Is the second amendment apart of the checks and balances of government?

[Anonymous]

The USA has 3 branches of govt to ensure the republic is not tainted by tyranny. They are the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches. But I argue there is a 4th check and it belongs to the people, the 2nd amendment.

It is

Nope

Updates

+1 y

The first thing govts do when they are about to become corrupt is disarm the public

[Soteris]

I do not agree. First of all, there has been plenty of times both in USA and around the world where the people have held the government to account at various degrees, rarely is that done using legally owned guns. I say rarely because it might have been done at some point but quite frankly I have never heard of it personally.

Secondly, I have no reason to assume that the government would be afraid of an armed populace. They face the threat of actual armies daily as it is and especially in USA have plenty of experience in how to control a hostile armed population using military and paramilitary forces.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly. The people who are motivated to use their weapons for political reasons are very unlikely to be those intending to protect democracy and instead be those intending to usurp democratic power and institute authoritarian control. In other words, angry people with guns are probably not your friends.

Lastly, if anything you telling people repeatedly to use your guns to hold the government to account will simply motivate people to try use weapons to enforce their political beliefs rather than safeguard the democratic system. There is a word for people like that, we call them "terrorists".

[Soteris]

Update: Untrue. Using the Nazis as an example they actually loosened previous gun regulations and its population had a high rate of gun ownership which did literally jack shit to prevent the government overtake of the Nazi party nor the atrocities that followed.

[LZPanzer]

The original intent was to ensure the government was accountable to it's people

Back then there was little that separated a military regiment from a mob of ordinary citizens.

The idea was that if the government did something heinous that wasn't the will of the majority, mass uprising and rebellion would occur and out number any standing army the government could muster.

The founding fathers knew that a large mob of people would be able to do little against even a small army of oppressors. Thus an armed mob would have the advantage back then due simply to numbers.

Nowadays with the advancement of technology even a heavily armed civilian uprising would do little against forces that can deploy tanks, jets, and nukes.

The second amendment was intended as a fallback measure should the government decided to abuse its power and enforce it's will over the people and not for the people.

With that purpose rendered obsolete so too is the original intent. It's a realic of a bygone era and is due for an overhaul, however people have been lied to for decades about what should be done piting both sides against the he other instead of coming together for a consensus

[Nomoturtle]

Yeah? Then why can't America win a war?

Otherwise, yes, great argument; Americans should have power over force equivalent to the government. Roll out the McNukes.

More seriously though, governments can't use force the same way regular people can. Democide of the productive members of society has consequence, as every communist government learns the hard way. So no, they can't just use jets/tanks/nukes to their full extent for any other purpose than fear, while on the reverse side, mere guns are still good enough to kill a bunch of tyrants.

The nature of government or of people has not significantly changed. Social order is always backed by force, and should a government decide to use that force to solve a problem, they should remain accountable to people; even when they aren't interested in taking a vote. The people should, and hopefully always will, have access to force, or else the emergent incentives will inevitably produce a dystopia.

[laurcar34]

I think you mean, "a part." But no, it's not. The "checks and balances" thing regards the three branches: legislative, judiciary, and executive. The legislative is Congress - the House of Representatives and Senate; the judiciary is the system of courts, headed by the Supreme Court; and the executive is the President and his staff.

[TDDMS]

The concept of Checks and Balances was not and is not exclusive to the government, it also extended to the relationship between the government and the people.

[laurcar34]

@TDDMS bullshit

[OlderAndWiser]

Bingo. Paraphrased, there is a quote, often misattributed to Jefferson, that "tyranny happens when the people fear the government; democracy happens when the government fears the people." It's a great quote even if Jefferson didn't say it.

[jshm2]

Your argument is bullshit as the "republic" is among the most tyrannical, dangerous and corrupt in the world already.

The 2nd amendment is largely misunderstood as it simply implies a police and military organisation be funded. It is mistranslated to imply the public "must" own guns.

Mainly as the NRA would go bankrupt overnight should the need for civilians to have guns be largely pointless - as is the case in civilised countries. I suppose the founding fathers never thought the USA would ever be a civilised country.

