PDA

View Full Version : Do we still need that militia?



John Smith
09-07-2018, 07:32 AM
We need to have an honest conversation about guns in America, and it needs to begin with what the 2nd Amendment actually says as to why it was written.

"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 question needed to be asked: Do we still need that well-regulaed militia?


Today, when we think of a militia, we think of armed citizens determined to protect us FROM the government. But this is what Art. 1, section 8, of the constitution says about that militia: It was an arm OF the government.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"


I submit that once we had National Guard. Police, and standing armies, the militia was no longer needed, and the 2nd amendment should have been deemed as moot as the 3rd, and I'll wage most who read this have to look that up.

Tom Montgomery
09-07-2018, 07:37 AM
Stop making sense.

LeeG
09-07-2018, 07:52 AM
2 nd Amendment is like yr appendix.

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 08:15 AM
feel free to get rid of your militia. i'll keep mine for awhile.

LeeG
09-07-2018, 08:45 AM
feel free to get rid of your militia. i'll keep mine for awhile.

pretty sure your militia won’t last 2 seconds against the well regulated National Guard.

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 08:57 AM
pretty sure your militia won’t last 2 seconds against the well regulated National Guard.



thanks for the assessment, i'll keep it just the same though.

LeeG
09-07-2018, 10:09 AM
thanks for the assessment, i'll keep it just the same though.

Do you practice with your militia?

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 10:31 AM
Do you practice with your militia?


of course. even have a special trip planned to hit up the 1,000 yard range in a few weeks. it'll be fun, you should go.

sharpiefan
09-07-2018, 10:45 AM
One of the contradictions in The Constitution is the tension between the 2nd Amendment and the provision for forming a standing army. Many of the folk at the Constitutional Convention were profoundly against a standing army. For example:


In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
~ James Madison

The original provision to fund a standing army was to be limited to not more than two years. The militia was always available for duty in emergencies.

The militia originally was intended to be an enforcing part of the federal government:



To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress...
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Nowadays, most pro-2nd-Amendment people define "militia" along these lines:

"A volunteer, non-government (*NOT* anti-government) force of citizens organized to protect their families, property, and community."

John Smith
09-07-2018, 11:14 AM
feel free to get rid of your militia. i'll keep mine for awhile.

You miss the point. What you think of as a definition of 'militia' is not the one referenced in the 2nd amendment or in the body of the constitution.

Tom Montgomery
09-07-2018, 11:15 AM
It is a bunch of hoplophiles playing army. And nursing fantasies of violently over-throwing the Federal government.

John Smith
09-07-2018, 11:19 AM
I would also point out that the word 'own' does not appear in the 2nd Amendment. Nor does the word 'gun' "keep" does not mean 'own'. It seems pretty clear, in context, that those in the militia got to keep whatever 'arms' (which included more than guns) the government provided.

In today's world 'arms' include nuclear weapons. Something to think about.

ALL THAT SAID. there is nothing anywhere in the constitution that prohibits you from owning any arms, or anything that would prohibit the government from regulating the ownership of arms.

pipefitter
09-07-2018, 12:23 PM
It is a bunch of hoplophiles playing army. And nursing fantasies of violently over-throwing the Federal government.

Really? I grew up with WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam vets in the house, all of who had seen active duty.

My father had reached officer status by the time he was discharged after the (WW2) war. Do you think he forgot his training or, responsibilities after the fact? To the contrary, it was instead, harder to make him quit, from the way he made his bed, kept his clothes/shoes, tools, cars and guns maintained. Not to mention what manners and respects he somehow effortlessly commanded from his sons and peers, just from the way he carried himself.


Everywhere I tend to look, there are experienced veterans. One friend I have recently gained, did a couple tours in Afghanistan. He's shot/shrapnel'd up a bit, but the Wounded Warriors organization has managed to bring him back to some sense of normalcy. He went back the 2nd time because he could not stand the thought of leaving his team there with someone else. He has no inclinations of overthrowing the Fed.

Weird that the amount of military influence that resides in just the GP alone, manages to get overlooked with the idea of a citizen based militia. How can you forget all of these people, along with their experience? We likely have more active military/tech experience in our population than any country on the planet. You may forget it but, I can guarantee you that any military strategist, foreign or otherwise, would have to deeply consider this before ever trying anything in the way of occupation, at least.

Breakaway
09-07-2018, 12:45 PM
Really? I grew up with WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam vets in the house, all of who had seen active duty.



My father had reached officer status by the time he was discharged after the (WW2) war. Do you think he forgot his training or, responsibilities after the fact? To the contrary, it was instead, harder to make him quit, from the way he made his bed, kept his clothes/shoes, tools, cars and guns maintained. Not to mention what manners and respects he somehow effortlessly commanded from his sons and peers, just from the way he carried himself.





Everywhere I tend to look, there are experienced veterans. One friend I have recently gained, did a couple tours in Afghanistan. He's shot/shrapnel'd up a bit, but the Wounded Warriors organization has managed to bring him back to some sense of normalcy. He went back the 2nd time because he could not stand the thought of leaving his team there with someone else. He has no inclinations of overthrowing the Fed.



Weird that the amount of military influence that resides in just the GP alone, manages to get overlooked with the idea of a citizen based militia. How can you forget all of these people, along with their experience? We likely have more active military/tech experience in our population than any country on the planet. You may forget it but, I can guarantee you that any military strategist, foreign or otherwise, would have to deeply consider this before ever trying anything in the way of occupation, at least.



Your experience mirrors mine, Pipefitter.


Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

LeeG
09-07-2018, 12:50 PM
of course. even have a special trip planned to hit up the 1,000 yard range in a few weeks. it'll be fun, you should go.

Your militia shoots at targets? That sounds like target practice.

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 12:56 PM
Your militia shoots at targets? That sounds like target practice.



stupid post is stupid.

David W Pratt
09-07-2018, 01:01 PM
The honest conversation you suggest would mean the participants would be willing to have their minds changed

John Smith
09-07-2018, 01:19 PM
Take a day or two and read this John. Maybe it will clear up some issues for you:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjl_cGZtaTdAhXvIjQIHUzjCrsQFjAqegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1ha4JZgBGijIM-qCAy-HvV

I read the constitution. I find it quite clear. Only those who want it to say something it does not say find it unclear.

The question asked in this thread is, "Do we still need the militia referenced in the 2nd Amendment?" If your answer is 'no', then the 2nd Amendment is moot. If it is "yes", then it is the government's responsibility to supply you with your guns.

Joe (SoCal)
09-07-2018, 01:25 PM
22411

LeeG
09-07-2018, 01:27 PM
stupid post is stupid.

target practice doesn’t make you part of a well regulated militia so don’t make facile allusions to that point.

bluedog225
09-07-2018, 01:43 PM
china, india, russia all far outpace with regards to retired military numbers



when has invasion or occupation of the u.s. mainland ever been a viable threat? 1812? 1862?

I thought I saw some big artillery sites near Seattle. I didn’t think they were that old. Sorta looked like WW2 stuff.

bluedog225
09-07-2018, 01:50 PM
I like cartoons too.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3a/60/ef/3a60effe73cc709b126a1bc5b1039af5.jpg

sharpiefan
09-07-2018, 02:00 PM
target practice doesn’t make you part of a well regulated militia so don’t make facile allusions to that point.

What do you think the Army, Navy and Marines, and Air Force trainees practice shooting at?

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 02:06 PM
What do you think the Army, Navy and Marines, and Air Force trainees practice shooting at?


exactly. which is why that post was just stupid. i guess they think the army practices shooting at live minority groups

LeeG
09-07-2018, 02:55 PM
What do you think the Army, Navy and Marines, and Air Force trainees practice shooting at?

they develop other necessary skills that in conjunction with shooting accurately make for a military force.

paulf
09-07-2018, 03:08 PM
exactly. which is why that post was just stupid. i guess they think the army practices shooting at live minority groups

We had to re-qualify with rifle/ pistol every year of active service these were target ranges, There was also specialized weapons training, Combat ranges that used live fire to simulate combat. there was over 20 of these sites at Pendleton alone. These ranges had villages, cityscapes, woodland, desert and beach flavors. They were designed to teach how to control your emotions while in a combat situation.

They were live fire with tactical problems injected to sharpen skills like proper target identification, fire safety and discipline etc. I was a forward Air observer, "Tactical air control" My main weapon was a radio connected to several air assets, rotary and fixed wing.

Even as communications I had to do all the weapons training as well, I carried an M16 and a 1911 45 as TO weapons with the radio.

I went to specialized training for the air support part. We trained year-round unless in a combat zone.

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 03:21 PM
exactly. which is why that post was just stupid. i guess they think the army practices shooting at live minority groups
Alan does your militia do that thing where you crawl through the mud under barbed wire while your 'comrades' shoot live ammunition over your shoulders? that's like hardcore **** man. is your militia hardcore?

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 03:23 PM
alan, does anybody in your militia have a confederate battle flag bumper sticker or tattoo?

honest question bro

John of Phoenix
09-07-2018, 03:29 PM
1000 yards? You're hamburger, dude. "Pink mist" we call it.

You're out ranged by a factor of 16x. 30mm high explosive - think "hand grenades ". At 600/min. And that's just the LITTLE stuff.

Yeah, WOW, 1000 yards! Bring it, militia boy. :D LMAO :D

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/d1/a7/31d1a791e56f803b25f3f3f1c6cc87b4.jpg

John of Phoenix
09-07-2018, 03:32 PM
And if you're worried about being occupied, Putin has you by the gronicles and you're cheering him on.

Sweet Mother of God reds are Stupid.

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 03:33 PM
hahahha, yall some stupid sometimes.

John of Phoenix
09-07-2018, 03:35 PM
Now you're into Dunning-Kruger territory.

:D LMAO:D

skuthorp
09-07-2018, 03:40 PM
"The original provision to fund a standing army was to be limited to not more than two years."

So if that's the reason for your 2nd, the answer is obvious, disband the standing military forces. The Militia is there to step in………..

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 03:40 PM
Alan, is your militia all white? all male?

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 03:41 PM
do y'all wear beret's by chance? what color?

Joe (SoCal)
09-07-2018, 03:53 PM
do y'all wear beret's by chance? what color?


https://www.5starvintage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/IMG_6564_1.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
09-07-2018, 03:54 PM
http://tokyofashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/TK-2014-05-31-012-002-Harajuku.jpg

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 03:56 PM
Now you're into Dunning-Kruger territory.

:D LMAO:D


you should know, you live in dunning kruger territory.

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 03:57 PM
surely alan burned all his nike swag three days ago
https://www.5starvintage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/IMG_6564_1.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
09-07-2018, 04:04 PM
Florida Man Accidentally Burns Home Down After Lighting Nike Shoes On Fire In Protest Of Nike’s Colin Kaepernick Ad



https://instantnews.life/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/img_2885-2-696x432-696x432.jpg

https://instantnews.life/2018/09/05/florida-man-accidentally-burns-home-down-after-lighting-nike-shoes-on-fire-in-protest-of-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad/

Disclaimer: I kinda think this might be a fake story but it's funny and fits into this thread so well :)

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 04:06 PM
you should know, you live in dunning kruger territory.did alan just use the rubber and glue playground comeback on the woodenboat forum?

i know you are but what am i

Paul Pless
09-07-2018, 04:08 PM
i should stop, alan's got guns and he's a right winger and he's only about an eight hour determined drive from hell. . .

sorry alan i take it all back
do you want me to go delete those previous militia centric posts? i will do it for you if you want me to. . .

