Log in

View Full Version : the importance of the second amendment

2004-07-21, 12:47
Amendments #1 and #2 to the US Constitution were among the first ten amendments added to it in 1791. You can read the US Constitution here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html).

Amendment #1 reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment #2 reads:
"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."

Even though the first amendment is about freedom of speech and the second is about the right to bear arms, they are both related. Their importance lies in the empowerment given to the people to defy the government. The first amendment allows one to defy by way of speech, and the second amendment allows one to defy the government by way of force. The framers must have understood that freedom has no meaning if it is not defended with force. Thus the second amendment is there as well.

Today due to partisan thinking you may find those who are Democrats supporting the first amendment and those who are Republicans supporting the second amendment. But anyone who is a supporter of freedom ought to support both amendments strongly. Many people who call themselves "liberals" don't understand that freedom must be defended with force and as a result think that the second amendment is outdated or unnecessary.

In Iraq the insurrection of Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers shows the importance of both amendments. First the United States shut down his newspaper al-Hawza, violating his first amendment rights. So his militia struck back and exercised their second amendment rights by resisting the occupiers. Had he not been willing to use force then he would have been destroyed and tyranny would have prevailed instead.

Let the scholars in their ivory towers beware: Freedom must be defended with violence, or it means nothing.

And I would like to say that the philosophies of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King were all failures because they believed in passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience as the ultimate solution.

2004-07-21, 14:51
I think it's a very general infrastructure for a very general concept, being, 'freedom' and 'fighting for/protecting freedom'.

To be honest with you... i don't even know what freedom is... i mean, how do we define freedom in relation to our modern day lives, so that it incorporates into every sector of our daily existance.

And what are we supposed to do if our 'rights' get violated? I mean not all of us are going to pull out our guns and call that a solution. Also, what rights are worth fighting for? Most people have a winge when an injustice of medium importance is commited.

I think the whole idea of bearing arms to defend your freedoms, isn't all that applicable to daily life in a complex society... complex in so many ways... so many laws, so many rules, so many dead-lines... most people don't even know their rights beyond the basics of "i refuse to answer unless my lawyer is present". How are you supposed to defend rights, if you dont even know what they are? and does not knowing what they are mean that, they are being taken for granted, or that they are just 'expected'?

It's common to look at a large-scale rights violation, and see some mass-uprising and resistance against the 'injustice'... common people, kicking arse... it's a classic historical structure, but 'rights' isn't just about these large-scale injustices... having rights is part of getting through each individual day, even in a society that isn't facing some mass political crisis.

What happens when there is no official 'decleratin of war' against the government, or when people don't band together... hmm

err i feel like my reply is really stupid lol, kinda off topic. Maybe it's more of a rant than a readable reply.

Maybe i shoulda stayed silent... since i have a choice to excercise my right of speech or silence... eeeeeeeeerrrrrrmmm

I dont think the ultimate solution is out there, and it certainly doesn't exist now.

2004-07-21, 21:08
I think the whole idea of bearing arms to defend your freedoms, isn't all that applicable to daily life in a complex society... complex in so many ways... so many laws, so many rules, so many dead-lines.
Most of us in stable societies are not concerned with the biggest right of all, which is to resist the government. If people carry weapons at home it makes the government think twice before conducting unauthorized raids. It makes it harder for them. Another good thing about arming the masses is that it allows for a minority to empower itself and not be overrun by a malicious majority.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King succeeded in their goals due to their appealing to the conscience of civilized societies, but their success was an aberration.

2004-08-08, 14:25
Jesus was NOT non-violent and Ghandi was no failure
we have let them do this to us
im fairly disgusted in our behaviours but theres always room for improvement
im just trying to work out if there are less people that want peace or if its just plain ignorance