the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

[Hooahguy]

today i watched this video. its comedy, so i wouldnt expect for him to bring up an issue like that.
i wonder, why is the amendment that permits gun ownership the second amendment? i mean, im pretty sure the rest are a bit more important.
thoughts?

note: please do not discuss the 2nd amendment any further than the reason why it is second.

[Sarmatian]

I think it's 2nd because it comes right after the 1st...

[Viking]

I think it's 2nd because it comes right after the 1st...

It might also be that it is because it comes before the eventual third.

[Jolt]

I think it's 2nd because it comes right after the 1st...

It might also be that it is because it comes before the eventual third.

Damn, you stole my lines. -_-'

[Vladimir]

It's interesting that he used the "in context of the times" and cliche "hunting" dismissals. If it wasn't for the context of *their* times they wouldn't even have such thoughts. Implicit in this is that times do change. It seems very ignorant for the person to think that times won't change again.

Well anyway; it was kinda funny. They're greasy college kids. Let them have fun. At least it isn't yo' mamma humor.

[Crazed Rabbit]

His whole act seems to be based on ignorance of the period. The founders saw guns as a means of citizens securing their freedom from the government, in rebellion, and external enemies, in militias.

It's the second because it's important.

CR

[Sarmatian]

His whole act seems to be based on ignorance of the period.

CR

I'd say his whole act is based on the need to be humorous. I don't think he was trying to make a political statement.

[HoreTore]

^this^

At the time the Amendment was created, we had just fought for our freedom with a largely militia-ish Army. So maintaining the ability to keep that freedom in the face of whatever was second only to the 1st Amendment, which garunteed that the law maintains that spirit of Freedom we fought for in the first place.

That said, the entire damn Bill of Rights is important stuff.

Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

[CountArach]

It was gunning for first spot, but couldn't quite hit the target.

[Husar]

It was gunning for first spot, but couldn't quite hit the target.

This also seems like the perfect topic to ask a few questions and show my ignorance about your colonial laws.
The amendments are changes or additions to the constitution, right? As in there was a constitution but then people thought there should be more in it so they had a poll in the parliament or whatever you call it to add certain amendments to it as is probably allowed by the constitution under certain circumstances (like 2/3rd majority), is that correct?
The bill of rights as I understand it is just an umbrella term of sorts for a bunch of very early amendments, like a big patch on release day?
How many amendments have been made until now and why is every single sentence it's own amendment?
Couldn't they just have called the bill of rights as a whole the first amendment if the representatives voted for it as a package or how exactly did/does that work?

[Sheogorath]

Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

Freedom of money is still freedom

[Centurion1]

Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

We fought for quite a bit more than that................

Like the proclamation by the British government that disallowed American colonists to cross the Appalachians and settle in the lands that they had just fought and died for.

Or the British troops just quartering in American homes with no reason besides, we can.

Oh and it is second because it is important (deja vu anyone)
It may not appear important contemporarly now, but it was important then. not only for defense against an outside force but also to defend against would-be dictators

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

Could all Europeans plz read some American history before commenting on it, kthxbi.

1. We were not protesting against taxes, we were protesting against taxes which we had no say in. British parliament refused to have American representatives.

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

3. British military also abused Americans by forcing them to quarter their soldiers whenever they wanted.

For even moar examples of grievances plz see Declaration of Independence.

[Louis VI the Fat]

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

Or the British were protecting the rights of native Americans against abuse by the American colonists...

Not to mention, West of the Appalachians lay French territory. And Canadian, which Britain tried to solve with the Québec Act of 1774.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wikipedia:

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the act were:

* The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.
* The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
* It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
* It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.


The Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking migrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French-speaking Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions.

In the Thirteen Colonies, the Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was joined to those acts as one of the Intolerable Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies, and promote the Roman Catholic faith in preference to widely-held Protestant beliefs. It also limited opportunities for colonies to expand on their western frontiers, by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Well said Louis, and some very astute observations on the psychology behind it. People underestimate the shared love of Liberty between France and the USA too much these days.

There is great fun to be had for Francophile Americans or Americanophile Frenchmen with a love for historical political thought. Relations during the end of the eightteenth century were intense. A period that was of tremendous consequence for the future of either nation. One can never overestimate the importance one country had for the other.
For all the differences between the nations, the birth papers of France and America are mere translations of one another.


When I was a wee lad, I didn't have soccer posters on my wall. I was too much a nerd for that. When I was eleven, on my wall hung...the Declaration of Independence. Yes, I am not kidding. On a reproduction parchment.* I thought it was way cool, even if I didn't understand the half of it. I still don't understand it, but am still as determined to some day do. For one thing, I can quote the whole declaration on top of my head: 'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...'


