What evidence is there that the 2nd Amendment was written as a balance against government tyranny?
Why would a bunch of 18th century plutocrats write a clause in their constitution that basically says "if you don't like our policies, feel free to shoot us"
Other urls found in this thread:
concealedcarry.com
buckeyefirearms.org
goodreads.com
thefederalistpapers.org
youtu.be
youtu.be
liveleak.com
lewrockwell.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
tjrs.monticello.org
archive.fo
constitution.org
archive.fo
quoteinvestigator.com
archive.fo
twitter.com
Because they had just fought a war AGAINST a tyrannical government, and wanted to found a free nation
I don't buy it. That's some fairy tale shit.
Nobody is so benevolent that they fight a brutal war against their own brothers to have a "free nation"
/thread. Fuck off OP.
>tyrannical government
Britain did nothing wrong.
Fuck I hate phone posting.
What I meant to say was:
>the idea of freedom from government oppression is a fairy tale
>Nobody would fight a brutal war to end oppression against themselves then write in a clause to ensure no one else can do it to them again
At what point did you realize that you're not normal?
>americans are this fucking unedcated about their own history
have you no shame?
...
It's almost like there was a war where half this country fought the other half 80 years later
You are a complete fucking retard, and therefore should move to Canada.
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
concealedcarry.com
buckeyefirearms.org
>"government oppression"
Bullshit. The British crown didn't have the ability to read your emails, or track your location from your cellphone. They didn't have the manpower to come to your house and burn your books, or censor what you say at your local town hall.
If the British crown was oppressive, we are way way way past that point.
>Swedish government funds video of blonde Swedish woman fucking black guy while she sings the Swedish anthem
We're in this together, Sven.
For their time, it must've been pretty oppressive if they had to begin a revolution for the express purpose of creating a more free nation.
>What evidence is there that the 2nd Amendment was written as a balance against government tyranny?
The French Indian Wars saw the American Colonialists placed at a severe tactical disadvantage.
Because they were not permitted to muster their own local militias for immediate defense, without the express written order form the British Provincial Governor.
Hence French and Indianan Raids were frequent and effective.
> never again, we will have a RIGHT to bear arms, not seek permission.
tldr: Read a history book, answers within
Read the essays from the founders that demanded the second amendment before they would sign. You will find your answer there.
Federalist papers
Are you serious?
For those who are too lazy to read and want to know why the founders put the second amendment there watch this video:
youtu.be
Its a good all around video but go to 17:27.
It never was. That's a modern myth that only began to develop from about the middle of the 19th century onward.
Your Founders fought a war on a principle of "liberty" over a 2% taxation rate, even as they continued to enslave blacks, against a "tyrannical government" that was the freest in the history of the world.
stay mad loser
Full version is out there somewhere
You have an American flag and you are this retarded? Literally everybody knows that this is what the Founders intended. It is taught in high school.
There is no 2nd amendment. It's all NRA lies to fool uneducated southerners who can't read a comic book much less a constitution.
You can't lose a Civil War, and whatever your lineage is I'm sure it probably is not English. Perhaps you are a descendant of one of Franklin's loathed "stupid swarthy Germans."
>It never was. That's a modern myth that only began to develop from about the middle of the 19th century onward.
Incorrect. See >Your Founders fought a war on a principle of "liberty" over a 2% taxation rate, even as they continued to enslave blacks, against a "tyrannical government" that was the freest in the history of the world.
Incorrect.
>See pic related.
>freest in the history of the world
Don't worry, the toll was paid.
militias were necessary to defeat the British scum and work side by side with the founding fathers. They also wanted liberty, and, as they were not tyrannical themselves, were not afraid of a well armed populace. The founding fathers were not ordinary men.
How they would shudder if they saw us today.
it's one of the oldest pol/new memes, blanda upp...
>What evidence is there that the 2nd Amendment was written as a balance against government tyranny?
Several dozen letters written by Thomas Jefferson. Sage.
the federalist papers.
sage
The second amendment is about keeping the federal government from having a standing army as professional soldiers were seen as scum and enemies of the people if they simply followed the federal governments orders
I mean I forget what Federalist paper it is but Alexander Hamilton talks about it AT LENGTH
>pilgrims came to America in the first place to escape religious persecution
>no parliamentary representation
>not allowed to form militias without the Royal Governor's consent
Really free
Your quotation is a fake.
Take it from the mouth of one of your own countrymen.
"I do not celebrate the fourth of July. This goes back to a term paper I wrote in graduate school. It was on colonial taxation in the British North American colonies in 1775. Not counting local taxation, I discovered that the total burden of British imperial taxation was about 1% of national income. It may have been as high as 2.5% in the southern colonies.
