• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
42,380
Reaction score
29,578
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Thanks to @bongsaway for the idea of the format...

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

Congress won't do anything. The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase. Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.
 
The Second Amendment was written for a very narrow reason. To keep the Federal Government from disarming State Militias. That is all.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States, who were free to enact 100% gun confiscation if they had wished. And they did, in regards to non-whites for the most part, who, at best, had limited access to firearms.

And it took until 2010 for the Supreme Court to bother incorporating the Second Amendment against the States.

No, the President should not grab power, whether that be the current twit or any future Republican or Democrat. The Presidency should be neutered, not the other way around.

But the Supreme Court will not always stay as it is and a future court will likely narrow the decisions of the current court and could even go so far as to disincorporate the Second Amendment by overturning MacDonald.

Time will tell.
 
Some argue that the real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the framers knew the difference — see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that… and we all should be too.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason for the Second Amendment’s ratification was to preserve slave patrol militias.
truthout.org
 
The Founding Fathers acknowledged that everyone has a natural right to defend themselves and that's why they insisted that "the right to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed".

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

Clearly, they meant for ALL peaceable citizens to have arms - not only Militia.
 
And once again, the authoritarian nature of the gun control proponents is revealed.
 
the answer to Jefferson's question "What country can preserve its liberties ..... " is EVERY civilised country.
 
I don't think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned that US society would turn into the cesspool of morality that it has become.
 
They wrote the amendment so that power would be in the citizen's hands. They understood freedom was dangerous if you want to live in the safety move to North Korea.
 
Sweden said:
the answer to Jefferson's question "What country can preserve its liberties ..... " is EVERY civilised country.
Click to expand...
You mean those “civilized” countries like the UK where you can be arrested for a FB post?
 
Contemporaneous arguments for the second amendment are readily available so you can essentially ask them. I think they make even more sense today. This is one ai summary:

What were the contemporaneous arguments for the Second Amendment?

In the late 18th century, contemporaneous arguments for the Second Amendment focused on the vital role of a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. This view was heavily influenced by historical precedent and concerns about potential government overreach.
Key Arguments:
  • Check on federal power: Many in the founding generation feared that a strong federal government, with a standing army, could become tyrannical. A well-armed militia, composed of citizens, was seen as a way to counterbalance this potential threat.
  • Providing for common defense: Citizen militias were considered essential for responding to invasions, insurrections, and other emergencies, especially in times of war when a standing army might not be readily available.
  • Preventing the need for a large standing army: Arguments were made, like those by Alexander Hamilton, that a well-regulated militia could help eliminate the need for a large, potentially dangerous, professional army.
  • Historical precedent: The experience with the English Crown disarming its subjects to consolidate power influenced the framers' understanding of the importance of an armed citizenry. The English Bill of Rights in 1689 had codified the right of Protestants to have arms for their defense, prefiguring the American experience.
  • Self-preservation and resistance to oppression: The right to keep and bear arms was connected to the broader natural right of resistance and self-preservation, allowing citizens to defend themselves against oppression.
  • Codifying existing rights: The Second Amendment was viewed as codifying an individual right to firearm possession that was believed to preexist the Constitution, reflecting a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation".
 

So should it be repealed? Or amended? What are your ideas?
 
Lursa said:
So should it be repealed? Or amended? What are your ideas?
Click to expand...

You directed the question at the OP?

But I will offer my two cents anyway.

I would not modify or change the Second Amendment.

But I would NOT use it as a basis for RKBA.

Instead I would find RKBA as an unenumerated right, emanating from the common law right of self defense, further emanating from the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property.

I would drop the Second Amendment from RKBA jurisprudence and instead proceed under the Ninth Amendment in the context of self defense.
 
I wonder if guns were as fetishized then as they are today. did they have the symbolic power then that they have now.
 
There were arguments during the first constitutional Congress about whether there should be a Bill of Rights. I agree with you that all rights should be implied and not infringed but people like to interpret away rights the fact that there's spelled out and no uncertain terms has meant they've endured.
 
j brown's body said:
I wonder if guns were as fetishized then as they are today.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that they're fetishized on any significant level. But yeah they made this right they wrote the second amendment because they wanted everyone to be able to have all the guns they wanted including cannons
j brown's body said:
did they have the symbolic power then that they have now.
Click to expand...
They don't have symbolic power.
 
When you start off with a falsehood, you know the rest of your OP is in trouble.
It’s basic English composition and grammar. Every single court starting in 1858 has told you this.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Would you consider being shot in a dual violence?
Click to expand...

One of the founders did. Was that because they accepted it as a way to settle the disputes? Not sure what the example of Hamilton’s death in a duel has to do with the right to bear arms. But @Napoleon thinks it answers the question.
 

That sounds like a "process" and one I am not familiar with. Nor am I sure what the impact would be, what difference it would make in enforcement or legislation?
 
I suspect today's left wingers worry a whole lot more about the placement of a comma than the founders ever did.
 
Bullseye said:
I suspect today's left wingers worry a whole lot more about the placement of a comma than the founders ever did.
Click to expand...
The issue with a firearms is not that you have them it's that they don't. They want the power.

Have you ever heard someone call someone a Nazi for having a political disagreement this is not because they hate Nazis it's because they're jealous of the power they had in Nazi Germany. If they had that power they would be just as bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…