Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Daedalus X
Student
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

Post #1

Post by Daedalus X »

In another thread a member made the following claim.
Danmark wrote: You continue to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. The 2d amendment was not created to facilitate armed rebellion against the very country the Constitution created. As it says itself, it was created so a 'well regulated militia' could protect the State.
Question for debate, why did the founders create the second amendment?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 19382
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 2457 times
Been thanked: 1623 times

Re: Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

Post #31

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Grunt0311 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:16 am The first thing the left cries when a felon they made it easy to be released from jail uses a weapon is more gun control.
And that, folks, is why the second amendment.

:roll:
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

Grunt0311
Banned
Banned
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:37 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

Post #32

Post by Grunt0311 »

Lol, you got the point !

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 19382
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 2457 times
Been thanked: 1623 times

Re: Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

Post #33

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Grunt0311 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:17 pm Lol, you got the point !
Whoosh!
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re:

Post #34

Post by 2ndRateMind »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:12 pm
While I'm not worried about Alabama attacking another state but I am worried about the Federal government abusing their power and forcing states to comply.
Even a well-regulated state militia does not have a snowball's chance in hell if it ever came to outright conflict with the Federal Government. So that argument does not stand scrutiny.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re:

Post #35

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:19 pm
Obviously banning guns would have to take into account that criminals will not surrender their guns ...
That is not our experience in the UK. Our last school massacre was in 1996 at Dunblane, after which there was a concerted popular movement (the Snowdrop Campaign) to ban hand guns, the perpetrator's weapon of choice. Mostly, privately held hand guns were handed in. A few were kept in the community for crime related reasons, but the police come down on the miscreants like a ton of bricks.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 754 times
Been thanked: 451 times

Re: Re:

Post #36

Post by Purple Knight »

2ndRateMind wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:31 pmthe police come down on the miscreants like a ton of bricks
In America this almost never happens. There's a respect for the rule breaker - he is seen as above the cut, extraordinary, and cool. The rule follower in contrast, is seen as lame, a tattletale, a piece of trash who can only win when the law steps in and intervenes to help him win. The rule follower protects the rule breaker. Enforcement is universally seen as an impingement on the rights of the rule breaker to break rules - rights which he has earned by being cool. Thus, if enforcement is suggested, everyone, including the rule follower, will stand against it. The rule follower doesn't wish for a system change that will advantage him; he likes the system and seeks to one day become the sleek, cool, savvy, charismatic rule breaker who is loved by all.

You would need enforcement and here, you wouldn't get it. People would riot. They will eagerly vote for more and more gun restrictions and even confiscations, as long as there is not real enforcement.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Re:

Post #37

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:21 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:31 pmthe police come down on the miscreants like a ton of bricks
In America this almost never happens. There's a respect for the rule breaker...

...You would need enforcement and here, you wouldn't get it. People would riot. They will eagerly vote for more and more gun restrictions and even confiscations, as long as there is not real enforcement.
Interesting. I blame Hollywood.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 754 times
Been thanked: 451 times

Re: Re:

Post #38

Post by Purple Knight »

2ndRateMind wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:49 pm Interesting. I blame Hollywood.
There's something very, very right with recognising Hollywood as a supreme piece of that puzzle. I think it first merely reflected that adulation for the rule breaker, and then came to magnify it to such a warped degree that every rebel must be in the right, everyone who stands up and says no to anything must be correct regardless of why, and every existing institution must be evil and in need of extinguishing.

You can't have a country based in rebellion and not have this happen at least a little.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Re:

Post #39

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:06 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:49 pm Interesting. I blame Hollywood.
There's something very, very right with recognising Hollywood as a supreme piece of that puzzle. I think it first merely reflected that adulation for the rule breaker, and then came to magnify it to such a warped degree that every rebel must be in the right, everyone who stands up and says no to anything must be correct regardless of why, and every existing institution must be evil and in need of extinguishing.

You can't have a country based in rebellion and not have this happen at least a little.
I have a lot of sympathy for rebels, having been one most of my life. But I think one needs be careful about what one rebels about, and discriminate between 'good' and 'bad' rebellions. When the victims of rebellions are liable to be innocent school children, I think one needs to sit down and ask oneself some serious questions, such as, is this a rebellion I actually want?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 754 times
Been thanked: 451 times

Re:

Post #40

Post by Purple Knight »

Clownboat wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:36 am
But the present state of things where children are gunned down as collateral damage in drive-by gang shootings can not be allowed to continue.
Drive by shootings are illegal already. (They are not allowed).

Consider guns. Law abiding citizens like myself would give up our guns. I fear that those committing drive-bys will be unaffected by taking away my hunting rifle and shotgun though. I would think that they will continue to do what they already do even though it is currently not allowed.
It's a matter of having a lot of people running around who will do something, and as consequence of that, having to make it so they can't, which is always some great loss of freedom. It has nothing to do with guns really.

It's just a natural thing that the nastier the world is, the more people get away with, the tighter the laws are going to become, and the further in advance you have to ban things, to have them actually not happen. If someone has a gun they can shoot someone, and all you can do about it is punish them. We then must rely on punishment as a deterrent for the people who don't necessarily want to follow the law (of which there will always be some) to fall in line out of fear of said punishment.

Back in the 1990's when the X-Men comic (from the 60's) became a cartoon, it was obvious to everyone, including me, that mutant collars were horrible, and that people should not be robbed of their powers because of what they might do with them. And it works as an analogy for gun control. Any flaws in that analogy are minor and nitpicky. I might have to suffer the inconvenience or even injury or death of climbing on grocery store shelves without my telekinesis, and likewise someone might suffer or even reasonably die because they didn't have a gun.

Will I probably die either way? No. And that's actually why you don't mess with the status quo. Benjamin Franklin had it wrong. Nobody sacrifices freedom to buy safety - safety actually buys freedom, but the safety doesn't get used up in the process; it's a wellspring. When you don't expect to die tomorrow because you trust the people around you not to kill you, everyone becomes freer. But when the safety evaporates, so too does the freedom. Back then everyone took the analogy's good work for granted because they didn't think they would die.

It all comes back to punishment, and something Jordan Peterson talks about which is that people doing things like school shootings don't have an investment in the society. There is a new underclass who knows from the time they're in high school that their best hope for the future is to never have a mate, never afford to raise a family, never own their own home, and work a dead-end job sinking further into debt each day. Sixty years ago poor people had houses, they just had tiny and/or undesirable houses, but today working people not only have no houses, they have debt. They have less than nothing. And people with no future (if they're smart) become dangerous, because the people teasing and abusing them have a lot to lose... but they don't.

A good society must therefore give all people an investment in that society, that they also would have something to lose, and it must also be willing to have them actually lose it if they go about gunning people down.

Post Reply