3 ms·

And keeping slaves from rebelling, the main purpose of the second amendment.

by MaysonL 11y ago

wyclif 11y ago
That's actually not the main purpose of the Second Amendment at all.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Arguably, it was. See: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendmen... http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revolts http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revo...
  - wyclif 11y ago
    "Arguably"? Nope. Read District of Columbia v. Heller. It's all there. It's really not arguable.
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly, and will be overturned by a future Court. 5-4 decisions often suck.
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly Let's keep in mind the text of the Constitution: > [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed. The foundation of this discussion is simple: that right shall not be infringed. Courts through US history have respected its value and significance: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” Any law which contravenes this right is repugnant to the Constitution and void. That's a pretty strong statement to make, and it has been reinforced on many occasions. > In State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” So, why do you believe it was decided wrongly? It seems clear to me that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the individual right to bear arms, not just for military service but for self-defense. The right was seen as necessary for a free society, both in the sense of the strength to resist invasions as well as to resist tyranny of one's own government. There was dissent in the Heller case, but not about whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right. Both of the dissenting votes recognized that it does.
purpled_haze 11y ago
Not the main purpose, just one purpose. The right to arms was part of English common-law (English Bill of Rights of 1689) and in 1689 the right was claimed to be a reinstatement of "ancient rights" originally granted by James II. Fear of a slave revolt was not the primary reason for this right in either time. In U.S. Supreme Court's D.C. vs Heller (2008) decision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ), the court claimed that historically the right to bear arms was: '"clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... ) In The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), the history and reason for the 2nd amendment was summarized ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ): > "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46] If the primary reason for the right to keep and bear arms was to guard against slave revolt, it would have been more central to the discussion. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court was focused on whether or not it was an individual right to self-defense, and they determined it was. While protecting oneself from a slave revolt could be one case of self-protection it was by no means the primary reason.

And keeping slaves from rebelling, the main purpose of the second amendment.

by MaysonL 11y ago

And keeping slaves from rebelling, the main purpose of the second amendment.

wyclif 11y ago

That's actually not the main purpose of the Second Amendment at all.

MaysonL 11y ago
Arguably, it was. See: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendmen... http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revolts http://news.wabe.org/post/right-bear-arms-against-slave-revo...
- wyclif 11y ago
  "Arguably"? Nope. Read District of Columbia v. Heller. It's all there. It's really not arguable.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly, and will be overturned by a future Court. 5-4 decisions often suck.
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      > Arguably, Heller was decided wrongly Let's keep in mind the text of the Constitution: > [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed. The foundation of this discussion is simple: that right shall not be infringed. Courts through US history have respected its value and significance: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” Any law which contravenes this right is repugnant to the Constitution and void. That's a pretty strong statement to make, and it has been reinforced on many occasions. > In State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” So, why do you believe it was decided wrongly? It seems clear to me that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the individual right to bear arms, not just for military service but for self-defense. The right was seen as necessary for a free society, both in the sense of the strength to resist invasions as well as to resist tyranny of one's own government. There was dissent in the Heller case, but not about whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right. Both of the dissenting votes recognized that it does.

purpled_haze 11y ago

Not the main purpose, just one purpose. The right to arms was part of English common-law (English Bill of Rights of 1689) and in 1689 the right was claimed to be a reinstatement of "ancient rights" originally granted by James II. Fear of a slave revolt was not the primary reason for this right in either time. In U.S. Supreme Court's D.C. vs Heller (2008) decision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ), the court claimed that historically the right to bear arms was: '"clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... ) In The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), the history and reason for the 2nd amendment was summarized ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ): > "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46] If the primary reason for the right to keep and bear arms was to guard against slave revolt, it would have been more central to the discussion. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court was focused on whether or not it was an individual right to self-defense, and they determined it was. While protecting oneself from a slave revolt could be one case of self-protection it was by no means the primary reason.