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 04:09 PM
did alan just use the rubber and glue playground comeback on the woodenboat forum?

i know you are but what am i


no, i used the wonderful powers of observation and common sense. what forumite incessantly calls half the country stupid and takes the position of intellectual authority?

S.V. Airlie
09-07-2018, 04:10 PM
Florida Man Accidentally Burns Home Down After Lighting Nike Shoes On Fire In Protest Of Nike’s Colin Kaepernick Ad



https://instantnews.life/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/img_2885-2-696x432-696x432.jpg

https://instantnews.life/2018/09/05/florida-man-accidentally-burns-home-down-after-lighting-nike-shoes-on-fire-in-protest-of-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad/

Disclaimer: I kinda think this might be a fake story but it's funny and fits into this thread so well :)Either way,"Nike" is happy, this guy had to buy them to burn them.

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 04:10 PM
i should stop, alan's got guns and he's a right winger and he's only about an eight hour determined drive from hell. . .

sorry alan i take it all back
do you want me to go delete those previous militia centric posts? i will do it for you if you want me to. . .


hahaha, you do what you want. the lame jokes don't bother me.

John of Phoenix
09-07-2018, 04:18 PM
did alan just use the rubber and glue playground comeback on the woodenboat forum?

i know you are but what am iYeah, that was genuine gut crusher.

Pink Mist Militia Boy knows how to throw a bruising punch all right. From 1000 yards. Over the internet even.

:D LMAO :D

AlanMc
09-07-2018, 04:25 PM
yall be sure to run your illogical and fallacy ridden argument all the way out. have fun

Canoeyawl
09-07-2018, 04:31 PM
no, i used the wonderful powers of observation and common sense. what forumite incessantly calls half the country stupid and takes the position of intellectual authority?

"What" forumite or which forumite?

epoxyboy
09-07-2018, 04:44 PM
no, i used the wonderful powers of observation and common sense. what forumite incessantly calls half the country stupid and takes the position of intellectual authority?

So Alan, a serious question - which have conveniently ignored.
Being able to hit a target is obviously important, but do you guys practice all the other stuff that a militia would have to engage in?

Hard core first aid - the other dudes WILL be shooting back, and they train too.

Communications - the other dudes have encrypted radios (so you can't hear them), and practice all that October whisky fox tango chit, so there is no confusion on the battlefield.

Physical fitness. They are young, sans beerbelly, and work out. Maybe y'all are too.

Logistics - one thing the US military excels at, getting stuff from where it is now, to where it needs to be, in huge quantities.

Strategy, tactics, blah, blah. They do those big military exercises regularly, for a reason, and analyze how it all went.

So my sincere question is, apart from target practice, how much of anything of the above does your militia do, in a meaningful way? The first aid one (battlefield triage) is perhaps an easy one to answer. Your friend Billy Bob suddenly has a large hole in an unexpected place, and loads of icky stuff is coming out. What do you do?

Pete

Keith Wilson
09-07-2018, 04:50 PM
One more time: the 'militia' as understood in 1789 is as obsolete for fighting wars or defending the country from foreign powers as flintlock muskets.

(FWIW, one major function of the original militia in part of the US was defending against potential slave rebellions, but let's not mention that, OK? A bit embarrassing.)

Chris249
09-07-2018, 04:51 PM
no, i used the wonderful powers of observation and common sense. what forumite incessantly calls half the country stupid and takes the position of intellectual authority?

I can think of Dan, SB, and probably Geng and you.

John of Phoenix
09-07-2018, 05:14 PM
Beyond this fantasy power militia, he's claimed some kind of military experience. Anyone know what it was?

John Smith
09-07-2018, 05:22 PM
You insist on posting multiple repetitive threads on this issue without considering serious written explanations of policy - explanations both pro and con. I gave you a one click avenue to some information. My suggestion is that you read some of these explanations and see if they impact your very limited views. Of course you don't have to, but you might recall that we have had any number of threads bemoaning a poorly informed citizenry.

First, explain to me how I am wrong when I say the second amendment only came to be because we needed a well regulated militia. That single sentence that make the second amendment contains two clauses. The first clause tells us why the second clause is there.

Very difficult, IMO, to misconstrue that.

Equally difficult to misconstrue is the actual language in the constitution that describes the responsibility of the government arm, train, and call up the militia.

I've read volumes over the years where these simple words are distorted for purpose. The people who wrote the constitution were stingy with words. Brief and to the point.

I've also often seen linguistic gymnastics practiced to get 'keep' to mean 'own'. I suspect the founders knew how to spell 'own' and would have put that word there if it's what they meant.

It's also very clear that 'arms' would include guns, but that word is not limited to guns.

I believe I can comprehend simple English.

Let me add the question: Today 'arms' include all kinds of weaponry never dreamed of when the constitution was written. Do you believe you have the right to own your own nuclear arsenal? If not, then do you not draw a line somewhere?

John Smith
09-07-2018, 05:24 PM
exactly. which is why that post was just stupid. i guess they think the army practices shooting at live minority groups

I suppose one could make a case that Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, were just to keep our military well practiced. In case we should need them for a war of merit.

Breakaway
09-07-2018, 05:31 PM
John, whatever case one may make against militias or, " wars of merit," will have no affect on the 2nd Amendment. Only another Amendment can do that.


Kevin

LeeG
09-07-2018, 05:56 PM
1000 yards? You're hamburger, dude. "Pink mist" we call it.

You're out ranged by a factor of 16x. 30mm high explosive - think "hand grenades ". At 600/min. And that's just the LITTLE stuff.

Yeah, WOW, 1000 yards! Bring it, militia boy. :D LMAO :D

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/d1/a7/31d1a791e56f803b25f3f3f1c6cc87b4.jpg

wait a second, to paraphrase Lindsey Graham, the Founding Fathers never talked about vertical lift aircraft carrying artillery !

LeeG
09-07-2018, 06:39 PM
Florida Man Accidentally Burns Home Down After Lighting Nike Shoes On Fire In Protest Of Nike’s Colin Kaepernick Ad



https://instantnews.life/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/img_2885-2-696x432-696x432.jpg

https://instantnews.life/2018/09/05/florida-man-accidentally-burns-home-down-after-lighting-nike-shoes-on-fire-in-protest-of-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad/

Disclaimer: I kinda think this might be a fake story but it's funny and fits into this thread so well :)

Florida man always

Barry
09-07-2018, 06:58 PM
do y'all wear beret's by chance? what color?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vRSu_wsNc

Chris249
09-08-2018, 12:32 AM
I like cartoons too.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3a/60/ef/3a60effe73cc709b126a1bc5b1039af5.jpg


But if you look at other western countries, you'll see that it doesn't work like that. The good people in Canada, Britain, New Zealand, western Europe and Australia don't generally have guns - and they're happy about that. Most of the bad guy don't have guns, and we're happy about that too.

What the upper panel of the cartoon also misses out is that in the USA, many more good people get killed by guns than in other western countries. So your cartoon is a lie, and nothing more.


By the way, I had a stepfather who was a competitive shooter and a former cop. I'm considering buying a shotgun or rifle to protect stock and against snakes because of where I live, so I'm not compulsively anti-gun. It's just that silly cartoons that lie are annoying.

Chris249
09-08-2018, 12:37 AM
Out of interest, is it right to say that all of the people in this thread who have actually served in the armed forces think that the militia would have no chance in a shooting war?

PeterSibley
09-08-2018, 01:30 AM
Has the Supreme Court ever dealt with "well regulated" part of a well regulated militia ? What do they define as "well regulated"?

Rigadog
09-08-2018, 08:55 AM
As I understand it the Constitution allowed arms to be held by a well-regulated militia. This supposes some sort of control of said militia. Where is the control? As it stands we have millions of individual militias, militias of one. How are these militias supposes to act in a coordinated way in case of an invasion? From what I can discern, the individuals bearing arms presently are not necessarily loyal to the elected government and hold their weapons as a hedge against it. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Did the founders want self-interested factions within the new nation to be able to take control of the country by force? Did they want to encourage civil war? I believe the idea originally was for individuals to possess arms as part of local militias as a bulwark against the British. As it stand now we are so far from original intent that it is absurd.

bluedog225
09-08-2018, 09:35 AM
But if you look at other western countries, you'll see that it doesn't work like that. The good people in Canada, Britain, New Zealand, western Europe and Australia don't generally have guns - and they're happy about that. Most of the bad guy don't have guns, and we're happy about that too.

What the upper panel of the cartoon also misses out is that in the USA, many more good people get killed by guns than in other western countries. So your cartoon is a lie, and nothing more.


By the way, I had a stepfather who was a competitive shooter and a former cop. I'm considering buying a shotgun or rifle to protect stock and against snakes because of where I live, so I'm not compulsively anti-gun. It's just that silly cartoons that lie are annoying.

A simple representation of a concept. Having our confirmation bias challenged is often annoying. A lie? Hardly. You and I view things differently and perhaps speak to different people in Canada, Europe, etc. Acid attacks, stabbings, assaults....

To make a blanket statement that they are happy about not having guns is more of a lie than the little illustrative cartoon.

Maybe a more productiive dialog going forward?

paulf
09-08-2018, 10:49 AM
Out of interest, is it right to say that all of the people in this thread who have actually served in the armed forces think that the militia would have no chance in a shooting war?

Start a poll.

My vote is :
They would not have a ghost of a chance.

wudzgud
09-08-2018, 11:14 AM
Out of interest, is it right to say that all of the people in this thread who have actually served in the armed forces think that the militia would have no chance in a shooting war?
Wouldn't that depend on who's side the militia was fighting for?

Canoeyawl
09-08-2018, 11:32 AM
Wouldn't that depend on who's side the militia was fighting for?

Exactly! How else will will keep away the hordes of brown people?

John Smith
09-08-2018, 01:19 PM
You continue with your silly distractions. I'll say this, in my opinion the Supreme Court Heller decision was reasonable. It affirmed an individual right, but stressed that that right was not unlimited.

This meant that existing prohibitions against felons, against the mentally ill, against carrying concealed without permit, carrying on school grounds, government offices, etc. - all of these existing prohibitions, and more, are valid, including prohibitions against nuclear weapons (as you ridiculously mention).

If you would read the Heller decision you would see that the court did not dispute the government's (DC's) right to require licensing requirements. The court ruled that Heller had an individual right to have a handgun in his home and that a licensing requirement for that hand gun was constitutional provided that it was not arbitrary or capricious.

After the decision, when Heller first applied for his permit to have a handgun in his home, DC denied him a permit for his seven shot auto loader. He returned and successfully obtained a permit for a six shot single action revolver. DC eventually rewrote the licensing requirements to suit the court decision, and as I previously have mentioned, subsequently a federal court upheld DC restrictions on auto loading rifles (Kavanaugh disagreed on this, the two other judges agreed).

So you have a decision affirming an individual right, but with clear limitations. A decision in agreement with majority public opinion on the subject, a decision that you might well call bipartisan in that a right was, affirmed for the benefit of individualons, along with limitations stressed for the benefit of society. But you don't seem interested in any of this.

to be clear, IMO, there is nothing in the constitution that PROHIBITS one from owning a gun. or 'arms'.

In order to regulate this in any way, which most agree we should, we have to get past the second amendment. You cannot hold the position that the public's right to keep and bear arms (and define that as 'own') shall not be infringed, and hold the position that the government has the right to regulate (infringe) that right.

My view is simple, and I think hard to argue against. The second amendment became moot once we had National guard, police, etc., as we no longer needed the militia. It is STILL the government's job to arm and train the National Guard, the cops, etc.

