Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Nowhere In The Constitution Does It Say Armed Rebellion Is Okay

Posted by on May. 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM
  • 32 Replies
1 mom liked this

Nowhere In The Constitution Does It Say Armed Rebellion Is Okay


confederate

“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.”

Militias were our military at the time because we, as a budding new nation, had a rather small army. We needed well regulated (trained) civilians to stand on the ready to fight in state-run militias. Not against the United States government, but FOR the United States government. The second amendment written shortly after the Revolutionary War which was won with George Washington’s Continental army, state militias, and the help of France. The “free state” is the United States of America that we fought for and won from England after declaring independence, waging war, and beginning a new nation. The right to bear arms has always been at the discretion of the government since the beginning.

The government wrote the 2nd Amendment. They wrote it in 1791 to keep slaves in check and provide back up for the army. Not to allow an uprising against itself, it was to protect itself. When you try to overthrow your government that is the exact definition of treason. We live in a free nation because it has been fought for and maintained by our government.

Yes, our armed services are indeed our government. You support the troops? You support our government.

Remember if you secede you are no longer granted the rights and privileges of being part of the United States, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment. Remember that.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say armed rebellion is okay. There’s a reason the Union fought against Confederate troops during the Civil War. Rebellion was frowned upon. It is very clear in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, that Congress may call forth “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Second Amendment was written to further enforce this.

You do however have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

by on May. 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
TinasTribe
by Member on May. 6, 2013 at 9:24 PM
10 moms liked this

The Militia were the people.  And note where it says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  And to say the reason it was written was to keep slaves in check... really? Please site where in the Constitution it states that. Also note the words, Enemies both foreign and domestic. Our armed forces take an oath to protect the Constitution not the Government. Please get your facts straight before spreading lies. 

Life is simple, We make it but we make it complicated. 

http://tinasblogok.blogspot.com/





miss_maya
by Member on May. 6, 2013 at 9:39 PM
10 moms liked this

Here's the thing about the Constitution: it's meant to control our government, not the people.

It doesn't grant us rights, because it recognizes that we already have them.  It grants the government powers.  LIMITED powers.  Specifically and only those listed in the Constitution.

When it comes to the people, if the Constitution doesn't restrict a right, the right exists. 

When it comes to the government, if the Constitution doesn't allow a right, the right does not exist.

The Constitutuion does not need to give a right to anyone; unless it's specifically restricted, we already have it.  So of course it's not specifically listed or stated anywhere that the people can secede from or rebel against their government if it becomes tyrannical, because this right is inherent.

TinasTribe
by Member on May. 6, 2013 at 9:53 PM
5 moms liked this

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 6, 2013 at 10:17 PM
5 moms liked this

“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.”


9 Things You Didn't Know About the Second Amendment

by Matt MacBraidaigh


1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right

The Constitution doesn't grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word "unalienable" previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed ... this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).

2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights

The use of the word "militia" has created some confusion in modern times, because we don't understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in context, "it was clearly an individual right" (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body" (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right" (p. 6).

3. Every citizen is the militia

To further clarify regarding the use of the word "militia," the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not necessarily just men. The Court explains: “'Keep arms' was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p. 9). Since the militia is all of us, it doesn't mean “only carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p. 20).

4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn't the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves ... the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury' (p.21). They conclude "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right" (p.56).

5. There is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment

Interest-balancing means we balance a right with other interests. The court notes that we don't interpret rights this way stating “we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all” (p.62-63). This doesn't mean that it is unlimited, the same as all rights (more on that below). However, the court states that even though gun violence is a problem to be taken seriously, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table" (p.64).

6. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny

You've probably heard this. It's listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny" (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted "that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents" (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive" (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens' militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

7. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion

You may find this one comical, but it's in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn't an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).

8. The Second Amendment protects weapons "in common use at the time"

The right to keep and bear arms isn't unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (p. 54). The Court upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses. What is protected are weapons "in common use of the time" (p.55). This doesn't mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century. The Court said the idea that it would is “frivolous” and that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" (p.8). The Court's criteria includes weapons in popular widespread use “that [are] overwhelmingly chosen by American society" (p. 56), and “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans” (p. 58).

9. The Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original intent

The Court didn't rule specifically on this in D.C. vs. Heller, but noting that weapon technology has drastically changed (mentioning modern day bombers and tanks), they stated “the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large" (p. 55).

They further added that “the fact that modern developments [in modern weaponry] have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right" (p. 56). A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling.


http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment/481001

JoshRachelsMAMA
by JRM on May. 6, 2013 at 10:22 PM
4 moms liked this
That article is full of drivel.
tnmomofive
by Silver Member on May. 6, 2013 at 10:28 PM
3 moms liked this

OP You are an older woman and I am really surprised that you seem to have not one clue about our Constitution or rights.I am not being nasty either just saying.I figured back when you went to school they still taught these things.

grandmab125
by on May. 6, 2013 at 10:34 PM
5 moms liked this

 Pay no attention to nana's posts.  Although, it is fun to blow them out of the water.  She's always posting stuff from left wing nut job bloggers who have no idea what they are talking about....nor does she.  Some of her favorite sites are alternet and dailykos.

Quoting TinasTribe:

The Militia were the people.  And note where it says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  And to say the reason it was written was to keep slaves in check... really? Please site where in the Constitution it states that. Also note the words, Enemies both foreign and domestic. Our armed forces take an oath to protect the Constitution not the Government. Please get your facts straight before spreading lies. 

 

grandma B

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on May. 7, 2013 at 5:02 AM
7 moms liked this

If you want to know about the point when the Framers thought armed rebellion is appropriate, look no further than the Declaration of Independence.

JustCJ
by on May. 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM
1 mom liked this

hey, maybe if she keeps it up she'll learn something ;)

Quoting grandmab125:

 Pay no attention to nana's posts.  Although, it is fun to blow them out of the water.  She's always posting stuff from left wing nut job bloggers who have no idea what they are talking about....nor does she.  Some of her favorite sites are alternet and dailykos.

Quoting TinasTribe:

The Militia were the people.  And note where it says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  And to say the reason it was written was to keep slaves in check... really? Please site where in the Constitution it states that. Also note the words, Enemies both foreign and domestic. Our armed forces take an oath to protect the Constitution not the Government. Please get your facts straight before spreading lies. 

 


Raintree
by Gold Member on May. 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM
1 mom liked this

When it comes to the people, if the constitution doesn't restrict a right, the right exists.

It's meant to control our government, not the people.

lol

Quoting miss_maya:

Here's the thing about the Constitution: it's meant to control our government, not the people.

It doesn't grant us rights, because it recognizes that we already have them.  It grants the government powers.  LIMITED powers.  Specifically and only those listed in the Constitution.

When it comes to the people, if the Constitution doesn't restrict a right, the right exists. 

When it comes to the government, if the Constitution doesn't allow a right, the right does not exist.

The Constitutuion does not need to give a right to anyone; unless it's specifically restricted, we already have it.  So of course it's not specifically listed or stated anywhere that the people can secede from or rebel against their government if it becomes tyrannical, because this right is inherent.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)