Faxmonkey wrote:

Minister X wrote:* That's Leon Trostsky

The lack of hair, i think, makes that Wladimir Iljitsch Uljanow

Hey, you're right. I did an image search on Trotsky and didn't give it a second thought. I was actually looking for the one of Trotsky (?) in a similar pose, haranguing a crowd while holding, I think, a pamphlet in his hand. That's always struck me as a prototypical image of incitement. Or is that also Lenin?

One quick clarification - when I used the word "theoretically" I wasn't using it the way it's often used - to cast doubt on something - i.e. theoretically one man could have built the entire Brooklyn Bridge. I meant that the practical/political basis for the 2nd was one thing, while the theoretical basis for it, meaning its ideological underpinnings, were another. I was not trying to minimize the importance of the ideological underpinnings.

PS: the position of the founding fathers regarding the 2nd is not "crystal clear". There's precious little discussion about it recorded and plenty of room for historical inquiry and discussion. And I don't think it's right to demean someone's legitimacy regarding inquiry into the US Constitution simply because they don't live in the USA. Our constitution is a world-important document and has been studied by scholars from Montreal to Madagascar.

Tom, do you believe that the understanding of the constitution must be from the actual words written down?
If so, start by quoting from the second amendment where it allows armed acts of insurrection.

In the quotations you've quoted a couple do attempt to position the 2nd amendment as a right to armed insurrection.
I'd forgotten Trent Coxe. But then he was the kind of guy who waffled on a lot of things...
I think Patrick Henry's quotation was long before the Constitution was written.
Most of the rest are about gun ownership but don't describe the use of guns in insurrection against the lawful government of the US. Excepting Jefferson.
and Jefferson is all over the map. Re read his last quotation and don't tell me that he's describing a situation of perpetual armed conflict. All it takes is for an armed minority to adjudge that a democratic government has become "tyrannical" and they feel they have the right to violently rebel.
And Jefferson summarizes the futility of his logic in his last line " The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws ..."
he's saying that if they had only won, they'd be right. Might makes right.

That is the antithesis of a democratically elected government.
The actions of the founders in putting down the Whiskey rebellion, Shays Rebellion and the absence of any language justifying gun ownership as a "protection against tyranny", or any language detailing the right to "armed resistance against the government"
are evidence that the use of arms against the government was never a right. And always illegal.

What Trent Coxe does, and others to this day, is reinterpret what was actually written. Past commentary intended to imply that the words written mean more than they actually do.

You yourself point out the absolute contradiction in the position you hold when you said:

We have the right to own guns in part to protect ourselves from a government that gets out of hand, while it may certainly be illegal to do so,

GMTom wrote:George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

It would seem Ricky is saying this was the motivation behind the Constitution: to enslave the people! However, Mason opposed the passage of the Constitution IF the Bill of Rights were not passed also.

As I've said, the Articles were acknowledged as having too weak and ineffectual a central government. The Constitution was, as Ricky points out, a response to this weakness. However, it was not an effort to subjugate and disarm the American people. The Founders wanted a better balance. The Bill of Rights was meant as a counterweight to a stronger federal government. It was to protect the individual against the State and not, as Ricky has proposed, to protect the State from the individual.

A couple of ancient quotes that seem appropriate:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est." ("A sword is never a killer; it is a tool in the killer's hands.") -- Seneca (Lucius Annaes Seneca "the youngeer", ca. 4 BC - 65 AD)

steve

However, it was not an effort to subjugate and disarm the American people.

Never said that.
I said that the reason for arming the populace was not that the populace should have the means to rise in armed opposition to the government.

steve

as Ricky has proposed, to protect the State from the individual.

never said that either.
Said that the new constitution was written largely in response to armed insurrections.
Which reinforces the first statement, that preserving the means for armed insurrection was not the goal of the 2nd Amendment.
If it was, that right would have been granted. It wasn't.

Tom, do you believe that the understanding of the constitution must be from the actual words written down?
If so, start by quoting from the second amendment where it allows armed acts of insurrection.

not at all, what IS quite clear however is the feeling of the time. I posted only some quotes that showed a clear connection to their thoughts. There are more quotes and there are plenty of writings showing a tremendous distrust for any standing military. No, what they wrote in that one sentence can be read many different ways but what they felt is in fact quite clear, no doubt about that. You try spinning these quotes to suit your position, you failed on each and every attempt. The one I thought was funny was the one made before it was written, like that somehow changed his perception? If anything that one shows how he felt when drafting that amendment.

as far as the legality, the entire American Revolution was an illegal act, to claim it is illegal therefore can't be the case is hogwash pure and simple. The distrust for any nation to become tyrannical was great, the ability to rise up against tyranny is what was required, of course it would be illegal ....no kidding

and Ricky, I have pointed out numerous quotes why you are wrong, part of the reason to arm the populace is in fact to counter any possible tyrannical government. You have shown zero evidence of your own, nothing but guesswork. Please show how they did not intend this to be the case, I have proven my case, you have failed to prove yours.

