The Second Amendment assumes a moral people: Unfortunately, our modern government no longer shares that assumption.

American Thinker ^ | 03/01/2021 | Joe Strader

[SeekAndFind]

When the Framers put the Bill of Rights into place, they did so assuming that Americans were a fundamentally moral people.  John Adams stated that explicitly, saying, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  One element of this assumption was that the people could be trusted with firearms.  Now, though, those in charge of the government presumptively assess Americans as immoral and untrustworthy.

Immediately after the Framers created the Union, they passed the ten constitutional amendments that we call the Bill of Rights.  The Framers understood these to be inalienable rights from our Creator.  They forbade the new government to infringe on these rights.

The First Amendment is a moral people's right to communicate to the government a proper course of action.  The Founders knew that government has no morality in and of itself and would depend on moral people to speak and write to redress the errors of government.  To be moral, a government must trust the people to develop and guard their moral principles.

The Second Amendment embodies the implied trust that the government should have in the people.  There is no greater trust than the trust required when people can possess the means of lethal force without regulation.  The people should be trusted because they could be trusted.

It has been said that the Second Amendment is necessary to protect the other amendments.  That is quite true.  However, the First Amendment also protects the Second.  The Founders expected that people would seek the moral teachings of their religious institutions and act upon them — and not just in their speech and in the redress of grievances.  They believed that a moral people would handle lethal force in a moral way,

[Joe Brower]

"The Second Amendment assumes a moral people: Unfortunately, our modern government no longer shares that assumption."

True. And conversely, our modern government has proven itself to be the most immoral entity of all.

Add to this that far too large a percentage of "Our Fellow Americans" are also neither trusting or themselves trustworthy.

Trust. It's hard to come by these days.

[coloradan]

The Second Amendment allows for some of the population to be immoral enough to want to harm others; however, it imposes a high cost on those individuals at the hands of the others in said population. (Specifically, it allows for those costs to rather easily exacted.)

[Myrddin]

My TRT shirt is still in wearable condition. Good to see you here.

[Taxman]

The US Constitution assumes a moral people.

Snipped FRom a letter John Adams sent to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

As you correctly note, “. . . our modern government has proven itself to be the most immoral entity of all.”

We have our work cut out for us if we are to SAVE AMERICA!

[Joe Brower]

My TRT shirt is still in wearable condition. Good to see you here.

As is mine, and likewise, Myrddin. It's been a while.

[mountainlion]

“We the people” are a moral and religious people. We are ruled by an immoral and anti religious government that have stolen their way into positions of power and wealth. They have destroyed the rule of law to allow their criminal acts and the criminal acts of their supporters.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Not only that but they have been flooding the country with foreigners to dilute the votes of the citizens.

[Macoozie]

“the people could be trusted with firearms”

Horse Hockey!

Leave me the Eff alone and you don’t have to worry about trusting me.

It’s because the Goobermint imposes unjust and immoral actions on The People that THEY are concerned and all wee-weed up about the trust thing.

It’s just a phrase used to CONTROL you.

[BobL]

We were pretty much a moral country UNTIL the so-called “Greatest Generation” didn’t bother raising their kids after WW2, giving us the hippies, and now taking us to either civil war or dissolution. The ‘Greatest Generation’ dropped the ball...no way to fix it now.

[Bellagio]

?The Second Amendment assumes a moral people: Unfortunately, our modern government no longer shares that assumption."

Not true. The point assumes government must share/recognize that which it serves.

Our republic and its constitution authorizes a government by consent of the governed. A government administered by elected representative officials who are bound in servitude to the governed; officials who are sworn by oath to function as the guardians of our liberty and our inalienable natural rights as individual sovereigns. Government exists to serve that end and to obey the supreme law, the US constitution. And when the branches of the federal government have conspired to abrogate the people’s liberties, then it is our duty as owners of our government and its institutions, to abolish the corrupt and despotic who have disparaged their oaths and duties of the office they were entrusted with. Either by means of a ballot or by force.