The colonists had a sweet deal in 1775. Great Britain was the second freest nation on earth. Switzerland was probably the most free nation, but I would be hard-pressed to identify any other nation in 1775 that was ahead of Great Britain. And in Great Britain’s Empire, the colonists were by far the freest.
I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.
Jefferson wrote these words in the Declaration of Independence:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
I can think of no more misleading political assessment uttered by any leader in the history of the United States. No words having such great impact historically in this nation were less true. No political bogeymen invoked by any political sect as “the liar of the century” ever said anything as verifiably false as these words."
(1/2)
>(((Krantz)))
I feel no sympathy
because some people (anti-federalists) didn't want a centralized federal government because they feared it would oppress their individual state (virginia, georgia, and others) but the north needed their votes so the only way they could get them is by implementing safeguards against tyranny
jesus christ have you read literally no history
public education was a mistake
"The proponents of independence invoked British tyranny in North America. There was no British tyranny, and surely not in North America.
A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon – authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
After the American Revolution, 46,000 American loyalists fled to Canada. They were not willing to swear allegiance to the new colonial governments. The retained their loyalty to the nation that had delivered to them the greatest liberty on earth. They had not committed treason.
...
What would libertarians – even conservatives – give today in order to return to an era in which the central government extracted 1% of the nation’s wealth? Where there was no income tax?
Would they describe such a society as tyrannical?
That the largest signature on the Declaration of Independence was signed by the richest smuggler in North America was no coincidence. He was hopping mad. Parliament in 1773 had cut the tax on tea imported by the British East India Company, so the cost of British tea went lower than the smugglers’ cost on non-British tea. This had cost Hancock a pretty penny. The Tea Party had stopped the unloading of the tea by throwing privately owned tea off a privately owned ship – a ship in competition with Hancock’s ships. The Boston Tea Party was in fact a well-organized protest against lower prices stemming from lower taxes"
(2/2)
lewrockwell.com
Those "Pilgrims" who promptly went on to persecute and murder the poor Quakers. What a noble pack of men you allude to. Did you never hear tell of the Boston martyrs? How about the Salem Witch Trials?
Only a few percentage points of the male population even in England had the privilege to elect people to Parliament. "No Taxation without Representation" is folly is you are being governed well; it's certainly no reason to cause a bloody war which kills 150,000 people.
>Why would a bunch of 18th century plutocrats write a clause in their constitution that basically says "if you don't like our policies, feel free to shoot us"
Because a bunch of rustics had just defeated the British empire. They had a taste for war and if the constitution didn't regard them then those plutocrats would have joined their predecessors.
Thomas Jefferson's quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is only the most famous full quotation in America.
are you really going to pretend to be this ignorant of history?
fuck you faggots didn't give us seats in parliament and YOU KNOW HOW MYCH BRITS LOVE TEA
I already answered this question in the 2nd amendment thread. You really want an entire thread devoted to you getting BTFO?
it was almost 100% about protecting the right of property owners from getting fucked too hard by a strong central government, but it scarcely matters because the FF are all too dead to sit on the supreme court and it turns out that a lot of the shit that protects comfy upper middle class types (as indeed the FF were compared to true aristocrats) benefits the little guys, too
You mean the French and Spanish, in combination with a half-hearted population at home which had no desire really to undertake the war.
That's why we are citizens and you are a subject.
>Nobody is so benevolent that they fight a brutal war against their own brothers to have a "free nation"
Damn dude did they not teach you about the American Civil War in retard school?
Cheer up, Gustav. Help fix the problem.
What came of it was the greatest country in the history of humanity. We can shoot back against our tyrants, Reginald. I wish you had the same ability.
You have to read the opinions of the SC.
4chin won't help you.
Also, high powered weapons have yet to be presented to court as a question
Let Americans have their guns if they want. It's their choice.
It was to defend against the Injuns.
>government tyranny
>feel free to shoot us
Pretty fucking logical to me motherfucker.
>Why would a bunch of 18th century plutocrats write a clause in their constitution that basically says "if you don't like our policies, feel free to shoot us"
Maybe because they themselves were rebels against the government.
Maybe an armed populace is the social technology that impedes tyrannical state activity most effectively.
Well those same guys used guns to kill their leaders because they didn't like their policies. So it would be a pretty dick move to deny their own people that right.
...
all that matters in the end is we won and became better than you
Are you fucking retarded or uneducated?
Fuck the fed.
Defund Washington D.C.
The time is fast approaching where men must do the correct thing to protect what is good and destroy what is evil.
>What evidence is there that the 2nd Amendment was written as a balance against government tyranny?
The murderous regimes of the 20th century.
Please read the writings of the founding fathers.
Constitutional Amendments
US supreme Court cases that upheld it you know shit like that
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
This. The term "standing army" in the 1700's is synonymous with our modern phrase "military industrial complex."