You read things and cherry pick what you like, you claim most of the quotes given support simple gun ownership and not a way to defend from a government out of control. I beg to differ, did you bother to read them?

rickyp wrote:steve

However, it was not an effort to subjugate and disarm the American people.

Never said that.
I said that the reason for arming the populace was not that the populace should have the means to rise in armed opposition to the government.

Which I never said. If you want to attack Sharon Angle, feel free. I've not supported armed opposition to the government.

steve

as Ricky has proposed, to protect the State from the individual.

never said that either.
Said that the new constitution was written largely in response to armed insurrections.

So, it was to protect the State from the individual or mob?

The new Constitution was written not in direct response to the Shays Rebellion. It was written because the Articles were ineffectual. Wiki:

America under the articles

The peace treaty left the United States independent and at peace but with an unsettled governmental structure. The Articles envisioned a permanent confederation, but granted to the Congress—the only federal institution—little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced. There was no president and no national court. The Articles of Confederation were weak and did not give a strong political or economic base for the newly formed nation.[17]

Although historians generally agree that the Articles were too weak to hold the fast-growing nation together, they do give credit to the settlement of the western issue, as the states voluntarily turned over their lands to national control.

By 1783, with the end of the British blockade, the new nation was regaining its prosperity. However, trade opportunities were restricted by the mercantilism of the British and French empires. The ports of the British West Indies were closed to all staple products which were not carried in British ships. France and Spain established similar policies. Simultaneously, new manufacturers faced sharp competition from British products which were suddenly available again. Political unrest in several states and efforts by debtors to use popular government to erase their debts increased the anxiety of the political and economic elites which had led the Revolution. The apparent inability of the Congress to redeem the public obligations (debts) incurred during the war, or to become a forum for productive cooperation among the states to encourage commerce and economic development, only aggravated a gloomy situation. In 1786-87 the Shay's Rebellion, an uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts against the state court system, threatened the stability of state government.

The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.

When Adams went to London in 1785 as the first representative of the United States, he found it impossible to secure a treaty for unrestricted commerce. Demands were made for favors and there was no assurance that individual states would agree to a treaty. Adams stated it was necessary for the States to confer the power of passing navigation laws to Congress, or that the States themselves pass retaliatory acts against Great Britain. Congress had already requested and failed to get power over navigation laws. Meanwhile, each State acted individually against Great Britain to little effect. When other New England states closed their ports to British shipping, Connecticut hastened to profit by opening its ports.

By 1787 Congress was unable to protect manufacturing and shipping. State legislatures were unable or unwilling to resist attacks upon private contracts and public credit. Land speculators expected no rise in values when the government could not defend its borders nor protect its frontier population.[18]

The idea of a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation grew in favor. Alexander Hamilton realized while serving as Washington's top aide that a strong central government was necessary to avoid foreign intervention and allay the frustrations due to an ineffectual Congress. Hamilton led a group of like-minded nationalists, won Washington's endorsement, and convened the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention to meet in Philadelphia to remedy the long-term crisis.

Clearly, the goal of the Constitution was to make the States one country, rather than 13. It was not some kind of ham-handed response to rebellion.

Which reinforces the first statement, that preserving the means for armed insurrection was not the goal of the 2nd Amendment.
If it was, that right would have been granted. It wasn't.

Who has suggested armed insurrection is protected by the Second Amendment? And, no, I don't mean find some kook holed up in a log cabin, I mean during this discussion--who has suggested the 2nd Amendment was written so that we can revolt?

That said, what Tom said is right--an armed populace does (or at least did before the government had uber-weapons) keep the government honest.

yet MORE quotes showing exactly what the feeling was at the time, nothing wishy washy, very clear intent!

Noah Webster
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

Gazette of the United States
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America"

James Madison
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

Elbridge Gerry
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Richard Henry Lee
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

William Rawle
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

Thomas Jefferson (the full quote)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Patrick Henry
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"

Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Aristotle as quoted by John Trenchard
"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."

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

Timothy Dwight
"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country."

James Madison
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it."

You still want to pursue your position Ricky?
Maybe, just maybe you might be a bit misguided by your lefty websites that try to tell you otherwise?

