with that. Let's draw up the list of powers this new gov can NOT have, and if we are all satisfied, then we will allow this gov to be formalized and write up the rest of their rules."

    GET IT?

    By removing or altering the BOR, you'd actually be breaching the very agreement that allows the Constitution to exist, and invalidating the very validity of the document itself.

    Interesting aside, that illustrates how this works; right to a speedy trial, right to counsel, etc. These are NOT actual "rights" granted to you by the gov. These are still restrictions placed upon the fed for how they may do business. Get it? The "RIGHT" you have is the right to your own liberty. Thus the restriction upon the Fed is that they MAY NOT DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR LIFE OR LIBERTY, unjustly. If they try to take it away, i.e. jail or execution, they are required to prove witnessed and endorsed by the citizenry, that YOU have forfeited your own liberty. (Read: Proven you are guilty of a crime, by a trial in front of your peers). "Right to counsel" really says "The gov is restricted from using the complexity of the law books to sucker you into jail. You must be allowed to have someone who knows the law explain what's going on." "Right to a speedy trial" really says, they Gov can't lock you up indefinitely under the premise of waiting for your trial.

    TL;DR, to prevent the new government from having the ability of descending into tyranny, the founders looked at many of the ways the old world govs used to deprive people of life, liberty, personal freedom or government accountability, and made a list saying "you can't do this, you can't do that", play by the rules.

    2A = "Ok, we'll agree to empower a central national government, but in the interests of protecting individual liberties, there are some powers this new government specifically WILL NOT HAVE, including the power to prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
     

    Clovis

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 1, 2011
    1,408
    Centreville
    It’s not there specifically to allow citizens to defend against a tyrannical government. Bringing out that notion always gets the antis talking about how you can’t fight a modern military blah blah blah.

    The issue is the right to defend yourself PERIOD. Against who (or what) isn’t something that it needs to get into. The founders had just lived through being told that all the defense they needed for ANY reason, even on a frontier farm or while traveling colonial wilderness roads, were the red coated fellows in the British army. And on that basis, they forced everyone to give up their personal arms.

    The 2A is written to make it clear that the government can’t do that, and (hence the first part of the 2A), even the inevitably necessary existence of a standing professional military can’t be used as an excuse to deny citizens their right to defend themselves, with arms.

    Gee, sounds like Chicago...the cops there should wear red.

    Oh, and on the article, 210 amendments would make for some light reading.
     

    Alea Jacta Est

    Extinguished member
    MDS Supporter
    Nice, concise read. It caused me to experience a bit of a revelation.

    We know that all rights, like 2A, are not granted by governments. The founders acknowledged that instead they have always existed. That is clear from the debate in the 1780's.

    Knowing that rights have always existed, the only logical conclusion is that all rights MUST be vested in individuals. Only individuals have always existed. States, militias, or any other creations of man are transitory. They come and go depending on the needs of human beings at that time. The only thing that has been constant is the human being.

    The founders recognized that humans have the right to be secure in the places they inhabit, to speak their minds, to follow their consciences, and so on. They used then-understandable terms like press, arms, persons, houses, and papers, or then-understood concerns like the quartering of troops, and so on, to put meat on the bones of those ideas. IT IS THOSE IDEAS that endure through time, notwithstanding the technology of the day and the words used to exemplify them. That is why the computer is protected by 1A just as the AR-15 is protected by 2A. They live or die by the same principle.

    No rights whatsoever are vested in states, militias, newspapers, radio stations, and so forth. Rights are vested in individual human beings. Human beings who join together to create newspapers or militias bring their individual human rights with them to those man-made creations, not the other way around. Even if you are not a part of a militia, or an employee of a newspaper, you still have all of the rights to arms, press, speech, and so forth.
    Great post Johnny

    Also a superb post by CyclcUpVote
     

    winch

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2011
    1,326
    Towson
    Great article and I agree that the premise. However, in reality, if I carry a firearm to defend myself without explicit .gov approval (which is almost impossible to obtain), I risk being jailed.