The founding fathers KNEW that a large federal standing army would cost a fuck load and be too tempting a tool for leaders to use against thier own people.
The idea was that everyone of fighting age in the USA was the army and were encouraged to arm themselves. Its not only a super cheap way to defend your country but it also garuntees nobody can go "IM KING NOW!" and order the military to shoot anyone who disagrees.
Too bad we got away from it. I mean I know the practicalities of why we cant operate like that anymore in the modern world, but still..... Nowdays our populace basically only exists to pay for expensive weapons that would be used against us if we decided we didnt want to follow the program anymore.
>What evidence is there that the 2nd Amendment was written as a balance against government tyranny?
Because that's what all four authors wrote when discussing it. As well as all members of the Constitutional convention.
>"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
>If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
>"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
>"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."
George Mason
>"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence …"
George Washington
by that logic they shouldnt have established a democracy they should have just installed a new monarchy to replace the british ones authority in america
You're retarded
screencapped, thanks
Just because you're not like that doesn't mean others aren't.
>This nigger has never heard of the Federalist papers
Also its much harder for the military to confiscate your property if you meet them at the door with a gun.
KYS faggot
>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.
Adopted December 15, 1791.
>Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689
>One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army. The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.
en.wikipedia.org
Liberal schools have been pushing lies. My daughter came home from school when she was 10 saying the teacher told her the 2nd amendment wasnt real and a bunch of other shit and my daughter i guess called her a "stupid cunt" . Shes a fucking monster she tricked the principle in saying we should ban all knives including kitchen knives across all of america and only use plastic; it was fucking hilarious. I was dying. I didnt influence her on any politics.
You're phucking retarded, the American Revolution was founded ON the basis of government tyranny; thus the Bill of Rights & separation of powers u Frankfurt educated revisionist ©unt pickle
Thanks bro, I will.
You stupid ass the Supreme Court decided all of this in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago
because they couldnt have weapons under british control and didnt want the people to be cucked faggot
You mean like when obama stole that farmers ranch and threw him into federal prison because he talked shit about obama on social media? Granted if he fired back hed be dead. Obama still laughs to this day about. He didnt even get impeached which is why i know trump is unfuckingtouchable. He would have to literally rape a 5 year old in front of mark dice or something to get impeached. Trump isnt going to do that.
you step on american soil and violated the NAP
Did u study history fag?
Sources for quotes:
>Jefferson (tjrs.monticello.org
It's an excerpt from a letter to William Stephens Smith from Thomas Jefferson
>Alexander Hamilton (constitution.org
Written in the Federalist Papers, #28, December 26, 1787
>Henry (Couldn't find a good link)
J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
>Mason (Couldn't find a good link)
Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
>Washington
According to this (and its sources), Washington never wrote this.
quoteinvestigator.com
>noone would care about freedom more than power
I'll gut you myself if I have to you fucking traitor.
>brit tries to school america on constitution because hes still pissed off about the tea.
We killed your ancestors with that right. Go pay attention to your own country. Last i checked it was now illegal for brits to go on pol or any right wing website. Enjoy your thought police, pronouns, alarmingly spiked rape statistic which your government tried to hide, acid attacks, knife attacks, and truck of peace.
Go fuck off at some range somewhere and practice throwing your assault chair. How much do they pay you to post here? Im posting for free.
A simply understood right will always need college dean level explanation for a liberal because they cant get it through their empty head that theyll never get rid of it.
I was too low on word count to include full citations, so thanks.
>"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
>"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
>[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
>"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
>American Revolution
>hurr durr what does 2nd amendment have to do with tyranny
you make us look bad, kys
>4:38 am
god damn man go to sleep
>10%
dont forget to plug in your phone
American colonists were living largely separate from england. Keep in mind this was 400 years after first landfall.
/thread.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed, and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal Government; still it would be not going to far to say, that the State Governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twentyfifth part of the number able to bear arms.
This proportion would not yield , in the United States, an Army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted that a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
Federalist Papers #46
If you are operating under a faulty assumption like that, then it will lead you to asinine ideas like curtailing things from the bill of rights for convenience sake. Die.
>What evidence is there that the 2nd Amendment was written as a balance against government tyranny?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." what part of that don't you understand...
>Why would a bunch of 18th century plutocrats write a clause in their constitution that basically says "if you don't like our policies, feel free to shoot us"
Because a republic is based on the idea of small government.
Which well-regulated militia was Paddock part of?
They actually did want that. The only thing they probably didn't take into consideration is the radical leftism and degeneracy that now plagues the west.
>he thinks the right to bear arms is limited by having to be in a militia
for fucks sake didn't you people get btfo enough in the other thread