rickyp wrote:
You'll note that this "inherent right" is never explicitly specified. Nor is the rationale explicitly specifiied. As a strict constructionist I think you'll agree that "implying" something exists in the Constituion" can lead to "jurists legislating from the bench."

What other portions of the US Constitution do you believe require no implying? Or are you just picking and choosing?

and here's the thing about that logic
Maybe the whites would not have held control for so long if they had no guns to control the black minority (in both SA and USA) but the logic is fatally flawed in that this simply points out how those who lack the ability to arm themselves are more easily oppressed. Your own "logic" shows how the government and her standing army could easily keep their position since the oppressed are not armed and can not defend themselves. Unless you want to disarm the military, you simply have helped prove the entire logic behind the second amendment and the reason to arm the populace.

Thanks for agreeing!

Grenn

I have never heard that. State your source. Considering the 2nd Amendment was written 74 years earlier than the Civil War, I would love to see that source

.

Wills, Garry (2000). Saul, Cornell. ed. Whose Right to Bear Arms did the Second Amendment Protect? Archduke also quoted this I think. There are plenty of others.

Whats the 74 year period have to do with anything?

rickyp wrote:A right is a protection. When someone invokes their "rights" a court protects them from harm based on their protected rights.
That can never happen with your "inherent right". Therefore it doesn't really exist. The day someone conducts an armed resistance against govenrment agents of the US, and successfully defends themselves in court by claiming the inherent right to rebellion - thats the day you actually have a right.
Until then you have a belief.

Yeah no. As much as I may think Thomas Jefferson was a niave hypocrite, there are some things he got right. Such as the Declaration of Independence which says in part

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

empahsis added

tom
Maybe the whites would not have held control for so long if they had no guns to control the black minority (in both SA and USA) but the logic is fatally flawed in that this simply points out how those who lack the ability to arm themselves are more easily oppressed. Your own "logic" shows how the government and her standing army could easily keep their position since the oppressed are not armed and can not defend themselves. Unless you want to disarm the military, you simply have helped prove the entire logic behind the second amendment and the reason to arm the populace.

Well, since the 2nd amendment was, in your mind, about defending against tyranny - when in reality it protected and helped preserve the tyranny of slavery - I'd say that your logic needs some thinking about. If the 2nd was about defending against tyranny wouldn't the slaves have been given guns?

How did all those eastern european countries end communism without violence of any significant level?
Arms in the hands of citizens are not essential to finding freedom. Generally when the standing army is made up of the populace there is a limit to which the standing army will go in supporting an unpopular and oppressive govenrment against a very popular citizens uprising.
Witness Egypt. Tunisia.Bahrain...
There are exceptions. But generally in those instances something else is going on. In Libya, there's tribal conflcit and the use of mercenaries.In Viet nam, which Archduke mentioned, it was a war against foreigners. (Chinese, then French, then Japanese, then French against and finally Americans) . Ireland? The english...

Tom, remember the central theme of what i'm saying. The rationale given for the 2nd Amendment is the most damaging. (Not so much the right to bear arms)

If the 2nd amendment had simply said something like: "Citizens have the right to bear arms for personal protection and to be ready to be called to the militia for the mutual defence of the nation".
You wouldn't have the reverence given to "anti-government" attitudes. You wouldn't have the arrogance of extremists believeing that they can identify tyranny as they see fit and have been given the approval to act on their apprehensions... Essentially Jeffersons' idea of occassional armed conflcit is worshipped. Thats bizarre. To believe that the Constituion wasn't strong enough to ensure that democracy and freedom could thrive and that only ad hoc military resistance could do so speaks very ill of the construction of the constitution. If it is so flimsy then what was the point?

You're the lawyer Archduke
Does the Declaration of Independence affect Constitutional Law?

Sorry Ricky, you continue to reinforce our position and hurt your own. Blacks were not allowed to own guns, they were not citizens but property, no kidding they were not allowed to own guns or they would revolt against their unjust position. Giving them arms would have given them that opportunity to rebel. (unlawful but still right, you argue if it were illegal it could never be right, are you suggesting slavery was "right"? Your argument that they should have had the right to bear arms would be correct, if they had any rights, your argument makes no sense.

