Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
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. |
Go back and read the links that you just posted - the Constitution was absolutely
not written during the Revolution or even in the immediate aftermath. The American Revolution lasted until 1779. The Constitution appeared a full 10 years later. Up to 1787, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution replaced that document due in part to the problems of interstate commerce. The chief reason for including the Bill of Rights, including the First and Second Amendments was to incorporate the rights already won from the British government. Your statement above is historically innaccurate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I, too, don't wish to quibble over the second amendment, so let me quickly point this out.
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.
|
First of all, at the time, the concept of a standing army was pretty much experimental at best. Up to that point, there was no regular army or professional officers in the US, and the framers expected to have to raise armies the way all previous leaders had - by recruitment for a specified duration or campaign. There is NO provision in the Constitution for a standing army other than the preamble's "common defense" statement. To suggest that the 2nd Amendment is a recipe for the disolution of the ENTIRE constitution is ridiculous. An armed uprising by the people by definition would disrupt the offices and powers establised in the Constitution, and I cannot see how you could have it any other way. Please show me something written by one of the framers illustrating your arguement. Until you can produce that, your arguement holds no water.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
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?
|
You may not be the only one who thinks so, but that just means that you have company in being wrong. Again, there's no documentation to support this arguement. You may consider it the intent in hindsight, but it certainly wasn't at the time.