As to individual citizens, once we get past the outdated second amendment, the constitution is silent as to the ownership of weapons, and congress is free to pass laws determining what weaponry individuals are entitled to own and what kind of regulations can be imposed.

If we treat the 2nd amendment as we've tended to, then the government cannot prohibit you from owning your own nuclear arsenal. That would be your right.

However, the 'arms' in the second Amendment were those the government supplied to those who joined the militia. Until we can come to an agreement on that, we'll make no progress.

John Smith
09-08-2018, 01:21 PM
Out of interest, is it right to say that all of the people in this thread who have actually served in the armed forces think that the militia would have no chance in a shooting war?

Today's 'militia' is quite different than the 'militia' referenced in the constitution.

The militia in the constitution was to protect the government, not protect the people from the government.

That distinction needs to be understood.

John Smith
09-08-2018, 01:22 PM
Has the Supreme Court ever dealt with "well regulated" part of a well regulated militia ? What do they define as "well regulated"?

The constitution only has a couple of paragraphs. In art. 1, section 8, the government is responsible to arm and train the militia. Also to call it up to suppress uprisings, thwart invasions, and enforce laws.

That is a far cry from what 'militia' means in today's world.

John Smith
09-08-2018, 01:24 PM
As I understand it the Constitution allowed arms to be held by a well-regulated militia. This supposes some sort of control of said militia. Where is the control? As it stands we have millions of individual militias, militias of one. How are these militias supposes to act in a coordinated way in case of an invasion? From what I can discern, the individuals bearing arms presently are not necessarily loyal to the elected government and hold their weapons as a hedge against it. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Did the founders want self-interested factions within the new nation to be able to take control of the country by force? Did the want to encourage civil war? I believe the idea originally was for individuals to possess arms as part of local militias as a bulwark against the British. As it stand now we are so far from original intent that it is absurd.

How many citizen militias do we have that are being given their arms by the government?

We have totally lost the original intent, on purpose, IMO, so we can go down the road the NRA wishes us to go down. Let's not forget, the 2nd Amendment is very short and to the point

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.

That first part is virtually always overlooked, but is is clear WHY the second part was written. We are not on our own to understand what the militia referenced was:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The purpose of that militia is pretty clear. It's also clear, I think, that at some point THAT MILITIA was no longer necessary.

If that militia is not longer necessary, or in existence, why does the the rest of the amendment continue?

Nicholas Scheuer
09-08-2018, 01:59 PM
https://www.breachbangclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Oregon-BLM-Protest-Malheur-Refuge-1.jpg

Inspired by Trump; going to defeat the enemy of the people with his mouth, eh?

Chris249
09-08-2018, 04:19 PM
A simple representation of a concept. Having our confirmation bias challenged is often annoying. A lie? Hardly. You and I view things differently and perhaps speak to different people in Canada, Europe, etc. Acid attacks, stabbings, assaults....

To make a blanket statement that they are happy about not having guns is more of a lie than the little illustrative cartoon.

Maybe a more productiive dialog going forward?

Well, it's hard to have productive dialogue when you put up images that imply that everyone in most western societies outside the USA are unhappy with the gun laws of their country. Yes, Canada and Europe have had acid attacks and stabbings. You can't expect hundreds of millions of people to live in perfect harmony.

The murder rate in the USA is four to five times higher than that of comparable countries. Even if you look at white victims, who are overwhelmingly likely to be killed by whites, the US murder rate of 2.9 per 100,000 (source, Centre for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6715a8.htm)) is still dramatically higher than that of the UK (1.2), Canada (1.68), Australia and New Zealand (less than 1 per 100,000) and the nations of the European Union (1.00).

Given that the nations where the "good guys" rarely carry guns is so much lower than it is in the USA where the "good guys" often carry guns, your cartoon is much more misleading than what I said. In Australia, for example, tough gun laws are supported by over 85% of the population.

Yes, you and I may speak to different people in Europe, Canada, etc. That indicates that you can't just look at these issues by talking to a small number of people.

bluedog225
09-08-2018, 05:15 PM
Why on earth would you exclude blacks, hispanics, asians, etc?

Even ay 5.3 per 100,000 we are vastly safer than most of the countries in the Americas. Across the street, Mexico is close to 20. Venezuela, don’t ask. How is Russia doing?

Maybe it more complicated than gun ownership?

And yes, I can expect a society without acid attacks and honor killings.

Peerie Maa
09-08-2018, 05:33 PM
A simple representation of a concept. Having our confirmation bias challenged is often annoying. A lie? Hardly. You and I view things differently and perhaps speak to different people in Canada, Europe, etc. Acid attacks, stabbings, assaults....

To make a blanket statement that they are happy about not having guns is more of a lie than the little illustrative cartoon.

Maybe a more productiive dialog going forward?

Well, I live in one of those countries without guns and I can assure you that we prefer it that way.
We are even glad that our police are not routinely armed.
So who is telling porkies here?

bluedog225
09-08-2018, 05:39 PM
Well, I live in one of those countries without guns and I can assure you that we prefer it that way.
We are even glad that our police are not routinely armed.
So who is telling porkies here?

You guys also arrest people for speaking their minds, right? Different strokes....

PeterSibley
09-08-2018, 05:47 PM
The constitution only has a couple of paragraphs. In art. 1, section 8, the government is responsible to arm and train the militia. Also to call it up to suppress uprisings, thwart invasions, and enforce laws.

That is a far cry from what 'militia' means in today's world.

That would rather upset the 2nd devotees wouldn't ? Here are your uniforms, training every Tuesday evening, marching and drill all Saturday.

bluedog225
09-08-2018, 08:37 PM
What happens if tomorrow it is decided that a militia is needed for the security of a free State?

John Smith
09-08-2018, 08:56 PM
I guess we've beaten this sufficiently. My point is that for all the many discussions we hear about guns and the 2nd amendment, it seems that clause about the militia is overlooked. Discussions on this topic ignore that clause.

I think we need to remember that clause, and seriously discuss whether we still need the militia they needed, and described, then.

If we truly consider that clause, then we can, perhaps, reach the conclusion that we no longer need that militia. Some might argue we need a new type of militia for a different purpose, but the militia in the second amendment has not been needed for many years.

And it is the second amendment that is preventing regulations of firearms.

Duncan Gibbs
09-08-2018, 11:07 PM
He's in a militia.

Here's Alan "at the range!" :)

http://www.realvintage.net/uploads/cache/P1130120-500x500-crop.png

Chris249
09-09-2018, 12:29 AM
Wouldn't that depend on who's side the militia was fighting for?

Fair call. The information I have seen indicates that many militia fans believe that they will be fighting against the regular forces and that was what my question was based on. They appear to believe that the regular forces would happily obey the orders of some theoretical autocrat. That seems to show that many militia fans have a very low opinion of the people who are serving the USA.

Chris249
09-09-2018, 12:29 AM
Today's 'militia' is quite different than the 'militia' referenced in the constitution.

The militia in the constitution was to protect the government, not protect the people from the government.

That distinction needs to be understood.

Good point. Thanks

Chris249
09-09-2018, 12:33 AM
What happens if tomorrow it is decided that a militia is needed for the security of a free State?

Why would that happen? Have the people of the UK needed such a militia lately? What about the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders? Have they needed a militia for that purpose lately?

It appears that you feel that something that hasn't happened to a major western democracy for 150 years or so is actually a major threat. If it is such a threat, why hasn't it happened in modern times?

Do you believe that you should prepare yourself for all other dangers that have not been realised for 150 years or more? What rationale do you use for working out what extremely unlikely dangers should be guarded against?

Chris249
09-09-2018, 12:41 AM
Why on earth would you exclude blacks, hispanics, asians, etc?

Even ay 5.3 per 100,000 we are vastly safer than most of the countries in the Americas. Across the street, Mexico is close to 20. Venezuela, don’t ask. How is Russia doing?

Maybe it more complicated than gun ownership?

And yes, I can expect a society without acid attacks and honor killings.

I did it because, sadly, in previous discussions of this sort some people have effectively blamed the high US murder rate on blacks. I wanted to avoid black men being portrayed as the cause of the issue.

Of course we ALL want to live in a society without acid attacks and honour killings. Why on earth do you think that having more people killed with guns is going to affect that?

Yes, of course it's more complicated than gun ownership - so why did you put up a simplistic cartoon that said that everyone without a gun is unhappy?

There may be a lower gun rate of violence in the USA than in South and Central America - but why compare yourselves to those regions and not to the rest of continental North America (ie Canada) which has much less homicide than the USA and is probably a much better comparison by most criteria?

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 03:40 AM
You guys also arrest people for speaking their minds, right? Different strokes....

Not on my watch.
Got a link for that?

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 03:44 AM
"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56. "

I guess I should just disregard this statement from the U.S. Supreme court because the venerable John Smith says otherwise. He has spoken and that's the way it is.

Non Sequitur.
https://s14544.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Kory-Watkins-1.jpg
and you damned well know it to be.

edited to add
the consequences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFynly6jLSs

skuthorp
09-09-2018, 03:57 AM
That would rather upset the 2nd devotees wouldn't ? Here are your uniforms, training every Tuesday evening, marching and drill all Saturday.
Actually, that might be the answer, regulate and train everyone claiming 2nd amendment rights re arms. And the government says what arms they may have, and supplies them.

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 04:39 AM
Actually, that might be the answer, regulate and train everyone claiming 2nd amendment rights re arms. And the government says what arms they may have, and supplies them.

Good shout. You could call them:


The National Guard.

John Smith
09-09-2018, 06:30 AM
"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56. "

I guess I should just disregard this statement from the U.S. Supreme court because the venerable John Smith says otherwise. He has spoken and that's the way it is.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty unlimited to me.

Of course, if we come to an agreement via the high court, that the militia referenced is no longer needed, then the entire amendment is moot and we could proceed as if it's not there.

"in common use at the time' is an effort to void what the amendment says. Cannons were in use at the time, were they not? Horses to pull those cannons were also in use. All these things the government would have provided the militia.

I've read lots of 2nd amendment debate, both from the courts and from talking heads. After each mass shooting there is much discussion.

My ENTIRE point is that I've not heard, in any of those discussions, questioning if that militia, the need for which was why the 2nd amendment is there, is still needed.

This thread strays from that basic question. Today people construe the militia as armed citizens to protect the citizens FROM the government. The militia reference in the 2nd was an arm OF the government to protect the government from uprisings, the country from invasions, and to enforce our laws.

Put in context with Art. 1, section 8, I don't think this is debatable.

The thread question is simple. DO WE STILL NEED THE MILITIA AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION?

I cannot understand how any reasonable mind who actually reads what the constitution says, can arrive at any conclusion other than the militia referenced in the 2nd has not been needed for quite some time.

I take this a tad bit further, and once we render the 2nd amendment moot, as the 3rd amendment is moot, we are free to look at the public's right to 'own' weapons from a different viewpoint.

My frustration is simple. I cannot count the times I've been reminded that the 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I have not heard, that I can recall, reference in any of these discussions to the militia, what it WAS at the time, and if we still need it.

Sans the 2nd amendment, the constitution is silent as to the right to own firearms or other weapons.

There is great demand in this country for sensible gun laws. Many think we should treat weapons as cars. The biggest obstacle to achieving any of this is the 2nd amendment.

I know I'm likely repeating myself, but all I am asking for is a discussion on the singular question: Do we still need the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment, which was not a bunch of armed citizens designed to protect the citizens from the government.

