2nd Amendment in the Crosshairs.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Come and get it! http://hubpages.com/politics/Prophylactic


The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic

Updated on September 2, 2014

A common argument from those who are in favor of more stringent gun control laws is that the necessity of firearms in the hands of citizens as a “check” against an out-of-control government is simply not needed in this day and age.

America has a mature, stable government, they say, and the possibility of it suddenly going off the rails and needing to be “taken back” by its citizens is simply preposterous. They cite history as showing that the government has never been that overbearing, and there’s never been a need in over two centuries for the armed citizens to rise up. Therefore there will never be such a need.

This view is very shortsighted and misses out on the prime role of the Second Amendment. I’ll leave it to others to defend the concept that a citizen militia can force the government back onto the right track. I want to concentrate of the Second Amendment as a prophylactic.

Merriam-webster.com defines a prophylactic as:

1: guarding from or preventing the spread or occurrence of disease or infection

2: tending to prevent or ward off: preventive

It comes from the Greek words prophylaktikos and prophylassein; to be on guard, from pro- before + phylassein to guard, from phylak-, phylax guard.

The best known use of the word in the general public is probably when it is referred to in birth control. An example would be when a condom is referred to as a prophylactic.

Medical staff use the concept on a daily basis, as many medicines are used as a prophylactic to keep diseases away. A smallpox or measles vaccination is an example. Sterilizing the equipment used for patient treatment is a prophylactic measure, along with washing hands frequently.

The Founding Fathers were very aware of the concept of prophylactics. Their use goes back centuries and are amoung some of the most basic forms of health care and treatment.

And so they built just the same concept into the Constitution with the Second Amendment.

The primary task of the Amendment and an armed citizenry is not to “put the country back together.” It is to keep the country from an aggressive, overbearing government in the very first place. It is a preventative. A guard that wards off beforehand.

Yes, it is absolutely true that the Second Amendment has apparently not been needed in the past 200 plus years to overcome a tyrannical government. That’s because it has been doing its job quietly all along. It has prevented the rise of a tyrannical government. It is far easier for a government to consolidate all power and authority within itself when there is no viable opposition… no “guard” to prevent it from doing so.

No one has really needed to pay close attention to the Second Amendment over the decades any more than one pays close attention to the vitamin pill that is taken each morning. Or the antiseptic that is put on a scratch to prevent infection. They are just “there” doing the job. But as the pill guards the body… as the antiseptic guards the wound… the Amendment has guarded our nation all these years.

It is not a “front of mind” awareness. No politician needs to remind himself of the power of the armed citizens. It is just “there,” always working and always just a thought away.

The proper medicine delivered when the problem is small and insignificant is much more important than medicine when the problem is big and major.
The proper medicine delivered when the problem is small and insignificant is much more important than medicine when the problem is big and major.
Unfortunately, because it has always worked behind the scenes, the respect for the Second Amendment has fallen away from many. We have lost sight of the prophylactic nature of the armed citizen against the power of the government, and that is going to lead the nation down a dangerous path.

The man who regularly uses the services of prostitutes who protects himself with a condom can, at some point, wonder why he is wasting his money buying the condoms when obviously he has not come down with any disease. The moment he decides to stop “wasting money” on condoms is the moment he has guaranteed himself a venereal disease at some point in the future.

When the American society weakens or abandons the Second Amendment we are guaranteed that we are going to have a government at some future time that is far more tyrannical that what we can now believe. Those that believe the Amendment is outmoded because it has never been needed or used are no different in philosophy than the person who has quit using condoms with prostitutes because he has never caught a disease from a prostitute yet.

[And yes, if you want to argue the point, I did just compare prostitutes with the federal government. Certainly an apt comparison at times.]

Many of those pushing against the protections of the Second Amendment know full well the prophylactic nature of the armed citizen. That is exactly why they would see the Amendment weakened, or regulated out of business. Some of our leading politicians and journalists have expressed contempt for the American system and have outright wondered why we as a country cannot be more like Communist China, where “things get done.”

At some point in time, there just may be a clash to see which philosophy wins out. I, personally, would bet on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Hope they don't take states rights from us. should be our decision.

what a contradiction in terms you are chimp. why would the states take away their own rights? idiot.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No whiffy it was on yahoo.

