The reason for the 2nd amendment

This is a battle I’ve never heard of or seen before today: The Battle of Athens Tennessee | The Only Successful Revolt Since The Revolutionary War - YouTube

One word: Amazing.

This is why 2A exists and why the government’s overreach should be stopped at the ballot.

2020 was not unprecedented as this happened before. How many more examples are out there?

12 Likes

Yes, it was an amazing story and as you pointed out, not well-known. I only learned about it in the past couple of years. There was another thread on this forum that mentioned it.

3 Likes

Sounds to me like more of a Restoration than a Revolt, but apparently the restoring wasn’t possible until the revolting was successful.

We seem to be in a similar situation lately, but on a much larger scale. And the citizens have much better firepower now than then.

5 Likes

The writings of the framers blatantly link RKBA to the establishment of a militia because they neither trusted nor wanted to fund a standing army. They wanted the defense of the nation to come from the common people.

It was also common practice for households to own firearms, apart from being an active participant in a militia, for hunting and shooting varmints.

Fast-forward 200 years, we now have the most well-trained, powerful standing army in this history of mankind. One might argue “so we don’t need a militia, right?”

Maybe not for the purposes of fighting wars against other countries. But the framers, in their extra-constitutional letters and other writings, while clearly concerned with having a well-trained militia, did not limit the RKBA to only militias. Writings by Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton speak of the need of people to be armed so as to discourage “ruffians” and to reduce homicide.

The intent of the framers is obvious; 1) To establish a militia and 2) To provide for individual safety and defense.

8 Likes

I maintain that the Constitution’s Second Ammendment insistence on a “well regulated militia” invokes my Constitutional Duty to be armed, and to be trained with my arms. I must own and maintain arms, I must own and maintain ammunition, and I must continually maintain my proficiency.

I also believe that Open Carry is consistent with the Second Ammendment. It is an infringement on my Constitutional Duty to muster if needed to not be able to do so openly. In the spirit of readiness, it is my Duty to practice Open Carry in my daily life as a responsible Citizen, and loyal Patriot.

I AM the Militia.

6 Likes

Your involvement in the militia or lack thereof is irrelevant to your right to keep and bear arms. The active clause in the 2A clearly states that it is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. The preceding prefatory clause simply points out that the need for a well regulated militia is one of the many important reasons why the PEOPLE must have the right.

4 Likes

You make the typical mistake of thinking the Constitutional Milita is an organization. It is not. The Second Ammendment not only ordains (as in "We the People … do ordain …) the citizen’s right to KABA, in doing so it establishes our duty to do so, because we are the militia. All of us.

5 Likes

Love Jordon Peterson. https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/
.
AMERICAN FREEDOM is a manifestation of the deeper freedom of great BRITAIN - Jordan Peterson #shorts - YouTube

2 Likes

Reminds me of Queen Elizabeth’s joke about the American revolutionaries “acting in typical British fashion.”

3 Likes

I believe that the militia referred to in the 2A was considered to mean all able bodied men by those who wrote it. But I know the PEOPLE referred to in the 2A means all the people. Well, all white males by those who wrote the Constitution but amendments have since expanded that coverage to all people regardless of race or gender.

You make the mistake of falling into the anti self defense crowd’s false argument/trap that the only purpose of the 2A is to ensure we can have a well regulated militia. That preamble in the 2A simply gives one reason why all the people have the right to bear arms. It is the peoples’ right to defend themselves that shall not be infringed. Not just the right of those ready, willing and/or able to muster to the defense of our Nation.

2 Likes

No, I don’t “fall into the trap” at all. Nor am I in the least bit “anti-2A”. You are looking for an argument where there is none. The entire purpose of my post was to highlight that, not only is RKBA a right, but also a duty. Participation in that duty is voluntary, but it remains a Citizen’s duty nonetheless.

3 Likes

Having military grade weapons and being proficient in their use is the point of 2A. The Constitution was written to control the government not the people.

4 Likes

I am not looking for an argument. I am looking to make sure that all people maintain the right to defend themselves.

One of the recurring arguments of the anti self defense crowd is that the 2A was designed solely to facilitate the militia and thus is no longer necessary since we now have a standing army. That argument is flawed on many levels. But when pro self defense people say their 2A right is protected because they are the militia it ends up supporting the anti self defense crowd’s argument.

The 2A protects the right of all the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms regardless of their inclination or ability to defend our freedoms.

1 Like

I think @Shamrock makes a good point. When we get very specific about what the 2nd Amendment means, it opens up counter-arguments from the anti-2A crowd.

Is 2A for self-defense? Then they’ll say you don’t need “weapons of war.”
Is 2A for the militia? Then they’ll say you don’t need concealed carry.

It’s kind of funny that this seems to be the one topic where both sides try to use originalist arguments.
But the anti-2A crowd will take any opportunity to chip away at the 2nd Amendment. Don’t give them an opportunity.

1 Like

I never said (nor do I believe) that Militia is “the” reason for the 2nd Ammendment. You are reading into my statements what you want me to be saying, rather than what I have actually said. So your assertion that you aren’t looking for an argument doesn’t ring true. This is becoming tedious, so I will disengage. As long as your thinking remains in the little box you have it in, any further discussion is fruitless.

I couldn’t care less about Anti-2A proponents’ arguments, nor do I fear them. And I am damn sure not going to let them silence me because “I might give them an opening”. They are not ever going to stop trying to erode the honor of Citizenship, so neither should I ever stop defending it.

Highlighting the American Citizen’s Duty to defend our Constitutional Rights (all of them) should only strengthen, not weaken our argument. The concept that Citizenship demands duty is being ignored, because liberals have no sense of Duty to Country and they resist any obligation to anyone or anything except their own agenda. They willingly and enthusiastically give away the rights of American Citizenship without cost to the recipients.

Freedom, and the rights Freedom grants are not, never have been, nor ever will be without cost. Freedom is the birthright of American Citizens, and of those who by pledge, affirmation, and demonstrated commitment earn it. And Freedom must be continually defended.

As Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is but one generation away from being lost.” Not on my watch!

3 Likes

I’m not trying to silence anybody, just trying to keep each other sharp. If we can’t even do that, then what’s the point of being here? You don’t have to fear the anti-2A mob, but remember that ATF works for them.

2 Likes

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. That oath did not end when I was discharged. Every member of Congress has to swear that same oath and very few of them are honoring it.

5 Likes

Unless you are “them”, I wasn’t referring to you. I totally agree in keeping discussion alive, current, and relevant in our efforts to fulfill our duty to defend our immutable Constitution, our unique Republic, our God-given rights, our personal freedoms, and our costly liberty.

2 Likes

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your words but your above statement comes across to me as a clear attempt to tie 2A rights to the militia. Whether or not you believe the 2A rights extend beyond the purpose of having a well armed militia made up of all the people, I think drawing that connection only serves to give added ammunition to those who seek to deny our 2A rights.

You also seem to be stating that the 2A somehow establishes our duty to serve in the militia? I just don’t interpret the militia language in the 2A as making that requirement and I doubt most legal scholars would either. It is a prefatory clause giving one reason for the right being affirmed to the people. The people get to choose their own reasons for exercising their rights.

I apologize if I am misinterpreting your ideas. But I do firmly believe that associating 2A rights with the militia only weakens all our 2A rights. Whether that argument is made by anti self defense people or the pro self defense people who form their own local militias in order to affirm their right to keep and bear arms. I’m not saying that you belong to either of those groups. Just sharing my concerns whenever I see people try to strongly tie together the concept of militia with our right to self defense.

1 Like