Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Magistrate

(96,043 posts)
6. A Solid Piece, Sir
Fri Sep 20, 2013, 09:51 AM
Sep 2013

I would advance only one caveat. The amendment was, at least in part, intended as a selling point to political elements in various states who still placed a high value on state sovereignty versus the new central authority. Taken together with a common understanding that the new Federal government would not maintain much in the way of a standing army, the amendment can be seen, and certainly was sold, as offering a means for state governors ( or to put it more bluntly, the wealthy and powerful gentlemen of a state, whose creature any state governor would be ) to resist encroachment by the Federal government on their State's prerogatives, by establishing that state militias would be the predominant form of military force, and by setting control of militia at the state level. Certainly by the time of President Jackson, this view had become practically obsolescent, as the Nullification crisis showed, but it was present at the start, and is a genuine enough root from which the modern idiocy of 'its so people can over-throw the government' grows.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The amendment was never intended as a blank check for some unstable person to massacre... NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #1
About a year ago I spend a good bit of time researching the history of the 2nd Amendment 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #2
Probably by design. Robb Sep 2013 #5
K & R !!! WillyT Sep 2013 #3
The 2A amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms hack89 Sep 2013 #4
A Solid Piece, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2013 #6
You realize you have caused massive headaches amongst certain DUers don't you? CTyankee Sep 2013 #7
I'm sorry, but if he wants to make a real case, he needs to state historical facts and cite sources, Zorra Sep 2013 #8
Worth Reading The Whole 'Tree Of Liberty' Letter, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2013 #13
If the framers were not concerned with domestic tyranny explain the 3rd Amendment. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #9
A nicely-written version... Lizzie Poppet Sep 2013 #10
"failed"? "discredited"? Only by the extreme RW members of the Supreme Court CTyankee Sep 2013 #12
Or by anyone with even a basic grounding in linguistics. Lizzie Poppet Sep 2013 #14
try some history, first Lizzie. CTyankee Sep 2013 #15
I side with our President and his party. Lizzie Poppet Sep 2013 #16
"happening" to be! CTyankee Sep 2013 #20
Take up your complaint with the President Obama. former9thward Sep 2013 #17
Of course he believes that, since it is the law. CTyankee Sep 2013 #21
President Obama believes any Supreme court decision "since it is the law?" former9thward Sep 2013 #22
well, if he were making your argument I would agree, but we don't know do we? CTyankee Sep 2013 #23
Hey, Will! Did you know that "well regulated" was interpreted differently, back then? Paladin Sep 2013 #11
So, Robert Parry, why didthe founding fathers avoid creating a standing army... aikoaiko Sep 2013 #18
Probably because the young nation didn't have two nickels to rub together jmowreader Sep 2013 #26
Whoa! No love for Jefferson AT ALL. KamaAina Sep 2013 #19
Yeah, I wonder if that's a bit much. The guy couldn't have been *all* bad. nomorenomore08 Sep 2013 #25
K&R nomorenomore08 Sep 2013 #24
What is scary is we have these wackos walking around with huge guns davidpdx Sep 2013 #27
Excellent essay. k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Sep 2013 #28
Who, was it supposed, would be doing the infringing if not the federal government? Loudly Sep 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How Fake 2nd Amendment Hi...»Reply #6