THE SUPREME COURT SOMETIMES MAKES BAD DECISIONS. They ended the Florida recount on dubious grounds. They decided corporations are people and can give unlimited money to campaigns. Just a couple I think they got wrong.

It looks as if we are about to have a Supreme Court who will overturn Roe, and support making contraception illegal. Possibly rule the president does not have to answer a subpoena. Would you agree with those decisions?

John Smith
09-09-2018, 06:34 AM
I did it because, sadly, in previous discussions of this sort some people have effectively blamed the high US murder rate on blacks. I wanted to avoid black men being portrayed as the cause of the issue.

Of course we ALL want to live in a society without acid attacks and honour killings. Why on earth do you think that having more people killed with guns is going to affect that?

Yes, of course it's more complicated than gun ownership - so why did you put up a simplistic cartoon that said that everyone without a gun is unhappy?

There may be a lower gun rate of violence in the USA than in South and Central America - but why compare yourselves to those regions and not to the rest of continental North America (ie Canada) which has much less homicide than the USA and is probably a much better comparison by most criteria?

We don't hear about all the gun incidents. Stephanie Ruhle takes a moment every week or two and gives numbers to date for this year. Last time I caught that moment, was a week or two ago, but we are fast approaching 40,000 violent gun incidents so far this year.

This is insane.

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 06:40 AM
The thread question is simple. DO WE STILL NEED THE MILITIA AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION?



I know I'm likely repeating myself, but all I am asking for is a discussion on the singular question: Do we still need the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment, which was not a bunch of armed citizens designed to protect the citizens from the government.

No you do not. A reserve arm of the military, like our Territorials is a good idea, but unlike your National Guard which is your (fairly) Well Regulated Militia, deploying them or regular troops against citizens is a known to be a BAD IDEA.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 10:12 AM
Not on my watch.
Got a link for that?

How about Paul Weston for quoting Churchill? Arrested. May serve time? Or do I misunderstand the situation?

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 10:23 AM
How about Paul Weston for quoting Churchill? Arrested. May serve time? Or do I misunderstand the situation?

Yes you do misunderstand.

He was arrested for failing to comply with a dispersal order and on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.
Hampshire Police has now told Mr Weston he will not be charged.
ComplaintsThe 50-year-old from Dorset was arrested after complaints from members of the public.
He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order.

You try telling the Texas police that you are not going to obey their instructions. Then report back to us.

sharpiefan
09-09-2018, 10:46 AM
Some have lost sight of the fact that The Constitution was written to define and limit the power of the federal government.



From the Bill of Rights.....

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."
--- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787

sharpiefan
09-09-2018, 11:08 AM
re: A Militia of One

This is what I think of when I think of a modern militia; not the anti-gov lunatic fringers, but good folk who will act to protect their families, communities, and our constitutional republic.

The Long Watch, Robert Heinlein (LINK) (https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm)


Johnny sat down, mystified but flattered. He admired Colonel Towers, for his brilliance, his ability to dominate, and for his battle record. Johnny had no battle record; he had been commissioned on completing his doctor's degree in nuclear physics and was now junior bomb officer of Moon Base.
The Colonel wanted to talk politics; Johnny was puzzled. Finally Towers had come to the point; it was not safe (so he said) to leave control of the world in political hands; power must be held by a scientifically selected group. In short—the Patrol.
Johnny was startled rather than shocked. As an abstract idea, Towers' notion sounded plausible. The League of Nations had folded up; what would keep the United Nations from breaking up, too, and thus lead to another World War. "And you know how bad such a war would be, Johnny."
Johnny agreed. Towers said he was glad that Johnny got the point. The senior bomb officer could handle the work, but it was better to have both specialists.
Johnny sat up with a jerk. "You are going to do something about it?" He had thought the Exec was just talking.
Towers smiled. "We're not politicians; we don't just talk. We act."
Johnny whistled. "When does this start?"
Towers flipped a switch. Johnny was startled to hear his own voice, then identified the recorded conversation as having taken place in the junior officers' messroom. A political argument he remembered, which he had walked out on . . . a good thing, too! But being spied on annoyed him.
Towers switched it off. "We have acted," he said. "We know who is safe and who isn't. Take Kelly—" He waved at the loud-speaker. "Kelly is politically unreliable. You noticed he wasn't at breakfast?"
"Huh? I thought he was on watch."
"Kelly's watch-standing days are over. Oh, relax; he isn't hurt."
Johnny thought this over. "Which list am I on?" he asked. "Safe or unsafe?"
"Your name has a question mark after it. But I have said all along that you could be depended on." He grinned engagingly. "You won't make a liar of me, Johnny?"
Dahlquist didn't answer; Towers said sharply, "Come now—what do you think of it? Speak up."
"Well, if you ask me, you've bitten off more than you can chew. While it's true that Moon Base controls the Earth, Moon Base itself is a sitting duck for a ship. One bomb—blooie!"
Towers picked up a message form and handed it over; it read: I HAVE YOUR CLEAN LAUNDRY—ZACK. "That means every bomb in the Trygve Lie has been put out of commission. I have reports from every ship we need worry about." He stood up. "Think it over and see me after lunch. Major Morgan needs your help right away to change control frequencies on the bombs."
"The control frequencies?"
"Naturally. We don't want the bombs jammed before they reach their targets."
"What? You said the idea was to prevent war."
Towers brushed it aside. "There won't be a war—just a psychological demonstration, an unimportant town or two. A little bloodletting to save an all-out war. Simple arithmetic."
He put a hand on Johnny's shoulder. "You aren't squeamish, or you wouldn't be a bomb officer. Think of it as a surgical operation. And think of your family."
Johnny Dahlquist had been thinking of his family. "Please, sir, I want to see the Commanding Officer."
Towers frowned. "The Commodore is not available. As you know, I speak for him. See me again—after lunch."
The Commodore was decidedly not available; the Commodore was dead. But Johnny did not know that.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 03:19 PM
Yes you do misunderstand.
You try telling the Texas police that you are not going to obey their instructions. Then report back to us.

I’m surprised they didn’t throw in resisting arrest.

Thank goodness he wasn’t arrested for political speach.

To present a simple case, I’ve been reading that arrests were up under the Communications Act 2003 which defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

Glad to hear that’s not true. I must be looking at unreliable media sources.

To be clear, people are not being arrested under that act, correct? Not on your watch.

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 03:35 PM
I’m surprised they didn’t throw in resisting arrest.

Thank goodness he wasn’t arrested for political speach.

To present a simple case, I’ve been reading that arrests were up under the Communications Act 2003 which defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

Glad to hear that’s not true. I must be looking at unreliable media sources.

To be clear, people are not being arrested under that act, correct? Not on your watch.



Again, a misunderstanding
From Wiki
It was declared an offence to "persistently make use of a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety". Ofcom subsequently developed policies to reduce the number of silent telephone calls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_call).

A silent call is a telephone call (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call) that is generated by a predictive dialler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_dialler) (or dialler) which does not have an agent (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agent) immediately available to handle the call. In this instance the call, may be terminated by the dialler, and the called party receives a silence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence) ("dead air (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_air)") or a tone from the telephone company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_company) which indicates the call has been dropped.
In the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the Federal Trade Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission) (FTC) uses the term "abandoned call" instead of silent call in its regulations applying to telemarketing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemarketing). "Abandoned call" in non-FTC contexts may refer to a caller who decides not to await answer before hanging up.


https://www.numbersupermarket.co.uk/2003-communication-act-effect/ goes into the ramifications.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 03:57 PM
Hard to know what’s true over there. I’m hearing you say info below is false.

The point being, if your public speach is being heavily censored, it would be difficult to know the opinion of the country on issues like gun rights.

I apoligize for the thread drift.

I read this:

The number of people being arrested for “online crimes of speech” have increased dramatically in London. While arrests for aggressive, threatening or hateful speech on social media declined between 2010 and 2013, the numbers rose last year. According to the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/02/social_media_arrests_up_37pc_london_section_127_co mmunications_act/), a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010. Randomly from The Independent. Don’t know its reputation. Same thing reported in other papers.

“If it’s on the internet, it must be true.” Abraham Lincoln

Chris249
09-09-2018, 04:00 PM
That act is normally used to prevent harassment via email and internet. It has been used, for example, against someone who threatened to murder a politician, sending her a picture of a knife, and who publicly and falsely labelled someone else as a child molester.

Your "point" that the laws against hate speech could be used to stop opinion poll companies asking Brits their opinions about gun laws is very odd and very, very easy to show to be false. The fact is that there have been fairly recent polls among Brits about their gun laws. See for example https://news.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx and https://yougov.co.uk/news/2010/06/07/Ban-on-guns/. So the answer to your query is, of course, a resounding "NO- hate speech laws are NOT being used to make it hard to know how Brits feel about gun laws".

In Australia, by the way, has both anti-hate laws and a Shooters Party (now the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party) that currently has three representatives in state governments. The SFF Party has an open, well publicised, official policy to remove obstacles to gun ownership. That illustrates very clearly that Australia doesn't have "heavily censored" public speech about gun laws - and yet Australia's fairly tight gun laws are extremely well supported by the public. It is obvious from the Australian example that massive support for tight gun laws can co-exist with speech that is so free that a pro-gun party can have representatives who are freely elected and use parliament to make speeches against gun laws.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 04:21 PM
From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 04:24 PM
From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”

Bollocks.
Laws to prevent hate speech, compared with laws that facilitate the massacre of 50 odd people at a music festival.

You cannot be serious!

Dan McCosh
09-09-2018, 04:29 PM
From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.” Might consider U.S libel laws. Admittedly laxly enforced, but if they were, Trump would have been broke, and unelected.

Chris249
09-09-2018, 04:42 PM
From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”

Are you trying to say that Brits can't use the internet to become informed about gun laws? Are you saying that Brits cannot get hold of a copy of the US Constitution, which is a central part of the debate? Are you saying that Brits cannot listen to CNN, read the NRA site, or use the millions of other ways to become well informed enough to participate in this discussion?

If you are trying to say that, and it seems to be the case, then it's a bizarre and untrue claim.

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 04:45 PM
Are you trying to say that Brits can't use the internet to become informed about gun laws? Are you saying that Brits cannot get hold of a copy of the US Constitution, which is a central part of the debate? Are you saying that Brits cannot listen to CNN, read the NRA site, or use the millions of other ways to become well informed enough to participate in this discussion?

If you are trying to say that, and it seems to be the case, then it's a bizarre and untrue claim.

He is backed into a corner and has started lashing out in frustration.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 04:49 PM
I believe libel is a civil action in the US. Though not sure about Louisiana. No penal code violation. Nobody gets arrested.

Important difference. Even England (shocking) got rid of the old action for criminal libel if I recall correctly. Now it’s criminally politically unpopular.

PS-The Second Amendment is an article of the United States Constitution. Not a legislative enactment. Anyone ready for a Constitutional Convention? Careful what you ask for.

Peerie Maa
09-09-2018, 04:56 PM
PS-The Second Amendment is an article of the United States Constitution. Not a legislative enactment. Anyone ready for a Constitutional Convention? Careful what you ask for.

Good. back to the OP. The second has been corrupted by the SCOTUS through the years, and as the militia as called for in the Constitution has been replaced by the National Guard, the second is now superfluous and can be repealed.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 04:57 PM
Lashing out? Hardly. I love you guys. You have lots of good boaty stuff.

Glad we are not a colony because of...well...we had guns....but that’s hardly relevant to this discussion.

bluedog225
09-09-2018, 05:00 PM
Good. back to the OP. The second has been corrupted by the SCOTUS through the years, and as the militia as called for in the Constitution has been replaced by the National Guard, the second is now superfluous and can be repealed.

