
The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment (2014) - obi1kenobi
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
======
nicolashahn
Oh, ok. So we'll hand in all our guns, and when it's time for the militia to
be called up again (forgetting the fact that all able bodied men are already
members of the militia), our government is going to pass out AR-15s, then take
them away again when we're done fending off the threat? The main threat that
was intended by the Second Amendment, our own government?

~~~
orev
No, it was enacted to appease The South to keep slaves from rising up.
[http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-
amendmen...](http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-
was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery)

~~~
Sketch22
so I'll just throw the Bullshit flag right there... It is true that upon
adoption, the 2nd did not apply to slaves. It only applied to 'citizens' and
as slaves were not considered citizens, it did not apply to them.

however: aside from your slanted attempt to start a racial issue re: the
second, there are other, more pressing backing and reasons.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a
government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming
tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of
self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed
citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming
large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate
authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too
powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of
resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would
exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To
say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary
to what the Founders said and wrote.

F.John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming
Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of
government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western
Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to
more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of
nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They
give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it
better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of
Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second
Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United
States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the
University of Virginia.

Also, feel free to look at other sites that may not align to your political
echo-chamber. You may find it gives you a more complete point of view.

[http://rare.us/story/when-black-americans-used-the-second-
am...](http://rare.us/story/when-black-americans-used-the-second-amendment-to-
fight-the-ku-klux-klan/)

[http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-
constitution/amend...](http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-
constitution/amendments/amendment-ii)

~~~
krusty76
People always bring up defense against the evil gov't. I'd be interested to
see how effective some guns are going to be against tanks, nukes, drones, etc.
Just seems like more alarmist bullshit to justify owning guns. However, I'm
not against gun ownership — I'm only against lack of regulations so any crazy
nut can buy a gun at their whim and go massacre people.

~~~
Sketch22
Have you ever looked up the FP-45 Liberator?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator)

Small arms are used to take out troops and gain THEIR arms, therefore gaining
larger and more powerful weapons. Thats a basic military tactic when facing a
larger, better armed force.

What 'regulation' would you suggest that 1.) does not deprive people of their
right to own a gun and 2.) can be applied to everyone evenly? and at what
point does ANYONE have to deny the right of self-defense?

there is none, because there will ALWAYS be some group of people who would be
adversely affected & denied the right by no fault of their own.

------
pliftkl
Hanging on the militia argument is actually a little bit dangerous. What
happens if a state, say Texas, were to pass a law inducting every able bodied
adult into "the militia" (for some definition of militia, and some definition
of regulated). Would that bypass all federal restrictions on firearms?

