Why we have a 2nd Amendment

[Proscene]

This was sent to me, long but good readng . . . . . .

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION

Just a Shotgun

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,You hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your House and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal possession of a firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plead the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," He replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. but the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, Then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.

"All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques,had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA!

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION."

[Oh Shoot]

This was sent to me, long but good readng . . . . . .

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION....

Actually, that ISN'T the reason its in there, IMNSHO, and in the opinion of quite a few constitutional scholars.

The idea of protecting individual gun ownership for self defense and hunting just didn't occur to them -- anymore than to list rights for owning a knife, a fishing rod, or shovel, or axe, or hoe. The founders weren't perfect -- they couldn't dream of a future where individuals might be denied the use of any such implement (they also didn't conceive of the career politician, unfortunately).

As things have turned out, it's good that the Second is in there but its intention is to allow men to band together, with their individually owned firearms, for the common defense, or to overthrow a government become tyranny. Jefferson's and others' writings of the era make this pretty plain.

- OS

[mav]

As things have turned out, it's good that the Second is in there but its intention is to allow men to band together, with their individually owned firearms, for the common defense, or to overthrow a government become tyranny. Jefferson's and others' writings of the era make this pretty plain.

- OS

That is my understanding on what its intention was. Heaven forbid I should say it though, I might be depicted as a radical.

[Guest pfries]

That is my understanding on what its intention was. Heaven forbid I should say it though, I might be depicted as a radical.

......

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That is my understanding on what its intention was. Heaven forbid I should say it though, I might be depicted as a radical.

I thought you were a radical:D

[Worriedman]

Actually, that ISN'T the reason its in there, IMNSHO, and in the opinion of quite a few constitutional scholars.

The idea of protecting individual gun ownership for self defense and hunting just didn't occur to them -- anymore than to list rights for owning a knife, a fishing rod, or shovel, or axe, or hoe. The founders weren't perfect -- they couldn't dream of a future where individuals might be denied the use of any such implement (they also didn't conceive of the career politician, unfortunately).

As things have turned out, it's good that the Second is in there but its intention is to allow men to band together, with their individually owned firearms, for the common defense, or to overthrow a government become tyranny. Jefferson's and others' writings of the era make this pretty plain.

- OS

I concur wholeheartedly with your assessment.

That our basal Founding document (Declaration of Independence) contains the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

it is apparent that those who took up pen to put their thoughts in the challenge to the powers that were considered the Natural Right to provide for the protection of Life as the first and most important of those unalienable Rights. I can not fathom that the order of their listing was random, as this was the most important document of our upstart Nation, and some of the best minds to ever exist coauthored it, backed by this rejoinder "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Speaking of Jefferson, it is recorded that his perception of the personal ownership and carrying of weapons was viewed by him as something that the individual should decide, not the Government. He portrayed in writings that carrying a "gun" was as normal as taking a walk, as evidenced by his advice to a nephew:

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

[Wyldk2]

Supposedly the constitution was written as a set of guidelines for the government to follow. (See how much they follow it these days). The second amendment was never intended for a protection of hunting or self defense. But as a means for the public, to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government if the route of Diplomacy failed. But you see how the government has all the "Big" guns and overwhelming firepower.

From my understanding of it, the constitution to the government dosent mean as much as it used to ( or ought to).

[daddyo]

Supposedly the constitution was written as a set of guidelines for the government to follow. (See how much they follow it these days). The second amendment was never intended for a protection of hunting or self defense. But as a means for the public, to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government if the route of Diplomacy failed. But you see how the government has all the "Big" guns and overwhelming firepower.

From my understanding of it, the constitution to the government dosent mean as much as it used to ( or ought to).

Do you have a source for this or is it just your opinion?

[Makiaveli]

That is my understanding on what its intention was. Heaven forbid I should say it though, I might be depicted as a radical.