Or we can change the name of the Guard to Militia and solidify the right. Surprised it has not come up. Maybe something Trump can do in his second term?

Chris249
09-09-2018, 05:58 PM
Lashing out? Hardly. I love you guys. You have lots of good boaty stuff.

Glad we are not a colony because of...well...we had guns....but that’s hardly relevant to this discussion.

What's relevant to this discussion is that you claimed that the British can't use libraries, the internet and the television to become informed about gun laws. Where is the evidence for this claim?

What's also relevant is that the fact that polls on gun laws are still being done in the UK prove that your inference that hate-speech laws stop such polls is utterly untrue. So not only are you wrong on the facts, you're not even bothering to do simple research to check whether you are right or wrong.

While we're at it, if it was guns that stopped the USA from remaining a colony, why aren't Canada, Australia and New Zealand still colonies?

Chris249
09-09-2018, 06:00 PM
PeterSibley,

YES, the SCOTUS did in 1939 in the MILLER decision.
"Well regulated", said the majority means "functioning", as in a clock is said to be "well regulated if it runs properly".

Moreover, "the militia" according to MILLER is EVERYONE (including women & older children) IF the manmade/natural emergency is so severe as to require their service for local rescue/recovery/restoration of normalcy.
Several times in the 20th century there have been "calls" for common militia & generally for short periods in the wake of hurricanes/tornados/floods.
(The last two times that I know of were for Hurricane Carla & Hurricane Camille. = In both cases parishes in South LA & counties in Southeastern TX called up civilians for hurricane recovery/rescue/restoration for periods over 30 days. - The militia was placed under the control of their local sheriff, to supplement the NG.)

Note: NC, NY, SC, TX & some other States have 2 "militia groups" I.e., BOTH a uniformed State Defense Force (separate from the NG) & an "unorganized" militia. = Members of an SDF may NOT be deployed to any other State unless the governments of BOTH States agree.
(OK & TX have a cooperative emergency agreement that their State forces MAY be deployed to the other State to deal with manmade or natural disasters. = The Texas State Guard has sent members to help with tornado recovery in SE Oklahoma.)

Is there a reason for needing the militia in 2018? - YES, imo, there certainly is. = I was involved as a volunteer during & after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. = I was deployed to run an evacuation center.
Had Harvey been much worse, (He was BAD ENOUGH for anyone here in TX!) the TX State Guard would have been called up to assist in the recovery effort & to supplement local governments, the DPS, Rangers, federal authorities & the various volunteer groups.

yours, tex

Tex, it's great that you and others volunteered. But do you have to be in an armed militia to volunteer when natural disasters occur? Other countries have organisations of volunteer citizens that help out when disaster strikes and they don't have guns.

Duncan Gibbs
09-09-2018, 09:09 PM
The poster is silly hyperbolic.
Y'reckon? :D:D

Maybe Tex should pour another Bourbon and watch this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE-VXlOeaIA

paulf
09-09-2018, 09:30 PM
DuncanGibbs,

Fyi, I don't consume alcoholic beverages & haven't in 30 years plus. = 3 decades ago, virtually all servicemen "drank like fish".
(I then met "an angel unaware", who doesn't approve of drinking & so I quit.)

You really shouldn't make comments on public forums that make you appear to be FOOLISH to normal folks.

Would you care for a "do over"?? = Instead of mindlessly agreeing with the LEFTIST, half-educated, ANTI-GUN IDIOTS, please tell me why I'm wrong.

yours, tex

No Bourbon for him, no, just Kool-Aid.

Chris249
09-10-2018, 12:09 AM
Chris248u; twodot,

And you KNOW that how?? = Have YOU served in a militia anywhere or are you "talking through your hat"??

In case you don't know (and/or don't want to know,) MOST of the volunteers during HARVEY were armed & ready to defend ourselves & the people who were victims of the storm.
(Fwiw, I was repeatedly asked by DPS, SD, local police,: You ARE armed, aren't you? And YEP I was carrying a concealed 9mm Sig-Sauer pistol & had a 12-gauge shotgun in the truck.)
The "neighborhood defense groups" WERE armed with firearms & MOSTLY with shotguns or "deer rifles", after the first looters appeared.

ImVho, anyone who is "out in the storm" & MAY be victimized by looters, roving groups of criminals & other predators, whether 2-footed or 4-footed, is STUPID to be UNARMED. = Such persons are called VICTIMS.
(Unless you HAVE been in such a situation, you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT.")

ADDENDA: The aftermath of KATRINA taught everyone in south LA, including those of us who were present but not from LA, how FOOLISH that the mayor of NOLA was to disarm the locals, as that left the civilians/householders to be PREYED UPON by criminals.
(In the aftermath of KATRINA, being unarmed & helpless made it LIKELY that you would be abused/raped/robbed/assaulted/murdered by the same sort of persons, who commit crimes in "normal circumstances".)

yours, tex

What do you mean "And you KNOW that how?" Read my post. I asked a question, namely "do you have to be in an armed militia to volunteer when natural disasters occur?"
Anyone who can read can see that was a question. I didn't claim to know the answer.

Okay, if you have lots of guns in a community, then perhaps the people who go into a disaster scene may need guns. But if you don't have lots of guns already in the area (or you do have lots of guns but a different attitude towards them) then it seems you don't need guns. Did the Japanese who responded to the tidal wave need guns? Do the Italians who respond to earthquake disasters need guns? Do the Australian volunteers who respond to bushfires need guns? Did those who responded to the Boxing Day Tsunamai need guns? If those people didn't need guns, then it's obvious that in most areas, you don't need a militia with guns to respond to disasters.

It seems that the only problem guns "solve" after disasters is a problem caused by widespread gun ownership itself.

EDIT - I probably shouldn't respond to you after reading the vile, disgusting, revolting, lying and hate-filled posts you have written. I know there are intelligent, educated pro-gun people and I respect those who can be reasonable. You are not one of them. You have effectively called millions of people who prefer tighter gun controls a bunch of morons. That is arrogant beyond belief. To stereotype so many people who are for gun controls as "half educated" is nothing but a lie. There are people I know personally who have been to some of the world's top universities and earned PhDs who are for gun control. Even if you don't agree with their views, it is nothing but a slanderous lie to call such people "half educated" or "morons".

Luckily, the Vietnam and WW2 vets I have known are far better and more understanding people than you are. By the way, I think you've already slandered one or two Vietnam vets here.

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 12:28 AM
Fact remains, this country does not need weekend warrior militias as a component of common sense natural disaster management.

It may be that due to every man and his dog, including satx and his cronies, running about armed in a disaster zone that in the US you do need armed rescue personnel.
I have been involved with large bushfire fighting and it's aftermath several times in my life and not once would a firearm have been of any assistance. Except maybe for dealing with burnt stock, but farmers and the State and Commonwealth authorities were dealing with that post the firefront.

Chris249
09-10-2018, 02:27 AM
Yes, and if we follow Tex's logic, it means he can't comment on countries with strong gun controls because he is not in a country with strong gun controls.

lupussonic
09-10-2018, 03:08 AM
Tex, you feel the need to have guns because everybody has guns. Can you imagine a scenario where no one has guns? Can you imagine a scenario where no one gets shot? Where there are no gun shops, no gun culture, and everybody feels pretty safe because no one has guns? Sounds pretty relaxed doesn't it?

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 03:15 AM
Having had an American sailing at our club last year, a man used to always carrying a gun I can say that he was scared.
By the end of the season not so much.

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 03:48 AM
What has set Tex off?
Donald is POTUS, his party holds sway, he's loading the USSC for the forseeable future making it more of another political institution than it ever was. There is no threat to his or Alan's guns unless Donald decides that they are dangerous to him and his power. So what has happened that he feels the need to be so extreme on a rather small forum about wooden boats?
If he feels his gun 'rights' are under threat then who from?

Chris249
09-10-2018, 04:18 AM
Having had an American sailing at our club last year, a man used to always carrying a gun I can say that he was scared.
By the end of the season not so much.

We have an American friend who was a fierce "right to bear arms" type when he moved over here. He was also a perfect example of the fact that there are pro-gun people who aren't like Tex - he was intelligent, well educated, volunteered to help his community, and knew how to discuss the issue without throwing stupid and vile insults around. We disagreed on gun control but I respected him as a person.

After living in a country with strong gun laws for a few years, he has totally changed his tune. As Lupo notes, once he lived in a place where he didn't need to worry about lots of guns being around he realised how much safer he was, and how much safer he felt.

lupussonic
09-10-2018, 04:35 AM
I simply could not live daily with the knowledge that anyone anywhere could be carrying a weapon that could blow holes in my body. I cannot imagine living with that paranoia, and am glad I don't have to. America has been living through a small arms race, and it can only go one way. Sad but true.

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 04:38 AM
I term it as another civil war, the extent of the casualties support my assertion.

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 07:13 AM
22565

John Smith
09-10-2018, 07:32 AM
To elaborate, I have no problem with strict gun control such that a person can be trained and licensed to carry a handgun while volunteering in the event of a natural disaster. Moreover, we do have a well-regulated militia which serves in the event of natural disasters - the National Guard.

However, at present there is no national conversation on how to better respond to natural disasters. In that vacuum, weekend warrior militias are not a consideration.

KInd of my sentiments. My point is that we cannot get to any sensible gun regulations because of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Those words are only there because "A well regulated militia being necessary..." precede them.

That is why I am trying to make those words central to the discussion. The 'well regulated militia' of the 2nd amendment WAS what is now our National Guard. It was citizens who the government supplied with 'arms' (not limited to guns) and trained. THAT militia has not been needed for a long time, and the 2nd Amendment needs to be simply deemed as moot as the 3rd has been.

Sans the 2nd amendment, the constitution says NOTHING about what arms the public can own or in what way the state can regulate the ownership of arms.

John Smith
09-10-2018, 07:37 AM
We have an American friend who was a fierce "right to bear arms" type when he moved over here. He was also a perfect example of the fact that there are pro-gun people who aren't like Tex - he was intelligent, well educated, volunteered to help his community, and knew how to discuss the issue without throwing stupid and vile insults around. We disagreed on gun control but I respected him as a person.

After living in a country with strong gun laws for a few years, he has totally changed his tune. As Lupo notes, once he lived in a place where he didn't need to worry about lots of guns being around he realised how much safer he was, and how much safer he felt.

Next question: If there was NO 2nd amendment, why would one NOT have the right to own/bear arms?

John Smith
09-10-2018, 07:38 AM
Just as information, the last time Stephanie Ruhle updated violent gun incidents year to date, we were approaching 40,000.

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 07:40 AM
It's clear what you are trying to do. But understand that under our Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws. And if you read the language quoted above, or better yet, the entire opinion, you will come to know that sensible gun regulations are, in fact, allowed.

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 07:43 AM
I thought knives were more deadly than guns. They also put a hole in you.

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 07:43 AM
The USSC has been a politically tainted organisation for many years, it is no longer adequate to it's purpose.

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 07:50 AM
That's not something for you to decide. But thanks for sharing your opinion.

John Smith
09-10-2018, 07:52 AM
It's clear what you are trying to do. But understand that under our Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws. And if you read the language quoted above, or better yet, the entire opinion, you will come to know that sensible gun regulations are, in fact, allowed.

Would banning assault weapons be sensible? Can you pass any regs the NRA doesn't like?

