Skip to main content

    Gun ownership is a constitutional guarantee, and therefore any discussion about the restriction of guns must be had in terms of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Guarantees reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Many people on the pro-gun side of the argument wish to separate the first part of the amendment from the second, however the initial statement provides important context to the latter. The founding fathers realized that an armed American populace was necessary “to the security of the free state”; having just overthrown a tyrannical government the leaders of America knew how vital an armed citizen was to the victory against the oppressive British government. The concept of a citizen soldier is one of the most central pieces of our nation’s creation. Those that oppose gun ownership idea point out that we have a militia, the National Guard. The Army National Guard as it stands today is not the militia our founders envisioned, rather it is an extension of the Federal government, it can be federalized to put down any insurrection in the states, and ordered overseas. How is a militia of the citizens supposed to protect the people against a tyrannical Federal government when they are so closely entwined with the Army and the executive branch? Those that believe resistance to a tyrannical government is unfeasible are delusional. No American soldier is going to disarm attack or otherwise infringe on any American’s constitutional rights, for that is the document they swore an oath to. The militia men of old owned their own militia weapons and took them to war, returning home with those arms. Therefore, it only makes sense that the modern militiaman would keep and bear the arms of the militia: the semi-automatic rifle with a medium capacity magazine. Those who seek to disarm the American people of effective arms to wage war with only invite disaster upon all of us. It is the right and responsibility of every American citizen to defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic. But let us not argue about what the founding fathers intended, for they clearly stated:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
- Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
- Patrick Henry

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

How are you supposed to defend a nation with 3 round hunting rifles and 9mm handguns? The sheep that cry for the constraining of the sheepdogs only invite the predation of the wolves.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem being there is nothing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enemy of the people, raincrow

    in the 2nd that explicitly states citizens need turn in their weapons once there is an established standing military and as such the argument for the 2nd is still valid whether we like it or not.

    Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

    by psilocynic on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:15:54 PM PST

  •  Uh (13+ / 0-)

    How are you supposed to defend the nation with an AR-15 and a Glock with 20 round magazine...the people who would attack us (I can't believe I am actually saying that...like anyone is gonna invade the US) will be using military jets, tanks, artillery, rockets, missiles, etc. etc. etc.

    The whole citizen militia ship left long, long ago.  I think you have been watching a bit too much Red Dawn.  If you seriously think that the people have the firepower to defend this country from a modern military strong enough to defeat the modern US military...you are delusional.

    If you think you need the weapons to defend yourself from our own government, you are doubly delusional...what are you scared of, FEMA camps?  And even if that was a legitimate fear...please refer back to the tools of the modern US military...no weapon you could own, or ever hope to afford to own even if you could buy any weapon on the planet, will keep you alive if the US government decides they want you dead.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:16:58 PM PST

  •  What is it with the constant false quotations? (12+ / 0-)

    Why do you and other people continue to post diaries and comments with demonstrably false quotations?

    A simple Google check demonstrates that several of the quotations you list were never spoken, or are the result of taking a few words out of different speeches and/or writings and mashing them together.

    Beyond that, your diary is nothing more that a regurgitation of RW gun-nut talking points, chock full of errors and paranoid delusions.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:19:36 PM PST

    •  Assertions vs. documentation (0+ / 0-)

      I could say that a simple Google check demonstrates that Wayward Wind is an Armenian transvestite who likes gay bestial necrophilia. But if pressed to document that assertion I would fail. And I would have to be a pretty damn hateful fool to rec an assertion like that from someone else just because it matched a pre-existing bigotry rather than knowing it was backed up with facts.

      The diarist has listed quotes, you have said they are "demonstratably false". Since neither of you documented your sources, they are both equally credible at this point, but since you are calling the diarist a liar, I think the burden of proof is on you first. There are five quotations in the diary. By common use of the word, "several" of them would be at least three of the five.

      So, please document the extent to which at least three of those five quotes are things that were never spoken, used in the wrong context, etc. You could indeed be right, and if so, documenting your case is a lot more convincing than going "nuh-huh". It will provide an easy link for others to rebut these quotes, and may discourage people you call deluded and paranoid DKos gun supporters from using them in the future.

      It is after all, just a "simple Google check". One which you presumably already have in your browser history, because it would be extremely unethical to have made that statement unless you had actually done said check.

  •  The best protection against a bad government (6+ / 0-)

    are laws, a truthful press, and community organizing.

    The Founders could not have imagined a world where a citizen could legally own a weapon that did more damage than 10 cannonballs in less than a minute.   I think that people have a right to defend themselves and they have a right to hunting rifles and small arms.   But the 2nd Amendment is obsolete as far as providing for community defense.

    Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

    by pistolSO on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:21:08 PM PST

    •  The Founders couldn't imagine women voting, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk

      black people voting, a nation of 1/3 of a billion people under widespread warrantless electronic surveillance, marriage equality, corporations holding the wealth of small to mid-sized nations, the industrial revolution, Fox News, interstate highways, 62 million private vehicles, or global-scale environmental pillage -- but the Constitution they crafted has managed to house all of those changes (albeit not without growing pains).

