Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  That was heard during the inauguration ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland

    That's the best you've got. "Someone" heard "something" during the inauguration and that means that the entire process of writing the Constitution and ratifying process never happened?

    I'm fully aware of the history of how the 2nd Amendment came about, but it WAS NOT to fight against tyrannical government.

    The safeguards against that are embedded in the democracy itself, the three branches of government, the balance of powers and the bichambered congress.

    •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      se portland

      BTW, sorry for the tone of my previous comment. You were considerably more respectful than me. I don't know how to edit a comment to amend my tone. Apologies.

      •  There is no edit post publication (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        se portland

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:36:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  My father was a Republican (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        backell

        and we use to get pretty brutal in our debates, but we always knew it was a debate of ideas, not personal. I sometimes think he is the reason I become a liberal. He wanted someone to debate, and I took up the part of the devil's advocate.

        But that said, I really, really think the Founding Fathers did not have any problem with people owning guns to hunt and self defense, that was just an accepted - duh. But the Second Amendment had nothing to do with that. It was about the 'common defense', not personal gun ownership for shooting intruders in your home, or hunting deer. Hell, they use to fight duels over points of honor. :)

        But that is not what the Supreme Court said. Whether I like it or not, they ruled that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to own guns for personal protection. I think they are wrong, but I am not going to start an insurrection over it.

        It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

        by se portland on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:41:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Than you have to admit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros

      That a militia is to defend the constitutional government, not overthrow it. The diarist is refuting, and I think rightfully so, the right to insurrection in the constitution.

      But yes I am saying there was a fear of tyrany.

      From Whitehill's discription in the Dictionary of American Biography:

      He was one of the small group which in this period fanned jealousies and suspicions of the Pennsylvania back country into an opposition which was probably the most vehement experienced by any state and nearly resulted in armed conflict... At no period of his official career did Whitehill reflect better his back-country views than as a member of the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the federal Constitution (1787). In the Assembly he sought a delay in the election of delegates ...In the convention he resorted to every device to delay and defeat ratification. He insisted that there were inadequate safeguards against a tyranny and on the day of ratification attempted, without avail, to have fifteen articles incorporated as a bill of rights.
      [Bolded text by me.]

      It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

      by se portland on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:12:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site