USA Today- for many the second-amendment is a defense against their own government

[Rosco the Iroc]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/for...ZnC&ocid=ientp

a group of people standing in front of a sign: Hundreds of gun supporters rally at the New Hampshire Statehouse in Concord, N.H., Jan. 19, 2013.© Jim Cole, AP Hundreds of gun supporters rally at the New Hampshire Statehouse in Concord, N.H., Jan. 19, 2013.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The crowded room exploded in thunderous cheers and applause. A bill to make it a felony to possess gun magazines larger than 10 rounds had just been unexpectedly killed by its sponsor in the middle of debate before the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee after it was met with rancor by the audience and opposing delegates.

It was a powerful display of the continued influence of politically active gun owners mere weeks after new national calls for gun control after 17 were slain in Parkland, Fla.

America has seen a number of mass shootings in the past year: Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. Stoneman Douglas. In those three instances, the shooter used AR-15 platform rifles. The shooters in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs used the high-capacity magazines the defeated Maryland bill sought to outlaw.

Most Americans who plan to march on Washington Saturday against gun violence don't believe that private citizens should own high-capacity semi-automatic rifles. They don't understand what many gun rights defenders see as the heart of the Second Amendment: The defense against a tyrannical government.

In recent debates, gun rights activists have offered a number of defenses of what gun control advocates call assault weapons, from the rifles not being more deadly than other firearms to illegalization leaving them only in the hands of criminals. The tyranny argument is often overlooked by people who assume this argument is limited to people on the extreme, militia-end of the gun rights spectrum. But it's become common among gun owners and mainstream conservative figures.

Shannon Alford, the National Rifle Association's Maryland liaison, was among the scores of people who came to the state House of Delegates on March 6 to offer feedback on a number of gun-related pieces of legislation being considered in the wake of the shooting in Parkland, Fla.

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting," Alford told USA TODAY. "It is not about competitive shooting. The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It's about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that's a criminal or the government."


'A 30-round magazine might be too small'


That NRA position has been repeated almost word for word by several well-known conservative figures in recent years.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a fundraising letter for his 2016 presidential campaign. "It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty."

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson said the Second Amendment, "contrary to much of today’s conversation, has just as much to do with the people protecting themselves from tyranny as it does burglars." And Erickson believes that is the main reason gun control advocates don't understand the need for high-capacity semi-automatic firearms.



That is why there is so little common ground about assault rifles — even charitably ignoring the fact that there really is no such thing. If the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from even their own government, then the citizenry should be able to be armed ...

You may think a 30 round magazine is too big. Under the real purpose of the second amendment, a 30 round magazine might be too small.



'Insurrectionist' goes mainstream


Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, called the idea that a right to fight against government tyranny is enshrined in the Bill of Rights the "insurrectionist theory" of the Second Amendment. (So named because an insurrectionist is someone who takes part in an armed rebellion.)

"That insurrectionist theory used to be a fringe theory of the Second Amendment but it’s become much more mainstream," said Winkler, the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Winkler attributed the surge in the theory's popularity to the increasingly extreme language used by the National Rifle Association and "a desire to frame the Second Amendment in a way that will protect military-style assault rifles."

More: Donald Trump delivers 100 days of 2nd Amendment victories: Chris Cox

If the insurrectionist theory is accepted, then efforts to ban semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 would be unconstitutional because those weapons would be exactly what Americans would "need to fight back against the government," Winkler said.

While Winkler agrees the Second Amendment "has the happy impact of deterring tyranny because the citizenry is armed," he does not believe the Founding Fathers intended to "give the people the right to rise up against the government."

"The Framers understood the right to bear arms as an individual right, but it wasn’t a right to stage a revolution," Winkler said. "The Constitution doesn’t provide the seeds for its own destruction."


Calls to arms can backfire


In addition to a questionable legal foundation, the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment often doesn't resonate well with the general public, particularly when politicians and public figures hint at it.