      So perhaps the Second Amendment is just as roomy and resilient as the most of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, even if a substantial of the polity disagrees with its current interpretation.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:20:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I see you never answered Lost and Found's question (4+ / 0-)

    stemming from your first comment o' fail

    Are you the same OrwellianThinker that posted to Stormfront?

    The quotes are also all sourced from RW nutblogs.

  •  Regulating the Militia is the job of congress. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chinton, OtherDoug

    Article 1, Section 8

       

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the  United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Up to them to do it "Well".

    Hobbs: "How come we play war and not peace?" Calvin: "Too few role models."

    by BOHICA on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:45:59 PM PST

  •  And of course, the Supremes interpret that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, OtherDoug

    They have in various cases determined what they believe is the meaning of the second.

    Argue with them.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:47:58 PM PST

  •  The first two 'quotes' are bunk. (8+ / 0-)

    From the diary:

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
    - Thomas Jefferson
    From Monticello.org:
    No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (Quotation)

    This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson's three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft:

    First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."[1]

    Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."[2]

    Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"[3]

    This sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted.

    Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.

    From the diary:
    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    - Alexander Hamilton
    From the Federalist Papers #29
    Little more
    can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to
    have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be
    not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in
    the course of a year.
  •  We don't need to discuss the 2d amendment at all (5+ / 0-)

    in order to have a discussion about possible restrictions and regulations of firearms.  The second amendment is just a legal issue. All the second amendment does is provide an outer legal boundary for regulation of guns. There is no question that the second amendment does allow some regulation of firearms. At the same time, the Supreme Court has held that the state cannot completely ban private ownership of handguns. So the boundary line is somewhere in between.

    But that is for the courts to determine, as with every other part of the bill of rights. The job of those who want to restrict gun rights is to find out where those boundaries are. So just as people who want to restrict the constitutional right to abortions just keep passing restriction after restriction in state legislatures to find out which ones the courts will uphold, those who want to regulate the right to own guns have to do the same thing.

  •  Shay's Rebellion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne

    It started in the months before the Philadelphia Convention to draft the Constitution, and pointed out the need for a means of defending the government from rebellion.  

    In the absence of a standing army the framers recognized the necessity of an armed populace that could be called up to defend the republic from those who would cry "tyranny" and take up arms against it.  This is exactly what was done during the Whiskey Rebellion when opponents of direct federal taxation started an insurrection against their newly formed country.

    The Second Amendment does not provide the right to rebel against government.  It provides the government with a means of last resort to crush rebellion.

    See also the Insurrection Act of 1807.

  •  Another one worried about someone taking his (0+ / 0-)

    um "toys" away.

    WTF!?!?!?! When did I move to the Republic of Gilead?!

    by IARXPHD on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:15:27 PM PST

  •  Some problems (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OtherDoug, Lost and Found

    The Jefferson quote was never written by Jefferson.

    http://www.monticello.org/...

    Tyranny by government requires a standing army, something the Founding Fathers were against.

    Madison in Federalist 46 said that even with a standing army, it would number only 30,000 compared to 500,000 armed citizens. This was in the time of muskets and 6 pound cannon balls. Unless you plan to have neighborhood M1 battle tanks and M2-Bradleys along with an F-16 at the local airport, the use of guns by citizens to prevent tyranny is not feasible in the modern era.

    Fortunately, our Founding Fathers gave our Republic many more tools to combat tyranny, including our voice and our vote. In fact, if we wait for tyranny to take hold, guns will do little. That is the lesson we can learn from Syria, which allowed private gun ownership and open carry.

  •  Fail. Camo-clad wingnut delusions. (0+ / 0-)

    You don't think U.S. police forces or troops would ever move against armed lunatics who happen to be U.S. citizens?

    Tell that to David Koresh. Or look up Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, Bonus Marchers...or, you know. The Civil War.

  •  Two points. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OtherDoug

    I think anyone who is interested in the issue of the meaning of the Second Amendment should read the history surrounding its creation (a bone thrown to the states worried about slavery revolts) and the essay by Dennis Baron titled "Guns and Grammar".

    www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

    This essay was presented to the Supreme Court as an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. From what I read, only Stephen Breyer took it seriously. So much for the intellect of SCOTUS.

    Point two-  look up the Whiskey Rebellion. It seems that once our country and Constitution was established, including the Bill of Rights, George Washington and his administration had no problem with disavowing rebellious citizens of their right to take an armed stand against a "tyranny of government".  I don't know what Thomas Jefferson thought of this move, but it would be fun to find out.

  •  Diarist has achieved bojo. (3+ / 0-)

    Is anyone surprised?

    Cogito, ergo Democrata.

    by Ahianne on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:54:15 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site