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 07:58 AM
That's not something for you to decide. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
The top court in the country can only do it's job as the ultimate arbiter of law and justice if there is continuing bipartisan agreement on precisely that matter. It's been a very long time since that has been true. It's a politically corrupted court.

John Smith
09-10-2018, 08:03 AM
The top court in the country can only do it's job as the ultimate arbiter of law and justice if there is continuing bipartisan agreement on precisely that matter. It's been a very long time since that has been true. It's a politically corrupted court.

The court would be fodder for another thread, but a discussion worth having. I has suggested some time back that one party ought not nominate two justices in a row. If Garland had been given a hearing and confirmed, and Hillary had won the election, McConnel would get to nominate next justice. Trump nominated Gorsuch, so Schumer should nominate Kennedy's replacement.

That would require an amendment, I guess, but it seems it would help prevent stacking the court.

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 08:27 AM
The top court in the country can only do it's job as the ultimate arbiter of law and justice if there is continuing bipartisan agreement on precisely that matter. It's been a very long time since that has been true. It's a politically corrupted court.

Neither statement is true. And note that it is more difficult to politically influence a Justice appointed for life.

skuthorp
09-10-2018, 08:29 AM
Not if you appoint biased, and already dubious ones in the first place. Especially if they've got something to hide………...

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 08:32 AM
Would banning assault weapons be sensible? Can you pass any regs the NRA doesn't like?

Assuming your public policy goal is to reduce gun deaths, the test is generally what is the least regulation needed to achieve your goal. I thought handguns were responsible for many times more deaths. Therefore your proposal would be flawed.
Aka not sensible. Can we have laws to try to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Yep.

Also, what's an assault rifle? If I paint my grandfather's old Browning 270 black is it included?

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 08:43 AM
Not if you appoint biased, and already dubious ones in the first place. Especially if they've got something to hide………...

We have to appoint human beings. Flawed as they are. Each with a history and a set of personal beliefs. It has always been so.

Both hands are skilled in doing evil; the ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes, the powerful dictate what they desire--they all conspire together. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright worse than a thorn hedge.*Micah 7:3-4

Peerie Maa
09-10-2018, 10:10 AM
I thought knives were more deadly than guns. They also put a hole in you.

Tell that to Stephen Paddock's victims.
You really do post crap at times, please remember to engage brain before operating typing finger.

John Smith
09-10-2018, 10:27 AM
Assuming your public policy goal is to reduce gun deaths, the test is generally what is the least regulation needed to achieve your goal. I thought handguns were responsible for many times more deaths. Therefore your proposal would be flawed.
Aka not sensible. Can we have laws to try to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Yep.

Also, what's an assault rifle? If I paint my grandfather's old Browning 270 black is it included?

What constitutes reasonable regs can be honestly debated. Many handguns are automatic.

My entire point in this thread is we cannot have an honest discussion about reasonable regulations because those opposed to virtually any regulation point to the 2nd amendment, but only the second clause of it.

I think a reasonable discussion aimed simply at the question of if we still need the militia referenced as the reason for the 2nd amendment (which is not the same thing as people today call a militia) we might reach a point of sane conversation over guns and regulating them.

My primary purpose is to drive a discussion aimed directly at the first clause; the one that expresses the need for a well regulated militia as the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We no longer need that militia. Haven't needed it for a lot of years. That should render the entire 2nd moot just as the 3rd has come to be moot.

Sans the second amendment, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit you from owning weapons, or arms, but we'd likely be more able to have reasonable laws regulating them.

paulf
09-10-2018, 10:35 AM
What constitutes reasonable regs can be honestly debated. Many handguns are automatic.

My entire point in this thread is we cannot have an honest discussion about reasonable regulations because those opposed to virtually any regulation point to the 2nd amendment, but only the second clause of it.

I think a reasonable discussion aimed simply at the question of if we still need the militia referenced as the reason for the 2nd amendment (which is not the same thing as people today call a militia) we might reach a point of sane conversation over guns and regulating them.

My primary purpose is to drive a discussion aimed directly at the first clause; the one that expresses the need for a well regulated militia as the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We no longer need that militia. Haven't needed it for a lot of years. That should render the entire 2nd moot just as the 3rd has come to be moot.

Sans the second amendment, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit you from owning weapons, or arms, but we'd likely be more able to have reasonable laws regulating them.

When I saw this post , I thought...I wonder what Tex will think of this?

Then I noticed, Tex is no more. I missed it, did he shoot himself?

bluedog225
09-10-2018, 12:14 PM
Tell that to Stephen Paddock's victims.
You really do post crap at times, please remember to engage brain before operating typing finger.

I've been too enthusiastic with my arguments. I apologize for the offense.

Peerie Maa
09-10-2018, 12:15 PM
I've been too enthusiastic with my arguments. I apologize for the offense.

Fairy Nuff!

Chris249
09-10-2018, 12:17 PM
Assuming your public policy goal is to reduce gun deaths, the test is generally what is the least regulation needed to achieve your goal. I thought handguns were responsible for many times more deaths. Therefore your proposal would be flawed.
Aka not sensible. Can we have laws to try to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Yep.

Also, what's an assault rifle? If I paint my grandfather's old Browning 270 black is it included?

So you're not worried about trying to stop episodes such as the one where a person who was not a felon used longarms to kill 50 people? Allowing that sort of incident sounds pretty flawed, too.

BrianM
09-10-2018, 12:37 PM
I have to point out something that always seems to be missing from a Militia somehow prevailing against any branch of the Military.

Doesn't a single simple Mortar WIN against any accumulation of any caliber of fire arm?

Ignoring field cannons, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and then there are the gatlin guns on the Warthogs......

just sayin'

Breakaway
09-10-2018, 12:51 PM
Doesn't a single simple Mortar WIN against any accumulation of any caliber of fire arm?

Ignoring field cannons, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and then there are the gatlin guns on the Warthogs......


I haven't served, but I think it does.

That, then, begs the question: Why do armies have infantry at all, if they are effectively effete in the face of modern firepower?

Kevin

paulf
09-10-2018, 01:00 PM
I have to point out something that always seems to be missing from a Militia somehow prevailing against any branch of the Military.

Doesn't a single simple Mortar WIN against any accumulation of any caliber of fire arm?

Ignoring field cannons, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and then there are the gatlin guns on the Warthogs......

just sayin'

A well armed and "well trained" rifle company is a force to be reckoned with. A mortar is only as good as the forward observer. And in various terrain, worthless. Not nearly as mobile as a grunt with a rifle.

And at some point you need personnel on the ground.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:13 PM
thanks for the assessment, i'll keep it just the same though.

The results of multiple attempts in Afghanistan over several centuries concur with your thoughts.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:16 PM
target practice doesn’t make you part of a well regulated militia so don’t make facile allusions to that point.

A well regulated militia practice's shooting a targets. To include every Military Service in the US.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:20 PM
Alan does your militia do that thing where you crawl through the mud under barbed wire while your 'comrades' shoot live ammunition over your shoulders? that's like hardcore **** man. is your militia hardcore?

We did that once, in Basic Training. While cool, it was hardly elemental in becoming a trained member of a militia/Military Service.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:21 PM
alan, does anybody in your militia have a confederate battle flag bumper sticker or tattoo?

honest question bro

Well, up until a year or so ago, it was common. But then again, in my days, tattoos had to be hidden while wearing the uniform.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:24 PM
1000 yards? You're hamburger, dude. "Pink mist" we call it.

You're out ranged by a factor of 16x. 30mm high explosive - think "hand grenades ". At 600/min. And that's just the LITTLE stuff.

Yeah, WOW, 1000 yards! Bring it, militia boy. :D LMAO :D

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/d1/a7/31d1a791e56f803b25f3f3f1c6cc87b4.jpg

Did the gunship defeat the North Vietnamese?

Keith Wilson
09-10-2018, 11:28 PM
Did the gunship defeat the North Vietnamese?Don't be silly. Neither the North Vietnamese army nor the Viet Cong were anything close to citizen militias.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:35 PM
So Alan, a serious question - which have conveniently ignored.
Being able to hit a target is obviously important, but do you guys practice all the other stuff that a militia would have to engage in?

That's a valid question. But, if you know what POG stands for, or Fobbit, you'll know that a huge percentage of the military doesn't do those things either.



Hard core first aid - the other dudes WILL be shooting back, and they train too.

I've had multiple 'combat lifesaver courses' as a civilian. Courses required by the military, taught by civilians. It's not all that technical. Some tourniquet training, inserting a needle to relieve tension pneumothorax from a sucking chest wound, using blood clotting powders and dressing, etc.


Communications - the other dudes have encrypted radios (so you can't hear them), and practice all that October whisky fox tango chit, so there is no confusion on the battlefield.

I don't want to burst a bubble, but most 11B's don't have the clearance for secure radio stuff.


Physical fitness. They are young, sans beerbelly, and work out. Maybe y'all are too.

You're spot on with this one. :)


Logistics - one thing the US military excels at, getting stuff from where it is now, to where it needs to be, in huge quantities.

For awhile... but where does that 'stuff' come from? The answer is from civilians. Can we spell sabatoge?


Strategy, tactics, blah, blah. They do those big military exercises regularly, for a reason, and analyze how it all went.

And still lose we against overwhelming civilian populations.. Vietnam and Afghanistan.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:38 PM
Don't be silly. Neither the North Vietnamese army nor the Viet Cong were anything close to citizen militias.

No? They were a motivated army of the local population fighting an army on their home turf. Where did the Viet Cong come from...?

Do you feel the Army attack helicopter of the time was a huge factor in the outcome?

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:42 PM
I suppose one could make a case that Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, were just to keep our military well practiced. In case we should need them for a war of merit.

Great examples of where a large civilian population prevented an Army from winning.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:51 PM
No you do not. A reserve arm of the military, like our Territorials is a good idea, but unlike your National Guard which is your (fairly) Well Regulated Militia, deploying them or regular troops against citizens is a known to be a BAD IDEA.

Which is why we have a Second Amendment.

Because we know we need a militia (Armed Services, National Guard), citizens should also have the right to bear arms, to repel an overzealous militia.

It's right in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:53 PM
We don't hear about all the gun incidents. Stephanie Ruhle takes a moment every week or two and gives numbers to date for this year. Last time I caught that moment, was a week or two ago, but we are fast approaching 40,000 violent gun incidents so far this year.

This is insane.

Very well could be.

Did you see where the NPR reputed the 270 school shootings reported this year? Statistics has become the most powerful tool.

BrianW
09-10-2018, 11:59 PM
Good. back to the OP. The second has been corrupted by the SCOTUS through the years, and as the militia as called for in the Constitution has been replaced by the National Guard, the second is now superfluous and can be repealed.

So the militia has been replaced by a federally controlled entity, the National Guard. Therefore the desire to retain the right to bear arms by the civilian population is still legit as per the 2nd Amendment.

BrianW
09-11-2018, 12:00 AM
No, you don't have to be a weekend warrior militia member to help out in natural disasters.

The poster is silly hyperbolic.

Really, because it's one of their major recruiting tools?

BrianW
09-11-2018, 12:09 AM
I have to point out something that always seems to be missing from a Militia somehow prevailing against any branch of the Military.

Doesn't a single simple Mortar WIN against any accumulation of any caliber of fire arm?

Nope..

22639

At first, every time the incoming alarm would go off, I'd run for the bunker. Then I realized there was a good chance I was running right into the incoming round. So, at night, I'd roll out of the bed, and throw my plate carrier over my head, or if really tired just lay in bed and accept fate.

Trust me... you'd do the same after awhile.