[joeldalton]

lol. Good thing we stopped giving a shit about what the UK thought in 1776

[Asker]

@joeldalton this dude is wrong on so many levels the colonists (citizens) were encouraged by the crown to own guns to protect themselves and to hunt. Also without the USA the western world would have looked vastly different under the Soviet Union. We were the major power pushing back against their expansion. They can bitch and moan only because they are under our protection via NATO

[LikeALog]

You don't understand what the first ten amendments are. They are the Bill of Rights. They state the inalienable rights we as citizens possess. They do not give us those Rights. They protect us from Government infringement of those Rights. That's why we are no longer part of Britain, we got tired for the draconian rules continuously whittling away rights previously granted by the Crown.

[FunkyMonkee]

It may be a part of it but it's NOT apart of it.
If these branches are there to quell inner tyranny, why are they doing nothing to stop the tyranny we have now? The ONLY thing they ARE stopping is the very people ARE TRYING to put a stop to it!!
The biggest reason for the 2nd Amendment is NOT so we can be free to walk the streets and shot anybody that looks at us cross-eyed, it to give us the right and the power to remove any tyrannic government from office that we see fit to do so!! THAT'S the BIGGEST reason those same tyrants in office today want to get rid of all the guns, so we no longer HAVE any power to do this!! What's holding up the process?

[Jay3344]

The people are a check in the three branches but to distill that down to just a single amendment is ludicrous. The people check all branches by voting. Vote in judges, vote in politicians, bring cases against the government, write and lobby politicians. Heck the first amendment has proven to be way more of a check on power than the 2nd because the first holds the press, the right to assemble, the freedom to practice whatever religion freely. I mean the last open rebellion in the US was over 150 years ago, and it failed. The last time protests brought about government change could be measured in many ways but I assure you public pressure through demonstration has been more consistent, frequent, and less bloody.

[Asker]

Gives credence to the founding fathers. Probably no mistake the 1st amendment is number 1

[Mantinziza]

Thats a very thick question... that devolves into the argument of "what is a weapon"

I can happily digress more but I will only do so, it if asked, because it is veeeery long winded.

I will say this, weapons exist, and no form of government will 100% disarm any population, ever or will ever, weapons come in many forms.

[goaded]

Why does the picture of the "friendly" rifle not have a 30 round magazine in it? Could it be because you're trying to convince people of something? For that matter, why doesn't the AR-15 have a smaller magazine?

I'd be quite content, if I were an American, to limit the size of magazines to 10, 5, or less. Mass killings get less likely, and any hunter who needs more isn't a hunter.

[Asker]

Mass shooting are extremely rare all things considered. Most of the gun deaths in America are from hand guns and a large chunk of gun deaths are suicides. There are millions of 30 round capable rifiles in the hands of law abiding Americans.

[Massageman]

The Checks and Balances of the government was- and had better stay- are the creation of three branches OF the government- executive, legislative, and judicial.

The second amendment is actually a specific "right" given the people via the "Bill of Rights". Technically, it's not in the overt CaB of the original government.

[Seangreen]

Of course it is. The governments of this world can do some Shady stuff to their people and don't say it won't happen here and don't say it won't happen aga5 because it has it can easily happen again. I have a mini 14 and it's a really nice rifle

[Dvchill]

It isn’t a check…. The government is there to protect your natural rights… the second amendment is there to “remove” the government if they stop providing this service… I would say that is a bit more then a check….

[NetSapien]

A well armed population is the final barrier when 'Checks and Balances' fail.

[EnglishEuropean]

The checks and balances are the three co-equal branches of government. The Constitution isn't holy writ, it has been amended multiple times and can be again.

[OddBeMe]

Right wing walking dead fantasy again. Who do you think you’ll be shooting at? Cops and soldiers you salute at baseball games.

[888theGreat]

Our original fathers knew there would be crazy ass dudes like Obama, Biden, Harris, and AOC that would try to make America communist.

[Anonymous]

It’s a stupid relic from 300 years ago, it doesn’t make any sense in the 21st century. It’s out of date.

[joeldalton]

lol, retard.

[Asker]

Lead bullets have lead to the freedom of billions of people. They only thing tyrants understand is force

[joeldalton]

Agreed.