Protection from a government that might get out of control, should the need ever arise, it was our duty to be able to rebel, just as the Colonists did to the crown. In Europe at the time men were not allowed to own guns and they were repressed, this was never to be allowed and the ABILITY to revolt must be maintained, a check on an evil government. Not a right to rebel but the ability should it become necessary and in doing so, possibly would prevent this from ever being an issue in the first place.


...and remember, I'm in favor of limited gun controls, I have no guns, I do not like guns. But I respect our rights and understand the reasons for them, I understand my history. Stick to Canada's history, I too know some of your history but I will bow to your probably knowing better about the Great White North than I.

steve

Who has suggested armed insurrection is protected by the Second Amendment?

Tom

We have the right to own guns in part to protect ourselves from a government that gets out of hand

,

steve

That said, what Tom said is right--an armed populace does (or at least did before the government had uber-weapons) keep the government honest.

In what way? So that police officers and federal agents always need fear that the person they are encountering has decided that today is the day he stands up to tyrrany. (What he has delusionally thought was tyranny)

The History of the 2nd amendment
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html
...In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.[153] Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they disagreed as to whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national government to control the danger of oppression.[154] Second, the Antifederalists believed a bill of rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee certain rights.[155] The Federalists argued that such a bill of rights was unnecessary because the power of the federal government was restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution.[156] There was no need to (p.1028)provide exceptions to powers not granted.[157] Further, the Federalists argued that providing exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could encourage a claim that powers not expressly stated had been granted.[158] Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.[159]


Blame it on our forefathers, but make no mistake, this was most certainly their aim!
The individual whack Job could indeed decide to stand up to what he feels is tyranny, just as an individual might have stood up to England in 1775. It took until 1776 to get a large enough group to stand up as one. A defenseless population would have no recourse, a well defended one, when answering the call of freedom, that group can stand up to the army. (see Libya today)
We put up with the occasional one-offs of course, but the ability to act as one is not and was not lost on the framers of our constitution. You need not like it, You need not think it still valid today, but you simply can not pretend this was not one of several reasons to allow the populace to own their own firearms.

and Ricky, your facts are non-existent, nothing but your personal feelings please dispute the facts if you can or change your position. You have utterly failed to make your point.
Move on to reasons why we should amend the constitution or to reasons why this is no longer a valid concern (some try to point to the national Guard as now providing this same deterrent) you can have at least some wiggle room there, the assertion that the founding fathers simply did not have this in mind is just so incredibly wrong, your failure to let go is making you look worse than normal.

Tom, quoted from your article from guncite.com:

My purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the Second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent.

You depend upon an analysis that "attempts to define its original intent".Fascinating. In order to determine the intent, acres of ink are left arguing back and forth. But, the words actually contained in the 2nd amendment don't confer any right to armed insurrection, do they? Since you've already admitted that such an act would be illegal I'll assume your agreement.
The National Guard supplanted the Militia organizations in 1903. Today, there are organizations that still assert that the militia refereed to in the 2nd amendment is the entire populace of a state (male between 17 and 45?) and that they hold the right to assert their opposition to a tyrannical government by violence.
And just like your author they depend on their interpretation of the Intent of the Framers (not the actual language) and their own definition of tyranny.
Thats a dangerous interpretation of the Intent of the Framers. And assumes much beyond the actual words on the page.
The anti-Federalists lost most of the votes in the Constitutional congress Tom. And yet its they who most of the quotations you rely upon come from.

Minister X wrote:

Faxmonkey wrote:

Minister X wrote:* That's Leon Trostsky

The lack of hair, i think, makes that Wladimir Iljitsch Uljanow

Hey, you're right. I did an image search on Trotsky and didn't give it a second thought. I was actually looking for the one of Trotsky (?) in a similar pose, haranguing a crowd while holding, I think, a pamphlet in his hand. That's always struck me as a prototypical image of incitement. Or is that also Lenin?

I think it's Lenin in that one as well:
Often there are pictures of Lenin waving his hat around.

Still, I am shocked that a "former communist" can't tell Lenin from Trotsky. Or indeed a current anticommunist.

PS: the position of the founding fathers regarding the 2nd is not "crystal clear". There's precious little discussion about it recorded and plenty of room for historical inquiry and discussion. And I don't think it's right to demean someone's legitimacy regarding inquiry into the US Constitution simply because they don't live in the USA. Our constitution is a world-important document and has been studied by scholars from Montreal to Madagascar.

Indeed. It's also based in part on earlier documents, and so does not stand alone at all - it's part of a continuum. It is also the basis for many subsequent republican constitutions - although rarely with the same level of differentiation between the Federal and State/Province/Region powers.