During her failed 2010 Senate campaign, Nevada Republican — and tea party favorite — Sharron Angle was widely derided for saying the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution "for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

Angle said people were "really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies" as a response to the then-Democratically controlled Congress, which many people interpreted as a suggestion that armed insurrection might be necessary.

During the 2016 campaign, President Trump took heat for suggesting that "Second Amendment people" might be able to do something about Hillary Clinton if she won the election.



And U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., was criticized for seeming to suggest during a March 12 town hall that armed insurrection could be necessary if Trump ignores the law.

"This is where the Second Amendment comes in quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?" Suozzi said.
The four boxes


For most Americans, even those who believe in the right to insurrection, the notion of rising up against the government remains a very far-fetched scenario.

Jeff Hulbert, the founder of the Maryland gun rights group Patriot Picket, was one of the people who came to the Maryland House of Delegates to voice his concern about the proposed gun control legislation.

Hulbert believes that gun ownership is a "checks and balances issue for anybody who reveres our democratic republic." But he compares his right to take up arms in case of the government reaching what he calls an "intolerable" situation to a fire extinguisher kept in case of a possible emergency.

"It’s simply there," Hulbert said. "It’s been written into the structure for a reason, but it doesn’t mean that it’s activated every election cycle."

Hulbert said there are "four boxes" that can be employed to resist the government: the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box and, lastly, the ammo box.

"Nobody I know believes that we have reached the end of the line for the four boxes," Hulbert said. "We’re at the level of fear-mongering when we talk about the tyrannical overthrow of a government because our election cycles have seemed to work pretty well."

Hulbert's fellow Patriot Picket member Jim McGuire agreed.

"If we were close to the tipping point, these people and us, we wouldn’t be here," McGuire said. "We have the opportunity to speak our minds and have our voices heard and participate in the legislative process. It’s still working. If this place was empty, I’d be worried."

[JenniferG]

Apparently many haven't done their due diligence in researching the roots of the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers explain quite clearly as it was meant to do the reasons behind the words that went into the US Constitution. I'm sure if you asked many of the so called experts they wouldn't be able to tell you much about the Federalist Papers. No. 28 Hamilton explains the militia and insurrection quite clearly for example. Of course the 2nd amendment provides for the means necessary to implement an insurrection. This is exactly what they had in mind in case a despotic tyrant say like Omao or Clinton ever came to power through unscrupulous and underhanded means. The government was meant to fear the people. Leftists believe it should be the other way around.

[Rosco the Iroc]

What she said.

[JenniferG]

The more I think about it though the so called experts on the Constitution do not have a problem with ignorance with the original intent it's that they do not agree with the original intent. Anyone with even mediocre intelligence or a mediocre education can pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and understand the original intent as I explained in my first post in this thread. It's all in there word for word that the intent is for the people to have a tool for dealing with a future tyrannical government.

The problem with the so called intellectuals that find themselves being interviewed by a leftist press is that the "intellectual class" absolutely refuses to be honest about Constitution. Over the years the founders have been excoriated for being white and for some of them being slave holders by these same so called intellectuals. This completely disqualifies anything the founders have said or done in the eyes of the left and therefore the Constitution isn't a legitimate document to them. Examine the contempt that Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg has for the US Constitution, she is a prime example. Ginsburg has travelled to other countries to disparage our Constitution and prefers other country's Constitutions over ours especially the Constitution of South Africa. Those are words she used when Obama fake Egypt was about to write a new Constitution.

If you want to interview people that understand the US Constitution you first have to find those that are willing to be honest about the words and original intent. That pretty much excludes anyone the claims to be a Constitutional expert on the left.

[buckengr]

Apparently many haven't done their due diligence in researching the roots of the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers explain quite clearly as it was meant to do the reasons behind the words that went into the US Constitution. I'm sure if you asked many of the so called experts they wouldn't be able to tell you much about the Federalist Papers. No. 28 Hamilton explains the militia and insurrection quite clearly for example. Of course the 2nd amendment provides for the means necessary to implement an insurrection. This is exactly what they had in mind in case a despotic tyrant say like Omao or Clinton ever came to power through unscrupulous and underhanded means. The government was meant to fear the people. Leftists believe it should be the other way around.