    So in reality the .gov "grants" certain people the "right" to carry a firearm. If you don't have the blessing of the state, you are at risk.
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    They said "No dude. WTF would we create a federal government, when we JUST finished fighting a war to escape an unjust federal government? ALL federal governments oppress. All federal governments overreach and clamp down on individual liberty. Its inevitable. Its the nature of a centralized gov".

    So the other founders said "Wait, what if we PROMISE this government won't suppress people's rights?"

    "How can you promise that?"

    "What if, before we even get to the constitution, we draw up a prohibitive list? What if, to prevent this fed from ever trampling peoples rights, we enumerate a specific list of authorities this government MAY NEVER HAVE? All those things the old gov did to oppress us, we'll start from square one putting in writing that they may never have the power to do those things."

    "Hmmm... Ok. We can live with that. Let's draw up the list of powers this new gov can NOT have, and if we are all satisfied, then we will allow this gov to be formalized and write up the rest of their rules."

    GET IT?

    .

    You've summed it up correctly. Drop the terms "federalist" and "anti-federalist" into the debate and you'll have it covered.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    First, yes, just as the article explains, the Bill of Rights does NOT GIVE us any rights. Certain rights just exist, by our very status as free citizens. The BOR doesn't grant them as the Fed Gov never had the authority to grant or not grant these rights in the first place.

    Yes.
    All the BOR does is PROTECT those rights, but placing a specific list of restrictions upon the Fed, to ensure that they cannot try to interfere with citizen's rights.

    Yes. And states through the 14th amendment now.

    Second, you cannot "repeal" something from the BOR. Yes, the anti gunners will point out how "its a living document" "it was meant to be able to be changed". Yes, the Constitution is, BUT the BOR is a conditional document. The Constitution ONLY EXISTS ON THE CONDITION THAT THE BOR is honored.

    No.

    Any amendment can be repealed. And the constitution itself can be amended, so for example there are no 3/5 persons anymore.

    If they repealed the 2nd it would allow the federal (and state) governments to restrict gun rights however they like. I have no doubt as in Europe, there would be a lot of non- compliance.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    No.

    Any amendment can be repealed. And the constitution itself can be amended, so for example there are no 3/5 persons anymore.

    If they repealed the 2nd it would allow the federal (and state) governments to restrict gun rights however they like. I have no doubt as in Europe, there would be a lot of non- compliance.
    Wrong. United States v. Cruikshank

    The Bill of Rights is not the government’s to grant. As such, they cannot rescind any of the Amendments in the BoR.

    The Amendment itself forbids it.
     

    willtill

    The Dude Abides
    MDS Supporter
    May 15, 2007
    24,323
    Wrong. United States v. Cruikshank

    The Bill of Rights is not the government’s to grant. As such, they cannot rescind any of the Amendments in the BoR.

    So can any of the Amendments be rescinded or changed if a Constitutional Convention was held (involving all of the states) with two thirds of them agreeing to the proposed changes?

    That is the way I’ve understood it.

    .
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    So can any of the Amendments be rescinded or changed if a Constitutional Convention was held (involving all of the states) with two thirds of them agreeing to the proposed changes?

    That is the way I’ve understood it.

    .

    All the Amendments but the Bill of Rights. You cannot grant or rescind a right. That is why United States v. Cruikshank is so integral to our argument. Not all Constitutional scholars agree (I am certainly not a Constitutional scholar)
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,062
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    All the Amendments but the Bill of Rights. You cannot grant or rescind a right. That is why United States v. Cruikshank is so integral to our argument. Not all Constitutional scholars agree (I am certainly not a Constitutional scholar)

    Correct. However, there has been a speed bump (since corrected) along that path, to wit:
    The Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) of the United States Constitution effectively established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the United States by declaring the production, transport, and sale of alcohol (though not the consumption or private possession) illegal. The separate Volstead Act set down methods for enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment, and defined which "intoxicating liquors" were prohibited, and which were excluded from prohibition (e.g., for medical and religious purposes)...

    The Amendment was in effect for the following 13 years. It was repealed in 1933 by ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment and to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions...

    -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,125
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom