Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Amendment needs a second look

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Second Amendment needs a second look

    Second Amendment needs a second look

    Editor, Townsman:

    I believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one of those provisions, like the Electoral College and the District of Columbia, which may have made sense in colonial America, but is obsolete today. The second amendment says: "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."

    It is the only article in the Bill of Rights where the Founding Fathers felt the need to explain why the people should have this particular right. All other rights are listed without explanation or justification - presumably because they were thought to be ‌inherent to a free society. The Second Amendment is different. It is a right born from necessity.

    In colonial times, every able-bodied man was expected to join a militia and supply their own arms. There was no dominant standing army or police force. The militia provided security from outside threats, as well as from criminals. The militias supplied the bulk of soldiers to the army during the Revolutionary War. But people feared a standing federal army, so after the war the bulk of security fell back to the old colonial militias.

    But as the U.S. grew during the 19th century, the old colonial militias largely disappeared and were replaced by federal armies. Professional police forces were created to enforce the law. The National Guard was eventually created to provide some of the services of the old militias, but it is mostly funded and armed by the federal government. The colonial-style militias became obsolete. As militias became obsolete, so did the rationale for the Second Amendment.

    To be clear, I am not saying that because the Second Amendment is based on an invalid rationale that no one should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I am just hoping that someday we can discard the notion that each and every person in a civilized society automatically has an inherent right to arm themselves. I believe that the people of each state should have more freedom to determine which individuals should keep and bear arms in their state.

    Andy Rouse

    5 Cattle Crossing

    Andover

    |
    Pat ------> NRA Lifetime Endowment Member #FAAFO

    #2
    Mr Rouse
    GFY.
    NRA Patron Life Member
    Caribou R&P Club Range Officer
    NRA RSO

    Comment


      #3
      You do not have permission to view this gallery.
      This gallery has 1 photos.

      Comment


        #4
        In this tard's evaluation, the Second Amendment exists to give the government the right to bear arms.
        Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

        Comment


          #5
          "It is the only article in the Bill of Rights where the Founding Fathers felt the need to explain why the people should have this particular right. All other rights are listed without explanation or justification - presumably because they were thought to be *inherent to a free society. The Second Amendment is different. It is a right born from necessity."

          Mr Rouse: Perhaps the founders specified the rationale precisely because it is so criticallly inherent to the survival of the ideals propogated by the founders that they deemed it necessary to single it out.

          Comment


            #6
            I hate that comma before "shall".
            Giza Development: Building and Renovating Pyramids of Distinction Since 2435 BC 631-427-1691 (Beware the Sea People)

            Comment


              #7
              I wonder if this guy realizes that the most important branch of the Gubment disagreed with him.

              He should read Heller and then McDonald.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Engineco54 View Post
                "It is the only article in the Bill of Rights where the Founding Fathers felt the need to explain why the people should have this particular right. All other rights are listed without explanation or justification - presumably because they were thought to be *inherent to a free society. The Second Amendment is different. It is a right born from necessity."

                Mr Rouse: Perhaps the founders specified the rationale precisely because it is so criticallly inherent to the survival of the ideals propogated by the founders that they deemed it necessary to single it out.
                Perhaps they felt the need to explain it so that generations later idiots like him would understand and not question it?
                I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
                I am armed out of love of those behind me.

                Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Every American male not in military service from age 16 - 75 is a standing member of the militia of their state, this dates back to 1775.
                  We're the ones expected to stand up and fight if America is invaded. He would probably just pee himself like they tell women to do if attacked.
                  It figures he's from MARYland. Read the Federalist Papers and get a clue, schmuck

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Let's just rewrite the damn thing to include everything these people want!
                    I mean what's the big deal? We'll just take out what they don't like and add what they do.
                    The First Ammendment, for instance, could be written "Say what you want, but don't hurt anyone's feelings or disagree with the government." Now isn't that simple and easy?
                    The Second Ammendment could be rewritten:
                    "The right of the people to bear arms shall be abridged as the government sees fit."
                    The Third Ammendment could say: "Housing is expensive, therefore every family shall house a serviceman and provide for his comforts." It's only fair, right?
                    The Fourth Ammendment should read: "A person had the right to be secure in their persons, houses and papers, except when it interferes with the government." Too many pesky laws about privacy and stuff...
                    The Fifth Ammendment is a doozy! It needs to read: "All persons shall be compelled to testify. If the first trial didn't go as planned the government can try and try again. Due process shall not be necessary if the government deems it not be. All property of the accused can be seized when the accused has been accused."

