interesting…there may be no legal or historical basis at all to argue the 2nd am. was intended to help the People overthrow tyrannical govt.[/quote]
You might need to rethink. The Supreme Court determined that the second amendment is an individual right. I think the article referenced is extremely slanted and poorly researched. Look back at history and Federalist Papers. The founders of this nation were very aware that the only reason why the proto-United States was able to break from England was because firearms were allowed to the ‘commoners’ (to get food and protect from ‘marauding savages’). NOTE: The Magna Carta ensured rights to Barons and other royalty when dealing with the English Monarchy, however it didn’t give rights to the commoners. The Magna Carta exists because Barons etc were allowed to have weapons while commoners weren’t. The king had the right to ‘draw’ upon the baron’s “army” in defense of England.
From this and other examples, the Founders of the United States realized that to ensure the freedom of its citizens, the citizens must be able to arm themselves if needed. Power draws people to it that want to use the power and authority for their own profit and personal reasons, at a detriment to the public. Not everyone seeking power is altruistic, in fact – most aren’t. NOTE: Many claim that individuals with rifles don’t stand a chance against heavier armor – but that is not what Afghanistan has demonstrated, and not what I have found in my line of work (Defense Contractor). An army of 100,000 does not stand much of a chance when among a group 300 million armed citizens. That said, I have personally found that the US military is much less disposed to violate our constitutional rights than the police. (to those who like to take quotes out of context, remember that I have said that there are many very good police whose work is tainted the the actions of a few bad apples and the desire of administration to cover it all over).
This all does not preclude the right for someone to have a ‘handgun’ as a home self defense weapon – (see other notes in quoted referenced link). There is a distinction between handgun and a ‘long rifle’.
Additionally, in the quoted article, the structure in the sentence:
He also compared the militias of early America to a form of taxation, saying that citizens had what Jefferson referred to as a “right and duty” to be armed. That is, they were required to buy weapons in addition to being allowed to possess them. Militia membership was often compulsory, Cornell said.
Is poorly structured because the first sentence includes a 3 word quote from a larger sentence of Jefferson’s used to implicitly support what is Saul Cornell’s actual position. It is a misleading transition. Jefferson did not imply or necessarily support the statements and a more complete quote is really justified. You could almost say that it was a snippet of a quote from Jefferson taken out of context (to be generous). Militias were not compulsory – though there was social pressure to join in some cases. There was also a worry that militias might coordinate and become a cartel operating against the citizens (rule by militia despot). Many try to twist the meaning of regulate to mean ‘outfit’, ‘prepared’. The are not the same. Regulate has always been to control – as Rules and Regulations, Voltage and Current Regulators, Pool Regulations.. etc.
The quote following the one above:
He questions whether the Founding Fathers would have welcomed the idea of people taking up arms against their newly hatched constitutional government instead of using governmental procedure to settle differences, which sometimes is referred to as the “ballots vs. bullets” debate.
is also very misleading – and implying that the Founding Fathers may not have had the consent of the citizens of the nation in formation. This is incorrect. The form that the nation was taking was debated and hashed out over time. They also realized that if the nation was not the form that most of its citizens wished – they did have the right to force change. The was to be ‘of and for the people’.
The Constitution has always been about balance of power, of putting one authority against another, to make it difficult for one group to have complete autonomy in power. As evidence, I present the Three Houses of the United States Government; Executive, Legislative, Judicial – each set against the other (Executive – executes the written laws, Legislative – writes the laws, Judicial – weighs and evaluates the laws (against and using)). I also present the way Senators are elected, their terms and the number per state when compared to the House of Representatives. I also present the existence of the House of Representatives AND Senate – when it would seem that only one would be needed.
The final part of the balance was:
1) Freedom of the press – so that we may know what the government is doing in our name.
2) Right to bear arms – to ensure that our vote is counted and our collective wishes are obeyed.
I hope it never comes that we need to exercise #2 in the fullest, because it would be a very sad day indeed.
NOTE: on the referenced link, I also noticed in the last 3 to 4 paragraphs, the author walked a bit back from their earlier statements. I also would not state extremist views advocating violence only form from the right. By the nature of being extreme – they are on both sides of the middle. Note the valid quote of Jefferson “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – to which I want to add that “a little rebellion now and then prevents a large and bloody rebellion later”.
