Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Nezmot, I don't agree with that interpretation at all. Nowhere in the text of the 2nd Amendment makes referrence to the armed overthrow of the government by militias. Note the ONLY thing that the right to bear arms is designed to protect - a "free state". Not the people. I could quible on the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, but I think that it's perfectly clear (to me at least) that the framers NEVER intended to provide the framework for a constitutional excuse for violent overthrow of the government. If that's was the point KnifeMissle was trying to make, well, it's ludacris.
|
While I think my interpretation of the first and second amendments is debatable, I don't think it's so ludicrous.
Sure, one would not expect a government to allow provisions for itself to be overthrown, but the
US Constitution was written at a time when the colonies were fighting for freedom from its own government, the British royalty. These people understood how much a government can suck and were humble enough to know that their own government can grow to suck just as badly. Hence, all the liberal ideas in the constitution that were unprecedented, at the time.
I, too, don't wish to quibble over the second amendment, so let me quickly point this out.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If all we're talking about is protecting the
government of a free State, then why do
the people need a right to bear Arms? The standing armies may have all the weapons they need to protect the government but it's the people who need weapons to protect themselves from the government, just as it had done so from the British. Of course, it is hard to overthrow the government if we can't all agree to do so, hence the first amendment.
While we can debate the relevance of such ideas in the modern world, I honestly do believe this was the original intent of the first two amendments and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Considering the crap that the federal government is pulling these days, even in opposition to its various states, is it any wonder that an occasional revolution is considered a good thing?