                    This seems what these idiots are hoping for...
                    SHADAP VARMINT!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Mad Russian View Post
                      Let's just rewrite the damn thing to include everything these people want!
                      I mean what's the big deal? We'll just take out what they don't like and add what they do.
                      The First Ammendment, for instance, could be written "Say what you want, but don't hurt anyone's feelings or disagree with the government." Now isn't that simple and easy?
                      The Second Ammendment could be rewritten:
                      "The right of the people to bear arms shall be abridged as the government sees fit."
                      The Third Ammendment could say: "Housing is expensive, therefore every family shall house a serviceman and provide for his comforts." It's only fair, right?
                      The Fourth Ammendment should read: "A person had the right to be secure in their persons, houses and papers, except when it interferes with the government." Too many pesky laws about privacy and stuff...
                      The Fifth Ammendment is a doozy! It needs to read: "All persons shall be compelled to testify. If the first trial didn't go as planned the government can try and try again. Due process shall not be necessary if the government deems it not be. All property of the accused can be seized when the accused has been accused."

                      This seems what these idiots are hoping for...
                      Don't forget the right to a job, a home, an education, food, healthcare, a vacation, a lobster dinner on their birthday....
                      I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
                      I am armed out of love of those behind me.

                      Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Paté View Post
                        Editor, Townsman...... I believe that the people of each state should have more freedom to determine which individuals should keep and bear arms in their state.
                        I believe you are a dunce.
                        NRA LIFE | SAF | GOA | UTAH / NH / FL / PA / NY CCW | APPLESEED RIFLEMAN | RSO | FREEPORT R&R | NSCA | NYSRPA

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Paté View Post
                          Second Amendment needs a second look

                          Editor, Townsman:

                          I believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one of those provisions, like the Electoral College and the District of Columbia, which may have made sense in colonial America, but is obsolete today. The second amendment says: "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."

                          It is the only article in the Bill of Rights where the Founding Fathers felt the need to explain why the people should have this particular right. All other rights are listed without explanation or justification - presumably because they were thought to be *inherent to a free society. The Second Amendment is different. It is a right born from necessity.

                          In colonial times, every able-bodied man was expected to join a militia and supply their own arms. There was no dominant standing army or police force. The militia provided security from outside threats, as well as from criminals. The militias supplied the bulk of soldiers to the army during the Revolutionary War. But people feared a standing federal army, so after the war the bulk of security fell back to the old colonial militias.

                          But as the U.S. grew during the 19th century, the old colonial militias largely disappeared and were replaced by federal armies. Professional police forces were created to enforce the law. The National Guard was eventually created to provide some of the services of the old militias, but it is mostly funded and armed by the federal government. The colonial-style militias became obsolete. As militias became obsolete, so did the rationale for the Second Amendment.

                          To be clear, I am not saying that because the Second Amendment is based on an invalid rationale that no one should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I am just hoping that someday we can discard the notion that each and every person in a civilized society automatically has an inherent right to arm themselves. I believe that the people of each state should have more freedom to determine which individuals should keep and bear arms in their state.

                          Andy Rouse

                          5 Cattle Crossing

                          Andover

                          |
                          You, Mr. Douch bag, have every right in the world to not protect and defend yourself and your family (unless they are too young or incompetent, then they should make that choice themselves). What you do not have is any fucking business deciding whether I may or may not protect mine.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            "There was no dominant standing army or police force."

                            Dude never heard of the fucking Red Coats?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              nope, he re-wrote history to fit his agenda , redcoats worked for England anyway not the colonies so therefore the colonies had no standing army or police force ( sarcasm ) I will consider him a no vote for Trump

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X