When is it right to avail oneself of the 2nd amendment?

[^_^ 5,021]

The problem is that arguments around the second amendment rely less on practical definitions of what it means in real terms and instead rely almost entirely on half-assed platitudes.

Madame Cleo is inviting us to share with the community our own practical definitions of what we think it means.

Edited January 10, 2011 by \

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is terminology to describe the elections in the Soviet Bloc countries. "Fair" and "Free", however, are not exactly terms that would well describe what was called elections in those days. I've been there and I've seen it. Nothing free and nothing fair about it.

Not that different from the 6th Congressional district of California, for example, where ballot stuffing happens regularly. Democrats have weird sense of what constitutes "fair play".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Madame Cleo is inviting us to share with the community our own practical definitions of what we think it means.

I don't think it means anything. Hell, I don't think most Americans know either. They sure as hell can't agree on it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not that different from the 6th Congressional district of California, for example, where ballot stuffing happens regularly. Democrats have weird sense of what constitutes "fair play".

Clearly, you don't know what you're comparing here. Is there some state controlling party in California that dictates who can and who cannot present themselves to the electorate as a choice in the election? Is there a state controlling party that decides who is and isn't allowed to wage a campaign for office and who directs the party owned media - which coincidentally is the only media - on campaign and any other reporting? Are dissidents - those that dare challenge the all controlling regime - monitored by the state controlling party's secret service and are they silenced and locked up? What's that? No to all? Well, then I'd say that it's quite different.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What line would you draw in the sand?

Personally, it is my belief that if one has the ability to participate in free and fair elections (subject to the appropriate age limitations) , then one has no right whatsoever to overturn the outcome just because person the elected does not conform with you personal vision of what government should mean.

Some of the posters on VJ seem to feel differently. Feel free to draw your own lines.

If your asking - Can we shoot an elected official, then the answer is no. There are only a few scenarios I can think of where I would use the 2nd A. If government physically broke down and there was no effective police force I would join an armed community group in protecting the community. Or if widespread martial law was declared.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Clearly, you don't know what you're comparing here. Is there some state controlling party in California that dictates who can and who cannot present themselves to the electorate as a choice in the election? Is there a state controlling party that decides who is and isn't allowed to wage a campaign for office and who directs the party owned media - which coincidentally is the only media - on campaign and any other reporting? Are dissidents - those that dare challenge the all controlling regime - monitored by the state controlling party's secret service and are they silenced and locked up? What's that? No to all? Well, then I'd say that it's quite different.

Well, nobody has gotten locked up yet just for being a member of the dissident party. We are not quite there, yet.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, nobody has gotten locked up yet just for being a member of the dissident party. We are not quite there, yet.

But you're suggesting that's where we're going? Based on what? Is it different when disctricts in other parts are carried reliably by one party or the other? Do those also go down the path of totalitarianism? Is the south a lost cause? Or is that something we need to worry about only in this one district in California? Or just for districts that happen to reliably send a progressive to Congress?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What line would you draw in the sand?

Personally, it is my belief that if one has the ability to participate in free and fair elections (subject to the appropriate age limitations) , then one has no right whatsoever to overturn the outcome just because person the elected does not conform with you personal vision of what government should mean.

Some of the posters on VJ seem to feel differently. Feel free to draw your own lines.

Last I looked it is illegal to murder someone, elected or unelected in any state. How does that link to the 2nd amendment?

Please tell us where anyone has a right to overturn the results of an election?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Draw guidance from the language, maybe?

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.

The key is 'free state'. When we are not, then you invoke 2nd Amendment remedies. Well, you don't cuz you don't have a gun. Neither do I. We'll both look to Charles to do our heavy lifting for us. Hopefully he doesn't bear a VJ grudge!

The 2nd amendment is not a remedy and never is. It is a right to keep and bear arms that would allow us the MEANS to an armed remedy to tyrrany. The "right" is not a remedy in itself. It only says to government "you can't touch this"

I "invoke" the 2nd Amendment every day when I carry a loaded, concealed handgun with me everywhere I go. I have never shot anyone. Hope I never have to. It is the 2nd to last thing I would ever want to happen.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't think it means anything. Hell, I don't think most Americans know either. They sure as hell can't agree on it.