We must defend our Constitution from those who have corrupted her; those who have mutated from servitude to mastery and grown a governance that has become intrusive, oppressive, repressive and tyrannical by laws/actions of usurpation beyond the chains of the constitution that confines it from mischief.

WE ARE THE GUARDIANS of our own liberty and unalienable rights that precede our constitution and government. Government is a tool that enforces the constitution on our behalf. Government is our servant that secures our rights. Government is not our keeper, our mother, our administrator nor do they stand in judgement of our rights. It is OUR constitution that authorizes government and its power. Rights come from God, not government. Government is instituted by men to secure/protect our liberty and rights from foreign and domestic threats.

We as individuals are responsible for keeping government from eroding our liberty, rights and freedoms. Always engaged; always we are patriots of our liberty and rights, and always vigilant in keeping government in chains and in check. A government that serves in subjugation to us and to keep it from ever becoming our masters and tyrants whom rule over us.

And when government no longer serves as guardians of our security, protectors of our way of life and acts contrary to the protection of our liberties and unalienable rights, but instead acts in self-interest and usurping its authority... It is our duty to abolish it!

There is no 'unfortunately our modern government... yahda-yahda...'

We either own, control and hold accountable our government... or we cower/submit under its nefarious corruption by the usurpation of treasonous men and go quietly into the night.

[enumerated]

The second amendment does not assume a moral people.

Precisely, the opposite is true.

It assumes those in authority are prone to tyranny, and what is more immoral than tyranny?

The 2nd amendment assumes those in government will behave immorally, abusing their authority, if left unchecked.

[V_TWIN]

The US Constitution was written with the belief all Americans love our country.....that’s certainty not true either.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I disagree with the premise. Even at the time of the composition of the Constitution, there had long been the argument of whether people are inherently good or inherently evil.

But the two things somewhat canceled each other out, for there are consistently good people who do evil things and evil people who do good things. But the argument cannot be left in shades of grey. So the question becomes, “What motivates people to do good or evil things?”

The answer they came up with is brilliant. That people are neither *inherently* good or evil, but instead they are *weak*.

So examine our Constitution with that idea in mind. For both the organization of our government as a whole, striving for balance of power, with different bodies of men with different motives; and for our Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment protects the weak from the strong. No matter if the strong imagine themselves as good or evil, in either case they cannot just trod on the weak to achieve their ends.

It truly defeats the idea of “might makes right.”

[Dead Corpse]

Exactly... Of course, the more that “moral” people use their freedom to be at all times ARMED, the more dangerous it becomes to be “immoral”.

[Dead Corpse]

“We think people, given the choice, would rather be nice to each other. But just in case... Keep a weapon handy just in case you need to end a bad actor.”

Either way, I approve.

[Charles Martel]

The second amendment does not assume a moral people.

Precisely, the opposite is true.

It assumes those in authority are prone to tyranny, and what is more immoral than tyranny?

The 2nd amendment assumes those in government will behave immorally, abusing their authority, if left unchecked.

True, the Bill of Rights makes no assumptions that individuals may not be worthy of the enumerated rights; we have chosen to deal with that matter by establishing laws which, if broken and a felony conviction results, may result in said rights being lost - at least until the individual pays his or her debt to society. Due Process seems to be a better means of dealing with the morality issue than some blanket statement that "the people are no longer moral", or whatever.

Of course, people with a streak of tyranny in them would probably find legal due process a bit - inconvenient.

[enumerated]

I’m always amazed at the number of people who think citizens shouldn’t be trusted with weapons, but government officials should be.

Let’s give armed police authority over us, and deprive ourselves of the means to resist them. What could possibly go wrong?

[nonsporting]

The Second Amendment embodies the implied trust that the government should have in the people.

Nonsense. This is inverted. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the distrust the people should have in government. Should they attempt to tyrannize, the 2nd amendment affords the people one of the tools needed to resist the usurper.

The unfortunate consequence of the author's inverted thinking is that gov't can say: "Look, the people are no longer trustworthy. We must disarm them."