RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Does the 2nd amendment still serve it's main purpose? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Does the 2nd amendment still serve it's main purpose? Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Vandervecken 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 09-November 16

Posted 28 April 2017 - 11:52 AM

So I am listening to Rush discuss the 2nd amendment and the President's visit to the NRA. That got me thinking along a line. The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make the citizenry an implied counterbalance to the military/police power of the government, of any level, but of course mainly federal (states may not abrogate these enumerated rights, as we know, although blue states and the federal judiciary certainly work at it).

Does this mean anything anymore? The power of the standing military is now so far beyond the power of the armed citizenry that any real conflict between the two would be a joke. it wasn't always so at all, but now it is.

I am firmly and staunchly pro 2nd amendment. I do NOT consider the fact that the 2nd amendment does not seem to achieve its original purpose any longer a reason to abandon it, as Leftists often do when they "reason" away our rights ("it doesn't even serve its purpose any longer...it doesn't work..."[like the border wall, of course we know it would...]). But the 2nd amend really doesn't achieve its original intent any longer, does it? And if we agree that it does not, is there any way to fix the situation? Doesn't really seem so, to me.
0

#2 User is offline   Dutch13 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,128
  • Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

The entire Bill of Rights has been overwhelmed because of the size, scope, and power of the United States Government. If you argue with the government, they will bury you in legalese and require you to pay lawyers just to prove you had the rights in the first place.
0

#3 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,029
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:29 PM

A major point to me regarding the original intent isn't whether citizens could ever win against a tyrannical armed forces, but to make it harder on them.

Any armed struggle against federal government controlled military units would result in lots of civilian casualties and some military casualties. If civilians were being killed by soldiers in a systematic and planned way, our nation would cease to exist. Thus, in my opinion, gun ownership still acts successfully as a deterrent against the federal government.
0

#4 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:36 PM

View Postzurg, on 28 April 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

A major point to me regarding the original intent isn't whether citizens could ever win against a tyrannical armed forces, but to make it harder on them.

Any armed struggle against federal government controlled military units would result in lots of civilian casualties and some military casualties. If civilians were being killed by soldiers in a systematic and planned way, our nation would cease to exist. Thus, in my opinion, gun ownership still acts successfully as a deterrent against the federal government.

By extension there are many in the military who would probably refuse to take up arms against citizens. After all they swear an oath to the Constitution, nit the government . . .
0

#5 User is offline   intotheblackhole 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 6,967
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:51 PM

There are 70,000,000 to 80,000,000 gun owners in the United States that have approximately 350,000,000 guns. It is estimated that there are billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of citizens. This group of armed people exceeds the combine totals of all of the militaries and police agencies in the world by a factor of seven or eight. It's unlikely that the US military would ever go up against US citizens. The US military can't even take out 30,000 to 50,000 Taliban/ISIS. Plus the majority of the military would be unlikely to go up against US citizens. It would mean going up against their families friends relatives neighbors, and from what I've seen of the US military and the police that would be repugnant to them.

Look at the Bundy Ranch standoff. Federal agents were surrounded by armed citizens and at any second that situation could've gone south. The federal agents wisely withdrew and the armed citizens won the day. Even now Forest Service and BLM enforcement officers are afraid to go into a lot of the national lands. When they do it is in groups of two or three or more, and the are fully armed with automatic weapons and wearing heavy body armor. There are lots of armed criminals operating in the national forests, mostly the Mexican drug cartels.

In Venezuela the government banned private ownership a firearms many years ago. Now the citizens are defenseless. The murder rate is sky high because of roving gangs who have guns are killing defenseless citizens. The government is now arming supporters of the government and it will be very difficult for the opposition to rise up with an armed revolt. They will have to start building an arsenal which would be very slow at first and it would involve killing of soldiers and police officers to get those weapons. My guess is that there will be weapons coming in across the border which will also be difficult. Everyone in government knows that removing firearms from the citizens allows politicians to do whatever they want to do without repercussion. In the US we have the second amendment and I am guessing at least 30 or 40% of the gun owners we'll never ever give up their firearms without a fight. That is still a substantial Force to be reckoned with.

This post was dictated to Siri and I apologize on her behalf if she screwed up anything, which is often the case.
0

#6 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,555
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM

View PostVandervecken, on 28 April 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make the citizenry an implied counterbalance to the military/police power of the government


Is the government comprised of the citizenry?
0

#7 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,877
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:59 PM

View Postzurg, on 28 April 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

A major point to me regarding the original intent isn't whether citizens could ever win against a tyrannical armed forces, but to make it harder on them.

Any armed struggle against federal government controlled military units would result in lots of civilian casualties and some military casualties. If civilians were being killed by soldiers in a systematic and planned way, our nation would cease to exist. Thus, in my opinion, gun ownership still acts successfully as a deterrent against the federal government.



I think it goes beyond that though.

It helps put the fear of God into ALL PEOPLE in positions of power that the common folk still have the upper hand because they are armed and they have the numbers. Tyrants through history have held the advantage not through numbers alone, but because there people where the ones with the arms.
The founding fathers wanted our Government to be afraid of the people, why? Because fear is a much better motivator to prevent corruption then is any piece of paper. They knew the only way to do this was to make sure the peoples where armed.

