Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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