Ignoring field cannons, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and then there are the gatlin guns on the Warthogs......

just sayin'

Other warriors seem to have faced them.

BrianW
09-11-2018, 12:15 AM
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It is clear from this version that the well-armed and well-regulated militia refers to the military, or the National Guard, rather than weekend warrior militias.

Eh... I read this part...


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

As referring to a conscientious objector. Really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

BrianW
09-11-2018, 12:23 AM
It is right there:


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Yep, we need an Army, no denying it.

But, our founding fathers just defeated an Army, a tool of an out of control government, so decided that since we need an Army, we need a balance. Therefore...


...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, so that they can repel that militia if it gets overzealous."

A militia militia, so to speak.

Thanks for making that so clear.

skuthorp
09-11-2018, 01:10 AM
Sounds like a case for universal conscription barring religious objections. The draft in other words. And no exceptions for rich daddy's and 'bone spurs'. And for 'militia' you read the National military or the National Guard. Or a third force theoretically intended to oppose the first one but financed, armed and 'regulated' by the same government.
Seems rather contradictory to me.

Just say, f'rinstance, a part of the country (A) disagrees with the way the other part (B) is governing an it's laws, and it's citizen militia take up arms (A) to either enforce their preferred laws on the other part (B) of the country, or separate themselves (A from B) and become another State. Surely the para above almost ensures that it will happen, as it did. And if the para is still in the document and the reading of the 2nd is correct, then the circumstances still exist.

Chris249
09-11-2018, 04:26 AM
No? They were a motivated army of the local population fighting an army on their home turf. Where did the Viet Cong come from...?

Do you feel the Army attack helicopter of the time was a huge factor in the outcome?

On the other hand, Brian, I've read a huge number of people claim that if the US had not fought under such severe political restrictions (such as not targeting many bridges and not chasing fighter jets to their bases close to China, IIRC) they would have won easily in Vietnam. Some of them are veterans.

If there was a showdown between the US forces and the citizens, would there be such restrictions in place?

On a tangent, I still can't understand why so many US citizens have so little faith in their own compatriots and in their own political system. Why do they feel that they will be the only modern western country to be taken over by a dictator? Don't they have faith in the Constitution and the system it set up, like the rest of us have faith in our systems?

skuthorp
09-11-2018, 05:14 AM
"Why do they feel that they will be the only modern western country to be taken over by a dictator?"

Well that's a question for the times isn't it?

He's got a couple of good coaches on the subject….

Chris249
09-11-2018, 07:50 AM
Fair call. One wonders whether the people who a few years ago said they would fight to defend democracy from the president will say the same thing now their guy is in office.

AlanMc
09-11-2018, 07:59 AM
More evidence that it is obvious that militia refers to an official military, and does not refer to a weekend warrior militia militia, comes from George Mason, in 1788:

"Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered."


it's funny that all these high powered lawyers and supreme court justices have poured over the meaning of the 2nd for DECADES... but ole 2dot knows stuff they don't and they're all wrong.


NEVER MIND GUYS... 2dot figured out what it REALLY MEANS

John Smith
09-11-2018, 09:52 AM
Great examples of where a large civilian population prevented an Army from winning.

What prevents us from winning becomes a question of its own. I remember Barry Goldwater, concerning Vietnam, saying something to the effect; let's either go in whole heartedly and win, or pull the hell out.

It's moot for this thread. The milita referenced in the second amendment is described/defined in Art. 1. THAT militia was an arm OF the government and was no longer necessary once we got National Guard, police, standing armies, etc.

"Militia" today has an entirely different connotation Today's 'miliita' is not being armed or trained by the government, and the government does not call it up to enforce laws or stifle uprisings. today's 'militia' is likely to be the uprising.

John Smith
09-11-2018, 09:52 AM
Which is why we have a Second Amendment.

Because we know we need a militia (Armed Services, National Guard), citizens should also have the right to bear arms, to repel an overzealous militia.

It's right in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

By your argument, the government should be arming the citizens.

Peerie Maa
09-11-2018, 10:09 AM
Which is why we have a Second Amendment.

Because we know we need a militia (Armed Services, National Guard), citizens should also have the right to bear arms, to repel an overzealous militia.

It's right in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

You are going to have to justify that

"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."
Because I can't see it.

Peerie Maa
09-11-2018, 10:46 AM
So much for the consept of "Reasonable force".

Self-defence is a legal doctrine which says that a person may use reasonable force in the defence of themself or another.
Blowing a persons brains out kind of exceeds that principle.

Keith Wilson
09-11-2018, 11:38 AM
An obvious point: The military forces of just about every country on earth are staffed by highly-trained professionals who have studied the best available information about how to fight and win wars. That's their job, and I presume most of them are reasonably competent at it. They want to most effective fighting force possible, given their budget. No country on earth relies on a citizen militia as its military force if it has enough money and organization to do otherwise.

While a citizen militia may have possibly been useful in 1789 (particularly for guarding against slave rebellions), it is as now as obsolete for national defense as a flintlock. If it were an effective military force, military professionals would organize things that way.

Peerie Maa
09-11-2018, 11:53 AM
The vast majority of us, in fact an overwhelming majority of us, agree to the concept of reasonable force.

The vast majority of us, in fact an overwhelming majority of us, agree that blowing a persons brains out exceeds that principle almost all of the time.

Are you some sort of antisocial psychopath who thinks otherwise? What's wrong with you?

You were the one that suggested being capable of blowing some ones brains out was considered to be appropriate by
many existing state constitutions

Dan McCosh
09-11-2018, 12:27 PM
What's the difference between a self-proclaimed militia and the average street gang?

paulf
09-11-2018, 01:39 PM
What's the difference between a self-proclaimed militia and the average street gang?

Perhaps their intent??

Peerie Maa
09-11-2018, 01:47 PM
What's the difference between a self-proclaimed militia and the average street gang?

One of them are a tad sanctimonious.

Dan McCosh
09-11-2018, 01:51 PM
Perhaps their intent?? Might ask Huey Newton.

paulf
09-11-2018, 01:55 PM
Might ask Huey Newton.

That's Dr. Newton?? I'm missing the connection.

Dan McCosh
09-11-2018, 02:15 PM
That's Dr. Newton?? I'm missing the connection. Here's a pretty good summary: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

paulf
09-11-2018, 04:11 PM
Here's a pretty good summary: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

I see what your getting at. Interesting.

Chris249
09-11-2018, 05:32 PM
If, a very unlikely if, a constitutional convention was held to address the second amendment I believe that it wouldn't be repealed because there is majority support for it.

That support is not based so much on concepts of the militia, but on a concept of an individual right to self defense. This right was understood at the time the second was written - it was a self evident right. The militia phrase shows the concern of the writers with providing for state armed services, it does not override the self evident individual right (this is what the Supreme Court has ruled)

In any case, if that new constitutional convention were held I think it very likely that the second would simply be revised to be along the lines of many existing state constitutions. For example, the Washington State Constitution:

Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

You can read similar passages in other state constitutions, and you can also read the restrictions that are specified on this individual right too.

That's interesting information about the state constitutions. I love living in a society where we don't carry guns but it's good to hear a well-researched, reasoned and intelligent viewpoint from the other side.

Chris249
09-11-2018, 05:40 PM
Here's a pretty good summary: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

Interesting link, thanks. One point that interests and concerns me is that it indicates that some things advocated by the left (in this case, open carry but also judicial activism and violent protest) can be double-edged weapons that will work just as well for the right.

Of course, the link also shows the hypocritical stance that the NRA has taken when it suits it.

Chris249
09-11-2018, 05:46 PM
The vast majority of us, in fact an overwhelming majority of us, agree to the concept of reasonable force.

The vast majority of us, in fact an overwhelming majority of us, agree that blowing a persons brains out exceeds that principle almost all of the time.

Are you some sort of antisocial psychopath who thinks otherwise? What's wrong with you?

The point, surely, is that there are different definitions of "reasonable force". In many western societies, having a gun and using it is much less likely to be considered "reasonable force" than it may be in the USA.

Duncan Gibbs
09-11-2018, 07:27 PM
No? They were a motivated army of the local population fighting an army on their home turf. Where did the Viet Cong come from...?

Do you feel the Army attack helicopter of the time was a huge factor in the outcome?
The idea your RWW militias are anything close to the kind of fighting and terror force the Viet Cong were is an idiotic one. Pure lunacy.

The idea that any civil conflagration between your modern RWW militias and the modern American armed forces is remotely comparable to the kind of reasons the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong under them fought, or the kind of terrain in which fighting occurred, or the sophistication of armaments, battlefield tactics, and intelligence gathering, is puerile and imbecilic.

BrianW
09-16-2018, 12:38 AM
An obvious point: The military forces of just about every country on earth are staffed by highly-trained professionals who have studied the best available information about how to fight and win wars. That's their job, and I presume most of them are reasonably competent at it. They want to most effective fighting force possible, given their budget. No country on earth relies on a citizen militia as its military force if it has enough money and organization to do otherwise.

While a citizen militia may have possibly been useful in 1789 (particularly for guarding against slave rebellions), it is as now as obsolete for national defense as a flintlock. If it were an effective military force, military professionals would organize things that way.

I'm assuming your referring to a military force to influence foreign policy, or to repel foreign policy. In which case you're correct. The forming of a militia, or standing Army, under the control of the Federal government was required to prevent foreign intervention, or to affect foreign intervention in our favor.

To preclude that standing Army from taking control of the USA, the right of the people to have weapons was recognized as a right under the 2nd Amendment...


“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.”

BrianW
09-16-2018, 12:45 AM
The idea your RWW militias are anything close to the kind of fighting and terror force the Viet Cong were is an idiotic one. Pure lunacy.

Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.

PeterSibley
09-16-2018, 12:54 AM
Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.

They're probably all too aware of the firepower and mobility of the US military and don't indulge in Rambo fantasies.

BrianW
09-16-2018, 12:56 AM
On the other hand, Brian, I've read a huge number of people claim that if the US had not fought under such severe political restrictions (such as not targeting many bridges and not chasing fighter jets to their bases close to China, IIRC) they would have won easily in Vietnam. Some of them are veterans.

Yeah man, I'm with ya. We may have lost the Vietnam War due to politics. I feel the fact is the local population made that outcome uncertain, even with motivated response from the French, and then our actions. In the end though, the locals beat us.


If there was a showdown between the US forces and the citizens, would there be such restrictions in place?

On US soil, the standing Army would be so hamstrung they be very ineffective.


On a tangent, I still can't understand why so many US citizens have so little faith in their own compatriots and in their own political system. Why do they feel that they will be the only modern western country to be taken over by a dictator? Don't they have faith in the Constitution and the system it set up, like the rest of us have faith in our systems?

Perhaps we could explore that "Only modern Western Country" point more. How about Cuba, or Venezuela? I'm not an expert in either, but I could learn.

BrianW
09-16-2018, 12:57 AM
They're probably all too aware of the firepower and mobility of the US military and don't indulge in Rambo fantasies.

That sounds cool, but we've all witnessed the limitation of US superior firepower and mobility.

PeterSibley
09-16-2018, 01:32 AM
In Vietnam and Afghanistan but the militias aren't VC or Mujaheddin. They'd end up fighting each other for beer.

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 04:34 AM
You mean the catholic and episcopalian militias and the happy clappers and snake handlkers wouldn't get into a barney over coverage?

Chris249
09-16-2018, 05:55 AM
On US soil, the standing Army would be so hamstrung they be very ineffective.

Hamstrung in what way?


Perhaps we could explore that "Only modern Western Country" point more. How about Cuba, or Venezuela? I'm not an expert in either, but I could learn.

