"The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic"
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: "The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic"

  1. #1
    Grand Poobah Gunco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Feedback Score
    35 (100%)

    Postak "The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic"

    Showing his true colors, Obama supporter Joe Lauria wants to repeal the Second Amendment. Obama can try to confuse the voters, but his most ardent supporters oppose your right to keep and bear arms, and in reality, so does Obama.


  2. #2
    Gunco Maniac sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    South Dakota
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)


    Damned bolshevik!

    Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's guarantee has nothing to do with arming a standing army, this quisling has the unmitigated gall to state the Second is irrelevant because we HAVE standing armies.

  3. #3
    Moderator ptannjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Ocala, Fl
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)


    Joe Lauria: The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic - Politics on The Huffington Post

    The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic
    stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

    Posted June 27, 2008 | 04:09 AM (EST)
    Read More: Arms, Britain, Handguns, Militia, Sam Adams, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, Politics News

    Show your support.
    Buzz this article up.
    Buzz up!
    Show your support.
    Digg this article.

    * Share
    * Print View
    * Comments

    Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

    The Second Amendment was written after a war in which a new nation without a standing army defeated the biggest standing army on the planet. To defend itself, the new country relied on citizens arming themselves in civilian militias.

    Ever since Britain had permanently garrisoned troops in Massachusetts to put down the brewing rebellion in 1768, opposition to standing armies ran deep among Americans. The Revolution was nearly lost because the Continental Congress for years refused Washington's pleading for a standing army. Sam Adams, before he and his class of merchants had won, believed a permanent force was "forever dangerous to civil liberties."

    "Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens," Adams said. "They have arms always in hand..." But, "the Militia is composed of free citizens. There is, therefore, no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own rights..." Adams amended his position as the war dragged on, realizing the necessity of a trained, disciplined force in extreme circumstances. But once the war was over, he returned to his earlier position, saying a standing army was no longer needed.

    Because of this distrust of standing armies the new republic wrote into its Constitution the Second Amendment, ensuring that citizens, and not a permanent state military, would bear arms to protect the land.

    The United States today has the largest standing armed forces ever assembled. The militias are now called the standing National Guard.

    The rationale for the Second Amendment is completely lost in history. It has as much relevance and moral force today as Section 2 of Article 1 that permitted slavery.

    The Second Amendment means nothing unless we disband the National Guard and America's armed forces.

    It is a dangerous absurdity to think it can justify the sale and possession of handguns. The Framers would surely be amazed by Thursday's Supreme Court decision and would wonder what had become of their republic.

    The Second Amendment must be repealed.
    Consider this, Amateurs built the Ark, Professionals built the Titanic

    Ocala and Marion County Car Audio

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    Gunco Veteran gunkgy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    N.W. Washington
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)


    From the Supreme Court decision yesterday

    Page 25

    3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
    Operative Clause
    We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
    an operative clause that creates an individual right to
    keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
    history that the founding generation knew and that we
    have described above. That history showed that the way
    tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
    men was not by banning the militia but simply by
    taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
    standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
    what had occurred in England that prompted codification
    of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
    The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear
    arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was
    not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was)
    but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.
    During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
    the federal government would disarm the people in order
    to impose rule through a standing army or select militia
    was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters
    from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The
    Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).
    John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s
    “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select
    militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate
    concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the
    people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary
    History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M.
    Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists
    responded that because Congress was given no
    power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep
    and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.
    See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed.,
    2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of
    Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of
    America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the
    Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in
    id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum
    that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen
    militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive
    military force if the constitutional order broke down.
    It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
    prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
    the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
    The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
    the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
    ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
    important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
    that the new Federal Government would destroy the
    citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
    that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified
    in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion
    that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary
    interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at
    36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely
    upon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefense
    had little to do with the right’s codification; it was
    the central component of the right itself.
    I know nothing...........nothing !

  6. #5
    Hooligan upgrayedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)


    That guy is a real asshole! Part of me thinks that he wrote it just to "stir the shit" and get attention.

    I read a few comments and the one that REALLY makes me the angriest is "..we should repeal the second amendment..."


    here's a few options for "those people"
    -move to Canada
    -move to France/UK etc
    -Buy a gun yourself and get familiar with one

    Instead of loving America for what it is, they hate is for what it isnt and SCURRY to try and change things.BIG THINGS, like civil rights.
    The 2nd is there in case they try and take the others away.
    I feel like aksing them what other civil liberties that they would erase or give up...since THEY dont use them.
    NEVERMIND the other almost 300millin gun owners in the US(this grows by 1$ annually)

    I hate nazi's, American flag burners and the thought of gay marriage, but I HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT!!
    These people need more constructive issues to deal with like...

    leave my damn guns alone!!!!!!!!!

  7. #6
    gunco irregular moleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Next door to my neighbors house in Michigan
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)


    I agrees with upgrayedd in that his guy is just trying to stir the pot to get attention. If joe lauria thinks its a "dangerous absurdity" to own a gun then fine, don't buy one your problem is solved. Just because I don't agree with what he is saying, you don't see me wanting free speach taken away.

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts