What if the US Constitution second Amendment had said something like

I'm wading into the deep waters. I don't wanna be there, so don't be surprised if I don't swim back to shore and leave the discussion.

The Bill of Rights put in provisions to ensure the government would not become tyrannical, but the concept that it was to give citizens guns for private usage against the government is quite incorrect. The Founders and early Republic were rather fearful of the possibility of insurrection, and made no bones about not wanting the citizens of the Republic to overthrow their new state. Any US History Class will tell you how much they feared "Mobocracy" just in giving citizens more power in determining the government; granting them weapons for the purpose of overthrowing the government would be completely out of the question. Similarly, the natural right to keep arms for personal defense was already considered archaic in the Founding Father's day.

The amendment was written with the purpose of permitting the citizens of the United States to keep for the purpose of activity in their state militias, as a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state, and to bear arms in combat on behalf of their militia.
When the militia system was replaced with the National Guard under Woodrow Wilson, the amendment became archaic.
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
This is where we have to depart from speaking of the Founders as a 'they' and start looking at the Founders as a group of individuals.

The people who fought the hardest for a Bill of Rights were indeed pushing for it because an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on tyrannical government. But they had to compromise with the people who looked down upon the hoi polloi.

Like I said, the Bill of Rights was created so that the actions of 1776 could be repeated at any time in the future. That they couldn't be is just a sign that the Bill of Rights didn't go far enough, not that that wasn't the intent.
 
Nice points all.
As a non-American, I had too hard time in understanding the way Americans cling to the right to bear arms. true, it was a natural right of freemen under commen law back then in '700, but I find interesting that any other western society renounced it without particular trouble, while Americans still seem unwilling to do so. I am unaware of serious rebellions anywhere in the West caused by attempts of the governement to restrain the right to bear arms, while I have the perception that some Americans WOULD make a hell out that.
My guess (but i'm unsure) is that outside America it was a CUSTOMARY right. Americans chose to enshrine it as a constitutional amendment, thence a POSITIVE right. And of course there the NRA thing.
I think that Ryu was actually asking whether Americans DO REALLY THINK that the right to bear arms is a good thing for them. I admit that many people outside America don't grasp that completely.
 
Yes. I said as much. Not sure why you needed to "add" something I'd alreay stated.

The Second Amendment was originally a prohibition on the Federal government. The entire Bill of Rights was.
jurisprudence.

--

Mostly agreed.

And the right to bear arms was already considered a natural right at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Remember, all these rights preceded the Federal government, rather than being created by it. They were all common law rights of freemen under the English system of jurisprudence.
 
Scholars debate this quite heavily--none of what you say is as certain as you say it is.

Specifically, what you have to say about the Founders is very tendentious. Its true that the 'Founders'--the folks who wrote the Constitution--were suspicious of mob violence and revolt. But the 2nd Amendment wasn't part of the original constitution.

The 2nd Amendment was largely adopted at the behest of anti-Federalists and others who were suspicious of the Founders' intentions and wanted to keep a rein on them.

I'm wading into the deep waters. I don't wanna be there, so don't be surprised if I don't swim back to shore and leave the discussion.

The Bill of Rights put in provisions to ensure the government would not become tyrannical, but the concept that it was to give citizens guns for private usage against the government is quite incorrect. The Founders and early Republic were rather fearful of the possibility of insurrection, and made no bones about not wanting the citizens of the Republic to overthrow their new state. Any US History Class will tell you how much they feared "Mobocracy" just in giving citizens more power in determining the government; granting them weapons for the purpose of overthrowing the government would be completely out of the question. Similarly, the natural right to keep arms for personal defense was already considered archaic in the Founding Father's day.

The amendment was written with the purpose of permitting the citizens of the United States to keep for the purpose of activity in their state militias, as a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state, and to bear arms in combat on behalf of their militia.
When the militia system was replaced with the National Guard under Woodrow Wilson, the amendment became archaic.
 
The amendment was written with the purpose of permitting the citizens of the United States to keep for the purpose of activity in their state militias, as a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state, and to bear arms in combat on behalf of their militia.
When the militia system was replaced with the National Guard under Woodrow Wilson, the amendment became archaic.

the founding fathers specifically wanted civilians to own and bear firearms a lot because of the nature of muzzle-loading firearms. These are difficult to become proficient with, and require a lot more care than modern firearms... they weren't something you could generally keep in an armory, hand out to the civilian militia in times of war, and expect them to use them well. Not only are muzzle-loaders hard to load/fire/reload, they take a lot of after-battle care, due to corrosive black powder. Whether the old idea of 'calling out the militia' is archaic or not right now, it's pretty obvious that the FF had the specific idea of allowing civilians to own firearms as a personal right... so, it's still the law of the land until/unless overturned by another amendment...
 
Top