| garickman |
05-14-2013 06:42 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69znc
(Post 480268)
Gary
[COLOR="Red"]garickman;480143]
The second amendment states "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"
When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.
Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a si
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really believe our Constitution was not drafted to fend off a tyrannical government you need to talk to some independent Constitutional scholars and spend more time reading how fragile and "out of mainstream" i.e. people really wanted to kill the founders and YES the fear of another tyrannical government drove them to risk there lives to move this independence forward.....
|
The problem with independent Constitution scholars is that they all have different opinions on what our founding fathers intentions were in the drafting of the Constitution. Granted these scholars have a far far greater amount of knowledge than I have or ever will have for that matter. I agree that if one is an expert of the Constitution and of the Federalist Papers, the history of the United States, Shays Rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, etc. they could probably come up with a very educated opinion on what the intentions were of our founding fathers. The problem is it would still just be an opinion.
Not everything I have posted in this thread do I necessarily agree with. I base my arguments on facts as they are today. As I have stated before, there is no law, statute, or Constitutional provision that exists in this country that allows someone to fight domestic tyranny. There is also nothing in the Constitution to suggest the second amendment was enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. Therefore it would not matter if all the independent Constitutional scholars in the world all agreed that defense against a tyrannical government was in fact the basis of the second amendment. Last time I checked a scholar's opinion could not create case law.
The only point I have ever tried to get across is a fact, whether we agree or disagree, it is a fact that as of today can not be disputed. The fact is the the only entity today that can interpret the Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, and when they hand down a decision in regards to the Constitution it becomes case law and it can not be disputed. |
