The purpose of the second amendment

View Poll Results: What is the intention of the 2A

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Combat/prevent invasion. Personal SD. Throw off the bonds of tyranny, should it materialize.

    66 98.51%
  • Combat/prevent invasion. Personal SD.

    1 1.49%
  • Personal SD.

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: The purpose of the second amendment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699

    The Purpose of the Second Amendment

    How many of you believe that the intention of the 2A is for self defense, protection against invasion and ultimately as a means to break the bonds of tyranny if it should ever materialize?

    -or-

    How many of you believe that the intention of the 2A is for self defense and protection against invasion.

    -or-

    How many of you believe that the 2A was only meant as a means for self defense?

    Votes are anonymous of course.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    I don't think anyone will vote for the other 2 options. Except for the regulated 2A members.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    I can't vote for any. I don't think the 2A was written to cover SD at all. I think it's main point was to keep the populace as well armed as the government. Protection from invasion was secondary and SD was off the map.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    How many of you believe that the intention of the 2A is for self defense, protection against invasion and ultimately as a means to break the bonds of tyranny if it should ever materialize?

    -or-

    How many of you believe that the intention of the 2A is for self defense and protection against invasion.

    -or-

    How many of you believe that the 2A was only meant as a means for self defense?

    Votes are anonymous of course.
    I don't care to remain anonymous so I will vote openly
    My vote is for the 2A is for self defense, protection against invasion and ultimately as a means to break the bonds of tyranny if it should ever materialize? But in this order
    ultimately as a means to break the bonds of tyranny if it should ever materialize, protection against invasion, self defense

  6. I believe the 2A states that the right to life, liberty and the protection of property is a God given right indowed to us by our Creator and not something a government can grant us. The SA does not grant this, our Creator does. The 2A say this right shall not be infringed upon.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I can't vote for any. I don't think the 2A was written to cover SD at all. I think it's main point was to keep the populace as well armed as the government. Protection from invasion was secondary and SD was off the map.
    I agree that SD was not part of 2A but I disagree with the invasion part. In the Federalist Papers and many other writings you find that there was not a lot of support for a standing army as primarily it was too expensive and not very effective in covering the vast area needed with the mode of transportation at the time. A primary concern was attacks by the Indians as well as invasion by the French. The concerns of the Spanish possibly attacking were not as strong but was later realized. The defense from attacks was the responsibility of the militia who had to be everywhere and had to be a well trained and equiped army. They were not expected to be just a bunch of farmers who ran out to fight the Indians or Spanish or even the English in some areas as an afterthought but be a prepared, organized group. If you take a look at the amount of land border that they were required to defend it was not that much less than what we have to defend today.

    As part of that it was that they did not ever want the populace to be unable to overthrow the government if that time arose. That is what they had just gotten through doing so it had to be on their minds and stated that in the part that says "Shall not be infringed". Some wanted a King for our leader but most realized that a King was not what the people wanted. When Washington refused to run for a third term he warned against having too much power and that stayed into place until the 1940's when we almost had one.

    The Second Amendment should have accomplished two things, and maybe would have if not for our almost constant wars since 1812. First it eliminated the need for a standing army. Technically we still do not have one but would anyone believe you if you said we didn't? Second it made sure that the populace would always be able to overthrow an unjust government if needed. That was attempted in 1860 but failed. So far both intentions of 2A have not met their desire and hopefully it will not be tested again. As for self or personal defense I don't think that was even a consideration as it was taken for granted and assumed by all that those were rights that could not be taken away and just a footnote if anything in the design of 2A.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Butner, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    362
    I disagree about self defense not being a part of the 2A. I feel it is a very integral component hidden in the 2A wording; "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon." The simple word "Bear" in "to keep and bear arms", to me. means to be able to defend yourself or your family using a firearm...
    MSgt, USAF (ret), Life Member - NRA, Life Member - NAHC,
    Life Member - NCOA, Member - USCCA, Member - NCGR,
    Member - Oathkeepers

  9. #8
    handgonnetoter Guest
    I think the 2nd Amendment is there to keep the other nine, in the Bill of Rights, viable. The 2nd has the teeth, just in case we the people have to bite the foot of tyranny as it tries to trample on the rest of the Bill of Rights.

  10. #9
    Exactly why "The Constitution is outmoded" Lib/Prog/Dem bunch are in a state of continuous warfare against the provisions of the 2nd. Ultimately they cannot firmly "control" the population knowing that roughly half the households in the US are armed (Legally. I wonder how many more, illegally?).

    Even if only 1% of gun owners get ticked off enough at the Government to go into a full rebellion.... how big an "underground" Army is THAT? Quarter million? Give or take?

    Enough to give even the most vapid of Congresscritter a moment of pause.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  11. #10
    I believe that there can be no security in a free state unless each person is secure in their person and property. That said,
    self-defense, defense from invasion and the prevention of a tyrannical government are all included in the statement that is the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution.
    Life Member GeorgiaCarry.org http://www.GeorgiaCarry.org

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast