Current Events > The second amendment is not about defending yourself from the government

(+) Yeah! (+)

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That "free state" is the government.

Necessary to the security of a free state.

It means the guns are meant for you to help protect the government.
---

Literally who cares

A free state

If the government is tyrannical, it's not a free state.

Hence, defending yourself from the government.

/topic
---

frozenshock posted...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That "free state" is the government.

Necessary to the security of a free state.

It means the guns are meant for you to help protect the government.

Yes, protect the government. From foreign invasion or internal tyranny.

So to protect yourself from the government.
---

VectorChaos posted...

A free state

If the government is tyrannical, it's not a free state.

Hence, defending yourself from the government.

/topic

No, it's defending the government from the indians and brits.

It's not a free state if the brits take over.
---

I always put it into the historical context when it was written.

The Bill of Rights were a result in large part to the Federalist debate the US Constitution caused.

I think the 2nd Amendment was in part because of anti-federalist sentiments, as well as a reality of national defense in early America.

Basically in 1784 the Continental Army was disbanded. At that point the US Army was a regiment on the Western Front and an artillery battery at the West Point arsenal.

Constitution was effective in 1789, Bill of Rights 1791. 1792 the regiment on the Western Front gets a bit more organized, but defense was still going to be heavily militia dependent. In order to train quickly having the people familiar with arms would be beneficial. Additionally a state militia could potentially stand up to the federal government if it became tyrannical. So yes, I think the intent was in part to protect the US, but there was also intent there to give individual rights.
---

frozenshock posted...

That "free state" is the government.

[citation needed]
---

KILBOTz posted...

I always put it into the historical context when it was written.

Also consider how it was well-understood that in Europe, citizens owning guns was very much frowned upon in order to among other things ensure that the monarchy stayed in power with little resistance. An armed citizenry was seen as further antidote against tyranny.
---

If I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around.

D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?
---

The phrase "security of a free State" meant "security of a free polity," not security of each of the several States.

It is true that the term "State" elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase "security of a free State" and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a "`free country'" or free polity.

Moreover, the other instances of "state" in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States"each state," "several states," "any state," "that state," "particular states," "one state," "no state." And the presence of the term "foreign state" in Article I and Article III shows that the word "state" did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be "necessary to the security of a free State." See 3 Story 1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary. Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
---

You were really bored if you made this topic creator, kinda sad and laughable.
---

When and who decides the government is tyrannical?

I reckon it was pretty tyrannical to put kids in cages, does that mean it's your right to shoot government officials?
---

Offworlder1 posted...

You were really bored if you made this topic creator, kinda sad and laughable.

Who do you think is more of a threat, Thomas Jefferson or Sitting Bull?
---

Deez nuts
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&t=

Is all I can think of when reading that.
---

I hate those College Humor videos. The entire video is one joke repeated with different words for the whole runtime. The freedom fighter or whoever appearing is funny but after that the video literally coasts off it
---

It's about a right to own weapons.

The free state is actually the country itself, which is not the same thing as the government. Under normal circumstances, you would be right, but when the government starts working against its citizens, this allows us the authority to defend the free state.
---

The 2nd Amendment was written by people who had just defended themselves from a tyrannical government, with their guns.

The 2nd Amendment isnt about defending yourself from a tyrannical government, with your guns.

/liberal logic off
---

LightHawKnight posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&t=

Those videos by college humor are some of the most ignorant and insulting pieces of shit on the internet, gun owners do not give a damn about what race you are.
---