The original intentions of the 2nd Amendment...

[Nate]

Discussion at another forum... Interesting point I never thought of. Comments?

The Constitution was written to ensure freedom from a federalist "state". There was fear that this new form of government they were creating could take control over the citizens. To ensure that the citizens could "revolt" against the government, the framers of the Constitution placed a guarantee that each state could have a well regulated militia and that the federal government would not have the power to disarm that militia.

Each individual within the militia had the right to keep and bear their own arms. However, the context from the beginning was within a state regulated militia. This was the way it was until the formation of the National Guard.

The National Guard was the first step in encroaching on the freedom to bear arms by taking the place of the militia. However, I would suggest that the modern day interpretations which we have now, is in fact a miss-interpretation of the Constitution. When the National Guard was formed, Congress should have passed a new Amendment to allow individuals outside of a militia to own and bear arms.

http://www.mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6803

[RocketFoot]

[Nate]

Not to side with that response, obviously The individual's right to defend himself was a huge influence in early America. I'm not a history buff, was hopeing for a little ammo from those wiser than I....

[Nate]

Oh nevermind, screw history I'll use logic.

[pandemic]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.

The Bill of Rights talks about the rights of an individual. 2A is there. Yet, it's thought that this right belongs to a select group of people (militia)?

[RocketFoot]

I agree...I think the 2nd A was though of as an individual right, but I also think that the founding fathers knew that this was key to preventing a dictatorship in the future. This is also one of the biggest reasons that certain elements of today's gov't fear the 2nd A and want to remove it! They do not want the citizens to stand up for themselves!

"The people should never fear their government, the government should fear it's people"

[bigborehnd]

[QUOTE=RocketFoot;468811]I agree...I think the 2nd A was though of as an individual right, but I also think that the founding fathers knew that this was key to preventing a dictatorship in the future. This is also one of the biggest reasons that certain elements of today's gov't fear the 2nd A and want to remove it! They do not want the citizens to stand up for themselves!

I agree 100%. But the powers that be in Wash. want us all to be sheeple.

[adymond]

The thing is militia is not defined as only the government sponsored militias (like the National Guard). I forget the wording and don't feel like looking them up right now, but there is something like an organized militia (the NG) and an unorganized militia which was pretty much an "everybody else" type of description.

[headcase]

Of course the Founding Fathers' thought the RKBA was the best way to prevent dictatorship, but that didn't stop at a federal level. The RKBA is an individual natural right to self defense, not a state right to dictate who may or may not defend themselves. That is why it is laid out in among the basic rights we are guaranteed as citizens....

Search Heller. Read through the threads leading up to the arguments and the decision. You will find some very good stuff there.....

[Jackal]

I don't think the founding fathers could have predicted how important this issue would become, issues were different then.

Most people had guns as a means of sustenance, they were also required if people were called on to defend the colonies against European aggression and Indians.

Nathaniel Bacon's rebellion illustrated the power of the rabble before the US was the US where he took a bunch of pissed off laborers to Jamestown (I think it was there) and burned it down. The governor had to leave and did not return until he had British war ships and soldiers. Bottom line, this made the elites scared of the rabble but people owning guns was necessary at that time.

Today, guns are not needed in the militia sense because the massive central government has all bases covered with: a large standing army (deplored by founding fathers), mercenaries, police, national guard, etc. Militia is largely frowned on and you run the risk of being labeled a terrorist organization by drilling openly.

John Adams could have rejected the constitution outirght almost immediately after the nation's birth with the Alien and Sedition acts (which gained popularity with anti-French hysteria - does that ring a bell with muslims?) but luckily he did not take advantage of this. The Jeffersonians restored power with various acts, and things have run ok since.

Now, in US history I see a trend towards power grabbing on the part of the Federal government and appeasement or ceding of rights by the states. The Civil War is perhaps the greatest and most overt action taken to ensure the dominance of the fed gov. Quoting Ron Paul, hardly any other nation involved in slavery required a civil war.

Its funny, the founding fathers (some anyway) feared the powers of a strong central government, string pulling, voting fraud, government official corruption, etc. Sounds like some place I know now.

In summation, whereas the right to petition the government for redress of grievances was considered by the founders in their consideration of the 2nd amendment, they could not possibly have foreseen where we are now. They were scared of "mob rule" or else they would not have needed an electoral college or a requirement for education and land ownership.

I do not believe the founders would have supported a citizen uprising to establish a new government. They were deeply divided on the French Revolution, and almost unanimously apposed when it started to turn bloody a few years after its start.

We are in a new era, and while quotes can be pertinent and reminiscent of a time we have never seen, the 21st century is not the 18th. The founders never experienced the level of power grabbing we see now, and that should be our main concern.