Amen. That and I would likely get fired if word got out as I am not allowed to be a member of a group, or associate with people who "advocate overthrowing the government".

Even though that isn't what I said, I have first hand experience that what matters is what they THINK I said, not what I actually said and meaning doesn't factor in at all....

[Wyldk2]

This is not my opinion but a fact. Read the second amendment in the bill of rights and you shall see.

Amendment II

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.

The "Well regulated Militia" is referring to the public with arms being able to overthrow the tyrannical gov't.

I'm assuming, they wouldn't resort to the use of weapons unless it was a last resort.

[quietguy]

Do you have a source for this or is it just your opinion?

Not the poster, but just read the letters of our founding fathers. It was clearly their intent that the populous be armed to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government.

[Guest pfries]

Not the poster, but just read the letters of our founding fathers. It was clearly their intent that the populous be armed to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government.

Major +1

Caution Thinkers on Board!!!

Edited November 14, 2011 by pfries

[daddyo]

Not the poster, but just read the letters of our founding fathers. It was clearly their intent that the populous be armed to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government.

I agree that this is the primary idea behind the Second, but I think self-defense falls in there somewhere, even though it is not specifically worded. If that were not the case, legal carry would be a privilege, and not a right, just like driving a motor vehicle.

[quietguy]

If that were not the case, legal carry would be a privilege, and not a right, just like driving a motor vehicle.

In practice, it is treated as a privilege.

I agree that this is the primary idea behind the Second, but I think self-defense falls in there somewhere, even though it is not specifically worded.

Take a look at the language of the 4th Amendment.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't disagree about the "overthrow tyranny" item, but militias were also useful at the time for handling Indian wars, local revolts, or if those pesky Canadians might have invaded. It is written in the same phraseology as the other individual rights, but also functions to assure that states can have their own independent militias.

Also early-on there was general belief that militias would work as good as a standing professional army for defense of the nation (and much less expensive), though they started changing their mind about that within a couple of decades after the revolution. In practice it turned out that a pro-army and navy was more necessary than it appeared early-on.

Jefferson wrote some of his "defense against tyranny" quotables when Washington was president and there were several early local revolts. The early local revolts seemed early class-war events with rurals revolting against the city-folk who were writing and enforcing the law. But when Jefferson became president, he became less sympathetic to local revolts. Am not criticizing Jefferson or the 2A, but his sympathy toward back-talk from the locals did seem to diminish after Jefferson was in the driver's seat.

[PolePosition]

I think the 2nd Amendment and the "separation of church and state" clause are the two most mis-interpreted parts of the whole Constitution....I concur with those that understood the meaning of 2A in its historical context and the intention of the Founding Fathers. Keep in mind that much of the Constitution was written in RESPONSE to specific things the Brits were doing. Had the Brits behaved differently, the Constitution too, would have come out differently.

[daddyo]

I think the 2nd Amendment and the "separation of church and state" clause are the two most mis-interpreted parts of the whole Constitution....I concur with those that understood the meaning of 2A in its historical context and the intention of the Founding Fathers. Keep in mind that much of the Constitution was written in RESPONSE to specific things the Brits were doing. Had the Brits behaved differently, the Constitution too, would have come out differently.

Where is "separation of church and state" mentioned in the Constitution?

[Guest FiddleDog]

It's not. Thomas Jefferson first coined the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and was imported into the conversation in 1878 by the supreme court. It's a common leap from the 1st amendment stating that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[daddyo]

It's not. Thomas Jefferson first coined the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and was imported into the conversation in 1878 by the supreme court. It's a common leap from the 1st amendment stating that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thanks. I know that, I just like to challenge the assertion that it's contained in the Constitution.

[Guest FiddleDog]

I figured as much. I just wanted to back your play

[PolePosition]

Where is "separation of church and state" mentioned in the Constitution?

Its not there at all. My point exactly.

[bajabuc]

I've noticed it's "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" not freedom from religion