California's New CC Ruling

[Dean Romig]

Yes, when British regulars fired into a group of dissenting colonists.






.

[Setter Man]

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

i guess I question the term 'literal interpretation" since i only see a single plain language meaning

but yes, based on the experience of the population at that time -can it mean any thing else?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. 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."

the text in its entirety


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

[Kensal Rise]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

BINGO!

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

BINGO!

And this is where I really can't follow the logic as taking up arms (levying war) against the US government is defined in th constitution as treason.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights effectively replaces the bullet with the ballot when it comes to how our country is governed. Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.

Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.







.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.

One can not be a literalist and start speculating on what the authors meant when they wrote what they wrote. If you believe the 2nd A is clear and should be construed literally then you must also construe literally Article 3 that provides taking up arms against the government of the US to be treason.

They had been oppressed by a foreign government (England) and they formed a government that gave its citizens a method to govern by and through the people. Oppressive is subjective and relative term, regardless, there are checks and balances in place. At what point do those who feel that the government is oppressing them has the "god given right" (which does not exist) to take up arms against that has been elected by a majority of the country? There is no footnote; no unless; no but if.... The founders made it clear: we are a republic led by people chosen by the people, no matter what those people believe. That is the ONLY way a country can evolve. If they did not truly believe in the evolution of society and its government then they never would have made provisions for amending the constitution. Sorry, there is no legitimate way for our government to function as the founders envisioned that is consistent with legitimate armed insurrection. On that point, the constitution is very clear. They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

Stated simply - Yes!

And let us all remember that the right to protect ourselves is NOT granted by a government, but is a God-given right that no person nor entity can take from us.... Ever! And in order for 'the People' to protect themselves they must be as well armed as those who wish to oppress them.






.

[King Brown]

This respectful and intelligent conversation, particularly its bearing on language, is interesting to me because of the 7-4 California court decision, almost two to one.

As for checks and balances, isn't the current voluminous dissent in both parties because they've worked negatively in the public interest (and have no bearing on language)?

I come here for information and it's pleasing---and a tribute to the board---to see opinions more from a community than partisan politics.

[Kensal Rise]

Let me try to aid Mr. Gardner in understanding what he cites: Article III of The United States Constitution:

[B][I]"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

There may be some perceived difference in "levying war" against the States and defending oneself against tyranny, or assisting in the "security of a free State."

Also, the American colonists were NOT oppressed by a "foreign government." They were oppressed by THEIR OWN government.

And, if oppression is "relative" then what was that Holocaust the Jews have been complaining about?

And sorry. Every creature on the face of the Earth has the God given right to defend itself. Even Jews and gays in an Orlando nightclub.

And as for his last claim, I humbly refer Mr. Gardner to this passage of the Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


I must emphasize that all this is offered in the cordial spirit of casual debate, with no ill intended toward anyone on this board. Especially Mr. Gardner.