Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the 2nd Amendment Really Intended as a Safeguard from Tyranny? (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One of the problems for the other side in relying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CwV, backell

    on the founding fathers, is that the particular writers they cite were not ALL of the founding fathers, and the opinions of this or that one did not necessarily carry the day. What carried the day is in the Constitution, and only there, as the result agreed after the deliberations of the famous ones who wrote down their opinions and less famous ones who did not but had equal voting power.

    The fact is that Article I, Sec. 8 contains BOTH a standing army and Federal supervision and control over state miitias, and refers specficially to militias able to be called up to suppress insurrection. It also calls for a permanent Navy, an issue also to be considered in connection with the two years at a time standing army. There was not in the final decision any decision made not to have any standing military forces ad to rely on state militias alone.

    •  Answer me this (0+ / 0-)

      what do you think the Bill of Rights were? For what purpose? I mean, if it all ended at the Constitution, why bother with the Bill of Rights?

      •  For Good Purpsoe (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, Sharon Wraight, CwV

        But why and how the Second Amendment was established, is moot for this discussion. We don't need to know why it was in order to know why it was NOT established. It's not binary.

        That will be, as I said in the diary, discussed next. For now though it's unneeded.

        You simply can't ignore these two questions.

        1. If their primary concern was tyranny, why did Article 1, Section 8 precede the 2nd Amendment?

        2. If the second amendment was set up so the militia could put down a tyrannical Federal government, why was it used, just a few years later, by the Federal government to quash an insurrection?

        These two things falsify the notion that it was there as a safeguard from tyranny. Why the 2nd Amendment (and the rest) were established is moot (in the real sense of the word, i.e. a worthy discussion, but not one needed to settle the present debate.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site