The good news is...it doesn't matter. It is a RIGHT. That means you do not have to like it, agree on it or even understand it...you HAVE IT. You get to choose whether to use it or "avail yourself" of it. You do NOT get to choose if someone else does.

The Supreme Court has clearly defined what it means and what it means the government can not do. It does not matter if most Americans know about that or not. People cannot agree on religion either, but it is also a right they do not have to agree on.

Our rights will not be changed by this event, nor should they be. This silly talk will persist for a while and then go away. This is a tragic event that happens in various places around the world. It will not stop today or tomorrow and there are no effective laws "against it".

MC's question was facetious and non-sensical. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with one person negating an election and to argue that is silly. Anyone taking that bait is a fool. The man who did this will be charged with HOMICIDE and ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. Those crimes were already against the law. Had he violated a gun law (and I am not sure if he did or not) it would be dropped anyway. Does anyoen seriously think this madman would be stopped from the act of KILLING people because he would not want to violate a gun law? He will not be charged with "voter fraud" or "vote tampering" or election tampering. Please, can anyone discuss this without first making something up that doesn't exist?

[james&olya 1,121]

There is terminology to describe the elections in the Soviet Bloc countries. "Fair" and "Free", however, are not exactly terms that would well describe what was called elections in those days. I've been there and I've seen it. Nothing free and nothing fair about it.

How anyone could call those elections "free and fair" is beyond me!

[james&olya 1,121]

The good news is...it doesn't matter. It is a RIGHT. That means you do not have to like it, agree on it or even understand it...you HAVE IT. You get to choose whether to use it or "avail yourself" of it. You do NOT get to choose if someone else does.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with one person negating an election and to argue that is silly.

John Wilkes Booth negated an election. Lee Harvey Oswald negated an election. Those are facts, not opinions. The 2nd amendment may be good or bad but it has consequences that are very real.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How anyone could call those elections "free and fair" is beyond me!

while not "free and fair" it is interesting for two points...

1. They had a voter turn out rate in the high 80's percentage wise !!!!!

2. They had a higher turnover of members of the "Supreme Soviet" than our congress does.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

John Wilkes Booth negated an election. Lee Harvey Oswald negated an election. Those are facts, not opinions. The 2nd amendment may be good or bad but it has consequences that are very real.

They negated an election by committing murder. Committing muder is not "availing oneself of the second amendment". We have no "Right to murder". It was already a crime to do so and still is. It is not legal and is not a "remedy" To suggest, as MC did, that it is ever "acceptable" is silly. Coining a silly idiom "Second Amendment Remedy" and then asking someone to seriously defend it is ridiculous. I am not going there. Unless she wants to tell me when it is OK to "rain cats and dogs". Sheeesh, JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZum

Lee Harvey Oswald was never even indicted for the crime of killing Kennedy, but that is incidental, there is no dispute he was murdered by someone.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The good news is...it doesn't matter. It is a RIGHT. That means you do not have to like it, agree on it or even understand it...you HAVE IT. You get to choose whether to use it or "avail yourself" of it. You do NOT get to choose if someone else does.

The Supreme Court has clearly defined what it means and what it means the government can not do. It does not matter if most Americans know about that or not. People cannot agree on religion either, but it is also a right they do not have to agree on.

Our rights will not be changed by this event, nor should they be. This silly talk will persist for a while and then go away. This is a tragic event that happens in various places around the world. It will not stop today or tomorrow and there are no effective laws "against it".

MC's question was facetious and non-sensical. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with one person negating an election and to argue that is silly. Anyone taking that bait is a fool. The man who did this will be charged with HOMICIDE and ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. Those crimes were already against the law. Had he violated a gun law (and I am not sure if he did or not) it would be dropped anyway. Does anyoen seriously think this madman would be stopped from the act of KILLING people because he would not want to violate a gun law? He will not be charged with "voter fraud" or "vote tampering" or election tampering. Please, can anyone discuss this without first making something up that doesn't exist?

The OP was asking what the right actually means in real terms. You seem to be ignoring that to suggest that owning a gun is merely an end unto itself. Somehow that seems pretty unsatisfactory.