You continue to pint to Egypt and Tunisia and Bahrain, etc.
These places revolted:
1. Only after several decades
2. Over 200 years after the US Constitution, in a different time, this was also pointed out as to how it fails as a good example.

Lastly, more opinions that are not based upon facts. Please provide some facts to support your opinions. Posing them as factual does not make it so.

rickyp wrote:You're the lawyer Archduke
Does the Declaration of Independence affect Constitutional Law?

Absolutely.

Can you provide some examples Archduke? When we've used the declaration in debates on this board, its previously been stated that it does not hold sway over the text of the Constitutional .

Tom, it wasn't that the blacks didn't have guns ...it was that the white slaveholders did. (Would they have suceeded in keeping slavery without their firearms?)
Regarding the recent revolutions: in the scheme of things, a despotic regime lasting a few decades is nothing. Slavery lasted in the US from the day it was settled till 1865 - in some places. The constitutional guarantee to possession of arms sustained this tyranny from 1789 to 1865.

EXACTLY!
White slave owners had guns, the black slaves did not. Had the slaves owned guns we may very well have had a revolt (a much deserved revolt albeit illegal one)
This is exactly what we are trying to point out!

Change the situation only very slightly and you agree with the position we are pointing out and exactly as was meant by the second amendment...

White slave owners = the Government
The white slave owners were tyrannical over the slaves, the slaves had every moral "right" to rebel even though it was illegal.
Take a government that becomes tyrannical, they control the army and all the power. The people are not allowed to arm themselves and are at the mercy of that tyrannical government. The people may have a moral right to seek freedoms (of course it's illegal) and if armed, they can fight the authority to bring about that change. If no power, the government has free reign to get more and more corrupt and evil. The mere fact that the population is armed is like a nuclear detent of sorts, it keeps that government from ever traveling down that road of tyranny. The two positions are almost identical, can you maybe now see what we are getting at and why it was designed so? You really are in complete agreement and don't realize it, how is the situation different????

Tom, the 2nd amendment gave the slave holders their guns.
Without the guarantee of the 2nd amendment, the state could have denied them guns. How long would slavery have lasted>?

huh?
The second amendment gave all citizens the right to bear arms
Slaves were not citizens, had they been granted that right, slavery may have ended far sooner.
The right FOR ALL to bear arms allows freedom to exist, since slaves were excluded you only prove the point!

If we limit the freedom, then only the military has those arms and citizens are put in the same position as the slaves ...helpless.
You are in complete agreement, why can't you see this?

Tom,

What Ricky is trying to say is w/o the 2nd, the Federal Government could have restricted gun ownership. Then Southern whites would not have had guns thereby allowing slaves to successfully revolt instead of having to be freed by a civil war.

But the government would have intervened with the army (and their guns).
also, slavery was already a longstanding institution and was indeed controlled in part by guns, the second amendment didn't grant slave owners anything new, the 2nd assured this right would not be taken away. The 2nd didn't allow slavery to happen, it allowed it to continue. It would have still taken the civil war to force those changes. His point does nothing for his assertion.

His example though should point out exactly what COULD happen should a government turn bad and prove the rationale behind the 2nd. The arms are required to fight oppression/tyranny, or maybe you can argue times have changed, but it should be clear what could have happened at that time.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Tom,

What Ricky is trying to say is w/o the 2nd, the Federal Government could have restricted gun ownership. Then Southern whites would not have had guns thereby allowing slaves to successfully revolt instead of having to be freed by a civil war.

Yes, and without the First, speech could have been restricted, the press could have been controlled, and a specific religion could have been imposed.

Of course, you know this. Sadly, Ricky can't figure out that the Bill of Rights didn't give the government rights. It recognized the limits of government. Gun ownership is a right; not a gift from the government. Ricky consistently views this right through the wrong end of the telescope.