* I bought at at Disney World, in Liberty Square, after exiting the Hall of Presidents. Still one of my favourite areas of Walt Disney World, together with the American Adventure over at EPCOT. Yes, poor little Louis was indoctrinated to become an American patriot by the evil Disney corporation. Dammit, to this day I instantly start sobbing at the opening notes of 'Golden Dreams' at the American Adventure.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I disagree with his analysis. Some of his assumptions do not follow. Most obvious is the notion that something referred to as "The Bill of Rights" isn't really about enumerating rights.

I am aware of the minority position of my explanation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people at all. This is not an obscure postion, and I am in excellent company in this.

And I go one step beyond that, pushing me into even further minority position: I maintain that the BoR does not even limit the rights of government. It merely, superflously, puts on paper rights the people never abdicated to the government.

Call me a conservative constitutional minimalist.
Of course, I will not pass upon this excellent opportunity to accuse Xiahou of being a communist, one who maintains that the people have no rights vis-a-vis the federal government except for the ones government grants to them.

[HoreTore]

Could all Europeans plz read some American history before commenting on it, kthxbi.

1. We were not protesting against taxes, we were protesting against taxes which we had no say in. British parliament refused to have American representatives.

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

3. British military also abused Americans by forcing them to quarter their soldiers whenever they wanted.

For even moar examples of grievances plz see Declaration of Independence.

Alright, I'll give you "independence" as well. But I won't give you freedom

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wonder, why is the amendment that permits gun ownership the second amendment? i mean, im pretty sure the rest are a bit more important.
thoughts?

note: please do not discuss the 2nd amendment any further than the reason why it is second.

- There is no hierarchy of rights in the Bill of Rights. The order in which the rights are numbered is of no legal consequence. (I think? What happens when two articles conflict with one another?)

- Earlier drafts of the Bill of Rights show a different order.

- I do believe there is a certain order of importance of amendments. The 1st re-affirms rights. The 2nd and 3rd regulate defense. The 3th through 8th regulate law enforcement. The 9th and 10th conclude with guarantees against abuse of the Bill of Rights by the government

- I disagree that the others are 'a bit more important'. The Second and Third Amendments are of supreme importance. They regulate the defense of the USA - always a first task of any government.


I am of the conviction that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights. Americans already posessed all the rights within it. De jure, as a self-evident truth, de facto, by securing them in revolution. They did not at any point surrender them to their government.

The Bill of Rights then, does not declare the rights of the citizens. It 'permits' nothing to the people. Kings permit their subjects certain rights. Not so in America.

The BoR is not even a document limiting the power of the federal government. The federal government has no power other than that which is explicitly granted to it. (As confirmed in the Bill of Rights itself) The BoR then, as part of the constitution, institutes government.
In the constitution, the people grant the government rights, not the other way round. Rights it receives because governments are instituted for the benefit of the people, to make possible the exersize of life, liberty, property (yes) and the pursuit of happiness.

One of the rights the government is granted, is that of defense. Why do the people grant it this right? Because it is necessary for the security of a free state. How is this right limited in the Bill of Rights? By limiting it to a well regulated militia. This is the historical meaning of the second amendment. It is also in line with similar articles in comparable articles in European republics, and with the article in previous drafts.


However, there is a problem with the BoR. Its authors were aware that the people are not given rights in it. Therefore, the articles do not follow a positive formula: 'the people have freedom of speech, the people have freedom or religion' etcetera. The people already posessed these rights. A govenment was merely instituted to enable the exersize of these rights. The BoR only sought to affirm that the instituted government does not infringe upon certain rights. The people are not told what rights they have, the government is told what rights it can't infringe upon. Instead of the formula 'the people may..', the articles follow the formula 'the government may not...'

Therefore, the articles are stated negatively: 'the government may not infringe upon freedom of speech'. So the second amendment does not grant a right to bear arms. No more than the fifth grants the right of property. The second (and the corresponding third) amendment merely limits the government in the ways in which it can exersize its task of organising defense. Specifically, it limits the government to only institute public military forces, a civilian militia. Instead of abusing the powers vested in it for its own gain.

(See, for example, a previous draft:
'The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of the free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person'.

Or, the equivalent article from another BoR in Europe:
'The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted'.)

[Xiahou]

Well said Louis, and some very astute obersvations on the psychology behind it. People underestimate the shared love of Liberty between France and the USA too much these days.

I disagree with his analysis. Some of his assumptions do not follow. Most obvious is the notion that something referred to as "The Bill of Rights" isn't really about enumerating rights.

Government, by it's existence, tramples the rights and freedoms of people. Enough of our founding fathers knew this to demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution. The Constitution itself spelled out the duties and responsibilities of government. Raising an Army and Navy were already in the Constitution- you didn't need the Bill of Rights for that. When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were those who argued, as Louis is, that such a thing is unnecessary, because anything not mentioned in the Constitution would be left to the people by default. The one's that prevailed knew better and insisted that certain protections need to be specifically enshrined in the Constitution. This is where Louis misses the mark- when he claims otherwise.

Edit: As to the original topic...

It's the second because it's important.

That works for me.