Federalist 28.

+1 Rep denied.

[Justin///M]

Apparently many haven't done their due diligence in researching the roots of the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers explain quite clearly as it was meant to do the reasons behind the words that went into the US Constitution. I'm sure if you asked many of the so called experts they wouldn't be able to tell you much about the Federalist Papers. No. 28 Hamilton explains the militia and insurrection quite clearly for example. Of course the 2nd amendment provides for the means necessary to implement an insurrection. This is exactly what they had in mind in case a despotic tyrant say like Omao or Clinton ever came to power through unscrupulous and underhanded means. The government was meant to fear the people. Leftists believe it should be the other way around.

QFT

[Pilot321]

Well said Jenn. When someone calls an AR-15 a "weapon of war", I say HELL YEAH, that's the intent.

[JenniferG]

Federalist 28.

+1 Rep denied.

I've got to get a new copy soon. The paperback version I have has post it notes, bookmarks, turned up and tattered page corners so much so it's becoming a mess. I have the Clinton L. Rossiter’s edition for Mentor Books of New American Library. Here's a bit of history and knowledge about the four different publications that have been used over the years. I've owned my copy since about 1985.

Ironically, Rossiter’s edition, the most modest of the four, has had the longest uninterrupted life and the widest use. Rossiter (1917-1970), who earned his Ph.D. in political science at Princeton under the mentorship of Edward S. Corwin and taught for many years at Cornell University, was a fine writer and a superb analyst of constitutional institutions and arrangements. At the time he prepared his edition of The Federalist, due mainly to his magisterial Seedtime of the Republic[1], The American Presidency[2], and Parties and Politics in America[3], Rossiter was the most widely-read political scientists in the United States; he also was one of the most historically-sensitive practitioners of political science.

https://www.conservativebookclub.com...eralist-papers

https://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Pa...s+mentor+books

[Berncly]

Apparently many haven't done their due diligence in researching the roots of the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers explain quite clearly as it was meant to do the reasons behind the words that went into the US Constitution. I'm sure if you asked many of the so called experts they wouldn't be able to tell you much about the Federalist Papers. No. 28 Hamilton explains the militia and insurrection quite clearly for example. Of course the 2nd amendment provides for the means necessary to implement an insurrection. This is exactly what they had in mind in case a despotic tyrant say like Omao or Clinton ever came to power through unscrupulous and underhanded means. The government was meant to fear the people. Leftists believe it should be the other way around.

The more I think about it though the so called experts on the Constitution do not have a problem with ignorance with the original intent it's that they do not agree with the original intent. Anyone with even mediocre intelligence or a mediocre education can pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and understand the original intent as I explained in my first post in this thread. It's all in there word for word that the intent is for the people to have a tool for dealing with a future tyrannical government.

The problem with the so called intellectuals that find themselves being interviewed by a leftist press is that the "intellectual class" absolutely refuses to be honest about Constitution. Over the years the founders have been excoriated for being white and for some of them being slave holders by these same so called intellectuals. This completely disqualifies anything the founders have said or done in the eyes of the left and therefore the Constitution isn't a legitimate document to them. Examine the contempt that Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg has for the US Constitution, she is a prime example. Ginsburg has travelled to other countries to disparage our Constitution and prefers other country's Constitutions over ours especially the Constitution of South Africa. Those are words she used when Obama fake Egypt was about to write a new Constitution.

If you want to interview people that understand the US Constitution you first have to find those that are willing to be honest about the words and original intent. That pretty much excludes anyone the claims to be a Constitutional expert on the left.

Go tell it on the mountain!
Well said.
As always.
Rep owed.

[tarzan]

You go, JenniferG