1. Get Gear'd Up! Enter to WIN $1000 in gear!

    Please Click Here for full details and to enter. You will need to be registered and logged in to view the details and to participate.

    Thanks and good luck to everyone

2nd Amendment Effectiveness

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Terry_P, Aug 15, 2010.

  1. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    NH
    I see the original purpose of the second amendment as dual in nature: (1) to keep the government(s) from taking from the citizen their right to defend themselves and to enable the citizens to use force to overthrow a despotic government and (2)allowing the states to form militia's with their armed citizens for the defense of the country and their sovereignty. The intent was to serve as a check on the power of federal government.

    My question is: If I am right in my simplistic understanding then is the second amendment still effective in it's original intent or has it morphed into only the right for us to protect ourselves from each other. In other words we no longer have the means or the will to resist a despotic government and likely have been that way since the Civil War. Our only means of uprising is at the ballot box and that is being muted by voter fraud, a welfare state and attempts to expand the voting public with amnesty for those in this country illegally. In short they realize we can no longer effectively forcefully resist and now is the time to close the loop.

    It's just a theory and certainly not a very pleasant one and I'm not sure I believe it even though I came up with it over a cup of tea. What say you?
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2010
  2. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    195
    I agree with you. The 2nd was to ensure that the Civil War could occur. Jefferson would have had no problem a civil war, but I doubt he would have approved of The Civil War. (Which was not a true civil war as the South had no desire to control the whole country.) The South looked at it more as a war of liberation from an oppressive sovereign. The North had the desire to retain control of the South and so invaded. The South merely wanted a "divorce."
    Somehow, I don't think ole Tom would have approved of the North's actions.
    I would say that the ability to excercise the primary purpose of the 2nd Amen. has been abolished after the Civil War. We used to have the sword and the vote, now we only have the vote.
    You've nailed it, excellent analysis. The 2nd Amen. now is taken to mean protection from others, not the right to secede or to resist a tryannical federal government.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Says Waiting Period in CA Violates The Second Amendment Aug 25, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum G.O.A. Pens bozo A Letter Telling Him To Get The 2nd Amendment Right On Website Aug 6, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd. Amendment .... Right, or Privilege May 17, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Guards 'Right of Resistance and Self-Preservation' Apr 27, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Modify The 2nd Amendment ......... Feb 22, 2014

Share This Page