Perfect example of this is if you look at areas where the honest people are not or at least are less armed the more corrupt the Government is.
When a politician has to worry about being shot by an angry constituent over their actions they tend to be a hell of a lot more honest.


Part of the problem is the segment of our society who refuse to believe what the real intent of 2nd Amendment was.
Understanding and admitting that intent is scary as hell I know, but, it is the truth.


Oki
0

#8 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,877
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:00 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

Is the government comprised of the citizenry?



All right, I'll call your bluff. So who where the militia in the eyes of the founding fathers?

Oki
0

#9 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,555
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:05 PM

View Postoki, on 28 April 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

So who where the militia in the eyes of the founding fathers?


I would characterize the militia as the substitute for a standing army.
0

#10 User is offline   Oathtaker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 21-August 03

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:06 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

Is the government comprised of the citizenry?


Absolutely, as are the crips, bloods, and mafia.

What's your point?
0

#11 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:19 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

Is the government comprised of the citizenry?

To quote my daughter's lacrosse coach:
"Are you kidding me!!??!!"
0

#12 User is offline   intotheblackhole 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 6,967
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:19 PM

View PostOathtaker, on 28 April 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

Absolutely, as are the crips, bloods, and mafia.

What's your point?



The crips, bloods and mafia are criminal organizations. The government is.....oh, okay, never mind, you win. There is no difference.
0

#13 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:20 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

I would characterize the militia as the substitute for a standing army.

He didn't ask for your opinion - he asked for that of the Founders.
0

#14 User is online   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,693
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:24 PM

View PostVandervecken, on 28 April 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

The power of the standing military is now so far beyond the power of the armed citizenry that any real conflict between the two would be a joke. it wasn't always so at all, but now it is.

The American colonists were heavily outgunned and vastly outnumbered by the British, but we all know how that ended.
0

#15 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,877
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:26 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

I would characterize the militia as the substitute for a standing army.



And yet again you prove your utter lack of this nations history and the intent or views of those who wrote our Constitution.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

By the way you should really learn what the intent of the Militia was during this nations early years.
Initially, they where volunteers who where never meant to be a full time standing Army. Largely be used ONLY during times of need.
Very similar in scope to the National Guard and or Reserves.

The fact that we DID NOT have a full time professional Army at the time of our revolution is why Militias where formed. They where formed by in large at local levels. Much like Reserve and Guard components of today.

Either way, thanks for proving what we already knew.


Oki
0

#16 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,555
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:42 PM

View Postoki, on 28 April 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

The fact that we DID NOT have a full time professional Army at the time of our revolution is why Militias where formed.


We're saying the same thing.

Do you agree that the "main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make the citizenry an implied counterbalance to the military/police power of the government"?
0

#17 User is offline   imposter 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 1,353
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:44 PM

View PostVandervecken, on 28 April 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:


Does this mean anything anymore? The power of the standing military is now so far beyond the power of the armed citizenry that any real conflict between the two would be a joke. it wasn't always so at all, but now it is.


Even assuming that members of the military would turn on the people if ordered to, this isn't necessarily the case. Otherwise Viet Nam, Afghanistan, et al. would have been walks in the park. Groups with inferior weapons, supplies, etc. can still "win" by making things difficult enough that their opponent decides it's not worth it to keep fighting.
0

#18 User is offline   Magic Rat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 5,426
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:44 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

We're saying the same thing.

Do you agree that the "main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make the citizenry an implied counterbalance to the military/police power of the government"?


Yes because it clearly says so. You know it, so any further conversation with you is, as always a waste of time.

Did you realize that every loaded firearm in 1789 had a chambered round?

This post has been edited by Magic Rat: 28 April 2017 - 01:48 PM

0

#19 User is offline   DJGoody 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 07-June 16

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:52 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

I would characterize the militia as the substitute for a standing army.



That is absurd on it's face! The Bill or Rights was created to ensure basic right of citizens (save the 10th), and you are telling me with a straight face that they put a 'Federal Right' smack dab in the middle of individual rights? :biglaugh:

The entire Constitution was put in place to limit the power of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was to emphasize individual rights. The militia is a group of citizen soldiers protecting their other rights! They are not an army in the present sense at all!
0

#20 User is offline   Vandervecken 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 09-November 16

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:55 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

Is the government comprised of the citizenry?

Not for the purposes of the Bill of Rights, no. Those are there to protect us from government's heavy hand.

---------

I don't think organized gun owners could possibly take on the armed forces today, no matter their numbers. What would citizens do against helicopters? Heavy artillery? Real armored vehicles? Air support? Cruise missiles? There was nothing like that power disparity 180+ years ago. Technically rebelling citizens could even make their own artillery, if they had to! In effect, armed citizens did beat the standing army of America--they beat the British. It might have happened again. Now, I see no way.

I agree that, despite the fact that our standing military is more separated from the citizenry than ever it used to be, you'd be looking at mass defections in the event of such a conflict. Our best protection against that happening is the soldiery, not our arms. But I can see how it at least makes low-harassment by government much harder, and perhaps makes them think twice at times.

This post has been edited by Vandervecken: 28 April 2017 - 02:02 PM

0

Share this topic:


  • 33 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users