Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Those were the people we are talking about (0+ / 0-)

    talking about the issue we are talking about. I can't give you much more conclusive evidence than their own words, as they discussed it amongst themselves.

    The federalist papers weren't about a concern about a tyrannical government? You don't understand that the Bill of Rights are just that, an enumeration of basic human rights?

    Come on, you have got to be kidding me!

    Let's keep it real simple.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    In a paper later collected into the Anti-Federalist Papers, the pseudonymous "Brutus" (probably Robert Yates) wrote,

        We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion — that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution.[23]

    Brutus continued with an implication directed against the Founding Fathers:

        Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.[

    •  The Anti-Federalists Weren't the Framers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, tofumagoo, CwV

      And, no, the Federalist Papers WEREN'T a concern about a tyrannical government. They were a series of papers PROMOTING the RATIFICATION of the Constitution.

      Using the anti-Federalist papers to prove what the Federalist Papers said is disingenuous, no?

      This isn't an argument against the Bill of Rights, nor is it an argument against the 2nd Amendment. It is an argument that the 2nd Amendment wasn't invoked as a safeguard against tyranny.

      If so, why did they framers stand by while Washington ostensibly (by such definition) invoked such "tyranny" by USE of the militia?

      •  Are you really arguing (0+ / 0-)

        that the American Revolution was not fought against tyranny? Do you know what a "king" is?

        I'd like an honest answer to both of those questions.

        •  It was against Tyranny (5+ / 0-)

          So what? They deliberately set up a non-tyrannical government. The answer to tyranny wasn't the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, it was the Constitution itself.

          •  They attempted (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian

            to set up a non tyrannical government, but didn't feel to terribly confident that it would be.

            The Declaration of Independence was the answer to tyranny. The Bill of Rights was the safe guard against it.

            •  Way to skip over (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CwV

              Everything in between. The Declaration of Independence was an entirely different document. You simply can't gloss over the entire revolution, the Articles of Confederation, the Philadelphia Convention and so on, and then jump to the Bill of Rights, and in particular, the 2nd Amendment.

              •  I'm not glossing over anything! (0+ / 0-)

                In fact, I was distressed that you had failed to take into account the Declaration of Independence (and still obviously discount it) and consider the Bill of Rights a non binding list of fluff of no importance.

                Madison for goods sake! The biggest Federalist around! He insisted on the Bill of Rights!

                •  You're missing the point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  congenitalefty

                  I'm not dismissing the Declaration of Independence as a document. I'm dismissing it's relevance to the Second Amendment as relating to a fear of tyranny being the purpose of it.

                  Yes, Madison insisted on the Bill of Rights. But he didn't insist on the 2nd Amendment because he was afraid of the Federal government coming and taking away his guns.

                  I am writing another Diary Entry which will address these arguments.

      •  The "framers" (0+ / 0-)

        were inclusive of both groups. Both groups were consulted, respected, and had input into the final product.

        Yates comes to mind of the top of my head. The "Brutus" quoted above, and also a signatory to the Constitution.

        There was overlap. It was a deliberative process. Anything less would have been tyranny.

        •  True (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV

          But as I said in the diary, "Third, and perhaps most importantly, they were no more of a single mind then they are today."

          I understand this and have said repeatedly that I will engage more on this in the next diary.

          However, the use of the militia to quash the very thing which the right purports that the second amendment was there to promote proves it's not there for that reason.

          •  So you think (0+ / 0-)

            they were all just kidding around about that government getting out of hand thing?

            They really didn't think that the government's powers should be enumerated so that it would be limited?

            You think they planted all those letters and documents surrounding the founding in order to fool us and set up an indestructible government with no remedy for the citizens?

            You think they were arrogant enough to think they had created a perfect system that in no way would become obsolete?

            •  No. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              congenitalefty

              I think that they addressed those things in drafting the Constitution. Do you think that the only place where they WEREN'T kidding around was the Second Amendment?

              You're OVER EMPHASIZING the importance of that "fear" and UNDERSTATING the other actions that were put in place to allay them.

              •  I think they were deadly serious (0+ / 0-)

                about the whole document, including the Bill of Rights. And when I say deadly, I mean literally. These guys shot AT each other, for God's sake.

                These people had just overthrown the most powerful government on the planet at the time. They were very serious people.

                I tend to believe they meant what they said.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site