Where did yahoo get it from "Independent" eehbbbuhhrrrrr?

From huffpo? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samant...b_8845634.html

Five years after his retirement in 1986, former Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, explained that "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." The notion that the Second Amendment preserves an individual right to own a gun, he added, is "one of the greatest pieces of fraud... on the American public by special interest groups that I've ever seen in my lifetime."

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Hope they don't take states rights from us. should be our decision.

I bet you don't even realize what you just stated sounds really stupid. First of all nothing is our decision. That's why the Constitution is our only lifeline to prevent the Government from going totally tyrannical so we better do all we can to protect and preserve it. If it wasn't for our 2nd Amendment there would be no discussion about gun control in this country. So it should be obvious the Government wants to do something about gun ownership and the rights we have under the 2nd Amendment. Murder and crime involving firearms is not the reason for all this talk about gun control. The government can give a flying fuck about that.


Jim

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what a contradiction in terms you are chimp. why would the states take away their own rights? idiot.

If you could read then you wouldn't look so stupid. Anyone who claims they don't know what FIFY means should just STFU.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I bet you don't even realize what you just stated sounds really stupid. First of all nothing is our decision. That's why the Constitution is our only lifeline to prevent the Government from going totally tyrannical so we better do all we can to protect and preserve it. If it wasn't for our 2nd Amendment there would be no discussion about gun control in this country. So it should be obvious the Government wants to do something about gun ownership and the rights we have under the 2nd Amendment. Murder and crime involving firearms is not the reason for all this talk about gun control. The government can give a flying fuck about that.


Jim

Why do you think hoping the federal government doesn't take the states right to govern stupid?

[CuteOldGuy]

Warren Burger was an idiot. And what the hell does that last post of yours mean, IWantABiggen?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Warren Burger was an idiot. And what the hell does that last post of yours mean, IWantABiggen?

I knew you wouldn't understand it my ignorant little friend.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The fact that Warren Burger made that statement is exactly why our Founders put the 2d Amendment in our Bill of Rights, i.e., to protect our freedoms from the stupid, naive ramblings of old fools such as he.

Such as he?

So you're saying the fucking founders knew Warren Burger was going to come along and wrote an iron clad document? Is that why SCOTUS has never been allowed to interpret the fucking constitution?

Who's the naive old fool? Make it, ignorant old fool!

PS -- thanks to SLOBBRIN for finding an 2014 article expressing the urgency of the situation ... And congratulate him on being elected IOTY!

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Such as he?

So you're saying the fucking founders knew Warren Burger was going to come along and wrote an iron clad document?

Yes, I am saying exactly that. The Court, by opinion, can "interpret" the Constitution, but it cannot change it. A later Court can just as easily come back and re-interpret it.

But, the Document remains, changed only by Amendment.

The Founders delibertly made it very difficult to amend our Constitution so it would not be subject to the petty whims of Demagogues, political hacks, and naive old fools bending to the whim of the moment.

I consider our Bill of Rights to be the closest thing to a sacred document that a secular government could have. It has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so with due diligence from an educated, and armed, citizenry.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Warren Burger was an idiot. And what the hell does that last post of yours mean, IWannaSUCKABiggen?

FTFY

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

FTFY

According to what your understanding of FIFY is, you just said you wanted to suck a biggen.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Yes, I am saying exactly that. The Court, by opinion, can "interpret" the Constitution, but it cannot change it. A later Court can just as easily come back and re-interpret it.

But, the Document remains, changed only by Amendment.

The Founders delibertly made it very difficult to amend our Constitution so it would not be subject to the petty whims of Demagogues, political hacks, and naive old fools bending to the whim of the moment.

I consider our Bill of Rights to be the closest thing to a sacred document that a secular government could have. It has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so with due diligence from an educated, and armed, citizenry.

Great.

Thanks for the explanation, deacon!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Hope they don't take states rights from us. should be our decision.

I completely agree - states rights should be sacrosanct. 50 independent states is the only hope we have to realize the founding fathers dream of liberty and freedom from excessive and oppressive government.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And congratulate him on being elected IOTY!

I get what I want and I have great friends... Urinal Lips