So just like all those stupid bible thumpers out there quoting from a book they haven’t even read, I feel like those Right Wing nuts who support the “right to bear arms” have never read the Constitution.
They claim that they need a massive stockpile of guns to “defend against the tyranny of government”. Those who are less batshit crazy say they need guns to defend their homes.
Well lets look at the actual text of the Second Amendment:
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.
Interesting… nothing about defending against the tyranny of one’s own government. In fact, if we delved even deeper into the Constitution to the powers of Congress, we find this in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Even more interesting. So in the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers call for the creation of militias to ensure a “free state” then give Congress the power to call upon said militias to crush insurrections and repel invasions.
Wait… so how can our right to bear arms be meant for protecting against the tyranny of our own government if our founding document says it would actually be used on those who would rise up against the government?
Well thats because you’re fucking wrong and apparently don’t bother reading before citing something.
In fact, this interpretation of the Constitution was used by Washington himself! During the Whiskey Rebellion, crazy wing nuts who believed that taxes shouldn’t exist tried to rise up against the government. Washington had the governors call up the militias (second amendment) and rode at the head of the impromptu army itself to confront the rebels (article 1, section 8). Though, by the time he got there, they had grown some common sense and gone home…
Point being, you have NO right to go hunting, you have NO right to rise up in violent rebellion against the government and yes, you don’t even have the right to defend yourself in your own home according to the Constitution.
Is that so?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
The man who said that was George Mason, who co-authored the very Second Amendment you claim does not apply to the individual.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Or perhaps this quote by Samuel Adams.
The English Bill of Rights, upon which the United States Bill of Rights was based, declared that the crown had no authority to interfere with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Putting an amendment that deals with the militia bearing arms in a document which almost entirely focuses on limiting government or protecting individual civil liberties, seems hilariously odd. Especially when the Second Amendment clearly states that it is the people’s right to bear arms, not the right of the militia or the state. This has been backed up by District of Columbia v. Heller, which settled that ‘the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home’ Not only are you wrong by the archaic definition, but also by the modern one.
But let’s go beyond the constitution. Adams himself thought any man who rebelled against a republic ought to be hanged. Hardly a role model for those of us who would push for the support of arms in the name of shooting employees of the state for violating our rights. A violent uprising against a government is something you fail to truly understand. No government in it’s right mind, intent on continuing it’s existence, would legally allow a populace to revolt. They would try their very hardest to prevent that revolt from occurring, and even suppress it if it got out of hand. So why are you arguing about the legal ramifications of owning weapons for armed resistance? When civilians start shooting cops and blowing up military vehicles, the constitution will be irrelevant. At that point, individual rights will likely be suspended, and an insurgency will be rampant throughout the country. Given the effectiveness of uneducated middle-eastern farmers with half-century old weapons and an open environment, one can only wonder as to how well the American military would react to college-educated Americans with modern weapons, possible military experience, in dense urban environments within their own country. And if you think that somehow stealth fighter jets and tanks can somehow effectively combat a force without uniforms, radar, or logistical concerns, within densely populated urban areas, you should read up on a war your grandfather didn’t fight.
tl;dr you might look informed and educated to a high school student but anyone with even the most basic understanding of constitutional law is going to point out how horribly wrong you are.
This just in: Dude acts like a know it all. Turns out to be an asshole. Still thinks only the state be armed anyways.