2nd Amendment Not For Hunters, Target Shooters;To Overthrow Tyrannical Government


#1

[LEFT]Levin: 2nd Amendment Not For Hunters, Target Shooters; It’s To Overthrow Tyrannical Government

AP

Given all the gun talk lately, Mark Levin opened his show tonight clarifying the purpose of the 2nd amendment saying that it wasn’t for target shooting or hunting or anything else in that realm. He said that whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not, the reason why 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. That’s it.

**Click Here To Hear The Audio At Rightscoop.com

**

Read more: Levin: 2nd Amendment Not For Hunters, Target Shooters; It[/LEFT]


#2

That’s not what the text of the amendment says. It does not speak of overthrow of a tyrannical government, but rather of “the security of a free state”. The state is assumed legitimate; the right to bear arms is to protect the security of that state. Don’t the words more naturally seem to mean the police power, including (as was not uncommon in those days) a deputized citizenry?


#3

FREE state FREE state FREE state


#4

Oh, you must be the same type of Constitutional Scholar that Obama is. Ignore the exact wording in the Constitution. Ignore the Federalist Papers explaining what was meant in the Constitution. Ignore the quotes from the period. You just keep arguing about word choice and comma position. I’m sure you’ll make many converts here!


#5

Uh, no.

The right of the people (that would be individuals) to bear arms, (iow words, carry them; and in this day and age ‘drive’ them/fly them), is necessary in order to secure the FREEDOM of the state.
You left that part out in ‘security of that state.’


#6

Actually, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with any of you, but when I read the words it suggests a construction justifying the gun right in terms of the “security” of the free state, not its overthrow. The term militia supports such a construction; one uses a militia to defend, not to undermine.

Just food for thought.


#7

I “got into” a discussion on that in a newspaper letters to the editor, where I emphasized the importance of the word “people,” and one person who started the “discussion” said that I “kept harping on one word.” Well, of course - it’s the definitive word as to whose right(s) are protected.


#8

The 2nd Amendment was one of 10 Amendments demanded by what was then known as the Anti-Federalist Party. They did not much care for how much power was being vested in this central government but relented on the fact that the Articles of Confederation were not working. HOWEVER, Their biggest fear was creating another government which would grow to simply be King George all over again. They therefore demanded that there be made 10 rules that would limit that from coming to pass. Among them was this, the 2nd Amendment, which was to ensure that the people, in case something goes wrong such as the creation of a tyranny, dictatorship, etc, had the ability to stop it from coming to pass. IN ADDITION, it was believed that a standing military would one day turn its guns on the people. Therefore the people themselves would act as this military in times of war. That hasn’t exactly worked out as hoped or feared depending on your perspective.


#9

No, it’s not. Food for thought, that is. It’s more like fodder for fools.
It’s so convoluted that I don’t even know where to begin.

For starters, you ARE disagreeing with most of us.
Secondly, the militia IS the free people.
Thirdly, no one is trying to OVERTHROW a rightious, Constitutional government; only trying to PRESERVE the Constitutional rights of all.
Forthly, the only people undermining are those who are trying to undermine the rights of individuals; who have every RIGHT, protected by the Constitution of the United States, to DEFEND themselves against tyranny.

What, did you think that “one uses a militia to defend, not undermine”, was somehow profound?

:yawn: