Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site