I'm no expert but a quick Google indicates that many people do not consider Venezuela or Cuba to be western. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#Latin_America_and_the_Orthodox_world

The current president of Venezuela won the last general election. That sounds like democracy.

Cuba is a traditionally poor country that was subject to a coup in 1933 and then another coup in the '50s. If you believe that the USA's system of government, including its much-lauded Constitution and Bill of Rights, is as weak as that of Cuba in 1933 (or of Venezuela) then that is your prerogative. However, in that case surely there should be more pressure to improve it, and certainly citizens of the USA should not be proud of their country's system and its Constitution.

The countries that are generally considered to be clearly modern western countries don't appear to have been taken over by a dictator in recent times. Even Hitler was invited to take over the government by an elected President, and given that was 80 years ago it doesn't really fall into the "modern" category to me.

By most definitions, there's about 35 countries in the Western World. None of them has fallen under dictatorship by force of arms since the Spanish Civil War, I think, which was one hell of a long time ago by our standards. The Spanish Civil War is hardly an advertisement for the ability of a militia to vanquish the regular armed forces.

So if other western democracies have survived for 70 to X00 years without falling under the reign of a dictator and without a militia, why do so many citizens of the USA have so little faith in the system that they so often trumpet as superior? Surely either the US system is better in which case it won't become a dictatorship, or it's worse in which case they should stop praising it and start fixing it?

John Smith
09-16-2018, 06:28 AM
I'm assuming your referring to a military force to influence foreign policy, or to repel foreign policy. In which case you're correct. The forming of a militia, or standing Army, under the control of the Federal government was required to prevent foreign intervention, or to affect foreign intervention in our favor.

To preclude that standing Army from taking control of the USA, the right of the people to have weapons was recognized as a right under the 2nd Amendment...

Except that the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment WAS the army OF the government. Also the police force. NOTHING in the constitution describes the militia they way you just did.

The militia referenced in the 2nd amendment was to be armed and trained BY THE GOVERNMENT. It was to be call up to enforce laws, stifle uprisings, and defend against invasions.

Keith Wilson
09-16-2018, 09:05 AM
I'm assuming your referring to a military force to influence foreign policy, or to repel foreign policy. In which case you're correct. The forming of a militia, or standing Army, under the control of the Federal government was required to prevent foreign intervention, or to affect foreign intervention in our favor. No state with the resources to do otherwise has used a citizen militia for any purpose requiring armed force for a very, very long time. This includes defending their territory, intimidating their neighbors, wars of conquest, repressing ethnic minorities, keeping the populace from rebelling, rounding up the political opposition, catching criminals, or anything else. We can conclude from this that a citizen militia is simply not an effective military force anymore, although it may have been in 1789. If they were, governments would use them. In just about every field, trained professionals are superior to impromptu amateurs.


To preclude that standing Army from taking control of the USA, the right of the people to have weapons was recognized as a right under the 2nd Amendment...That is not what the amendment says. That is a much later interpretation, one quite foreign to the thinking of those who wrote it. Those who wrote the constitution did not build in a self-destruct clause.

oznabrag
09-16-2018, 09:31 AM
Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.

What a delightful little fantasy!

The problem is that you seem to believe any oppressive government would raise arms against its citizens.

That's not how it works.

First, the gov floods the country with fear and loathing and weapons, then it precipitates an ethnic cleansing/political purge, then it prances around wringing its hands saying 'Oh, won't you stop the violence', out of one side of its mouth and 'Oh, you boys are doing a fine job' out of the other side until the international outcry causes the gov to make an end of it and crush the folks that have been doing their murders for it.

That way, both the original dissenters are wiped out, and those who had the gumption to actually take up arms are wiped out as well.

At that point, this evil government in your fantasy declares martial law, suspends habeas corpus, crushes journalistic dissent, and empties the treasury into the pockets of the malefactors.

That's the script.

Anybody who tells you the Founders wrote the 2nd to ensure the gov could be overthrown is feeding you a bill of goods, whether they believe it themselves, or not.

paulf
09-16-2018, 11:08 AM
There is this Oz! That's how they do it.

The other thing of note is how VN, Afganistan and Iraq are talked about as though they were declared wars. They weren't, they were BS pumped out to move cash into the MIC.

Our freedom was never under foreign threat. It was all an exercise..built up false rage BS. Lots of money changed hands and the ignorant still think it was a noble cause.

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 03:40 PM
There is this Oz! That's how they do it.

The other thing of note is how VN, Afganistan and Iraq are talked about as though they were declared wars. They weren't, they were BS pumped out to move cash into the MIC.

Our freedom was never under foreign threat. It was all an exercise..built up false rage BS. Lots of money changed hands and the ignorant still think it was a noble cause.
What he said, if any of them had been an 'officially declared' war it would have been subject to the Geneva Convention, and Gitmo for one would have been illegal and subject to inspections by the International Red Cross. And legal provisions enshrined by the Nuremberg Judgements similarly would apply. The administrations, and their allies, involved were very careful about their wordings so not to be caught.

And re #193. There's a manual on that, written in europe some 75-80 years ago. It's called a history book.

McMike
09-16-2018, 04:05 PM
Yep. While those folks feel important, they are mostly silly.

It's the number of normal folks with guns that would keep an out of control government at bay. That includes a whacked out Trump. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that more liberals aren't into guns these days.

I've come around to the idea that the 2nd allows me to protect myself from the Trump wackos should they pop off. I've personally been, in a round about way, threatened at least more than 25 times in the past month by Trumpers who say they're going to revolt if Trump is "removed", they're getting more fevered as more of Trump's world unravels. I wouldn't feel threatened if guns weren't so prolific in our society however. ;)



That sounds cool, but we've all witnessed the limitation of US superior firepower and mobility.

No we haven't. You know as well as I do, in fact, better than I don't you, that the ROE prevents our military from wielding our power to it's fullest potential. In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that you "forgot" this fact while formulating your point. Disappointed, but not surprised. ;)

. . . oh yeah :) :) :)

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 04:35 PM
No state with the resources to do otherwise has used a citizen militia for any purpose requiring armed force for a very, very long time.

I pretty much agree--but the U.S. has made extensive use, including overseas combat deployments, of National Guard units in the past 17 years. They may not quite be the "impromptu amateurs" you mentioned, but they come uncomfortably close to that in my opinion (having been a member of 2 reserve units after my active duty service).


Those who wrote the constitution did not build in a self-destruct clause.

Well, here I think you're incorrect. The Revolutionary generation was keenly aware that people have a right to resist governments that oppress and over-reach. Not surprising, given the country's own origins. While that is more explicitly expressed in the Declaration of Independence than in the Constitution, six of the Founders signed both documents.

But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms). The 2nd amendment seems pretty clearly to refer to a government-controlled citizen military force (since the idea of the standing army had not been accepted yet).

The Founders very definitely intended that citizens should have the power to overthrow their government if other reforms proved impossible.

Tom

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 04:55 PM
#197
"But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms)."

I would have thought that your Civil War put paid to that idea?

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 05:48 PM
#197
"But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms)."

I would have thought that your Civil War put paid to that idea?

It's an interesting question, but the right of rebellion is quite explicitly stated--not only a right, but a duty:


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

One could argue that the South's secession was illegitimate because the aim of the North was not absolute despotism. One could argue that the North failed to live up to the standards expressed in the Declaration.

But no one can say that the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly endorse the right of rebellion.

Tom

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 05:50 PM
So the Civil War is ongoing? Or just in recession?

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 05:55 PM
Nothing in the Declaration guarantees the rebels have to win. Just that they have the right and duty to rebel.

Tom

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 05:57 PM
How very interesting…………………… So where does this leave Websters definition of treason….

Definition of treason1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust

By definition under the 2nd there is no allegiance to the Government of the day, or the state for that matter if they wish to establish another. At least that's my reading.

oznabrag
09-16-2018, 06:01 PM
It's an interesting question, but the right of rebellion is quite explicitly stated--not only a right, but a duty:



One could argue that the South's secession was illegitimate because the aim of the North was not absolute despotism. One could argue that the North failed to live up to the standards expressed in the Declaration.

But no one can say that the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly endorse the right of rebellion.

Tom

I would argue that the Declaration of Independence was a Declaration of War, and that the language in the Declaration explains and clarifies the reasons the Founders felt they had a duty to rebel, not any sort of general endorsement of anarchy.

paulf
09-16-2018, 06:04 PM
Nothing in the Declaration guarantees the rebels have to win. Just that they have the right and duty to rebel.

Tom

Duty? By who's order, by what standard?

Is rape and pillage included? Who is responsible?

A pack of nitwits with fire arms...what could go wrong?

One organization, or several?, with various creeds and motives?
The whole theory is a crock, those who push it are foolish.

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:08 PM
I would argue that the Declaration of Independence was a Declaration of War, and that the language in the Declaration explains and clarifies the reasons the Founders felt they had a duty to rebel, not any sort of general endorsement of anarchy.

But you'd be wrong if you argued that:


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

They didn't write: "In our specific case, for these exact reasons and no others, we have the right to rebel" but "Whenever any Form of Government..."

It is very clearly an assertion of a general human right to rebel. They even labeled it a "self-evident Truth."

I agree the Declaration does not endorse anarchy--it specifically says that rebellion must be followed by a move
to institute new Government

Tom

oznabrag
09-16-2018, 06:11 PM
But you'd be wrong if you argued that:



They didn't write: "In our specific case, for these exact reasons and no others, we have the right to rebel" but "Whenever any Form of Government..."

It is very clearly an assertion of a general human right to rebel. They even labeled it a "self-evident Truth."

I agree the Declaration does not endorse anarchy--it specifically says that rebellion must be followed by a move

Tom

Of course they did.

What were they to say, that they were tired of paying the toll?

These were a bunch of guys justifying the theft of what would become thousands of billions of dollars from George.

They had to make it seem like a matter of principle!

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:12 PM
The whole theory is a crock, those who push it are foolish.

History and modern scholarship takes a much kinder view of Jefferson and his co-authors. I think the preponderance of informed opinion is against you.

Tom

paulf
09-16-2018, 06:13 PM
These were written 242 years ago, they are as relevant as a medical book from that time.

There is good in there but we have moved on, your flint lock is not necessary in New York these days.

The things that espouse freedom are worth keeping...the crap about armed revolution is BS. And it only took on that flavor recently as borderline idiots want to threaten fellow citizens under the false pretense of preserving freedom. Informed opinion...ya right.

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:15 PM
Of course they did.

What were they to say, that they were tired of paying the toll?

These were a bunch of guys justifying the theft of what would become thousands of billions of dollars from George.

They had to make it seem like a matter of principle!

I hope you're not actually so cynical to believe that all of the sentiment behind the Declaration was feigned. If you really believe that, why are you so strong in your opposition to today's Republicans?

Principles matter to you (and me). Don't you think it's conceivable they mattered to the Founders, too?

Tom

oznabrag
09-16-2018, 06:16 PM
I agree the Declaration does not endorse anarchy--it specifically says that rebellion must be followed by a move
to institute new Government

Tom

So, before that government gets a shot at governing, some other bunch of malcontents decide they are being oppressed, and rise up and destroy the first batch of rebels.

Ad infinitum.

Anarchy.

The whole point of having a government is to have a framework within which to work out our differences.

If it can be tossed aside on a whim, and one's opponents murdered willy-nilly in the street, What. Is. The .Point?

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:20 PM
...the crap about armed revolution is BS. And it only took on that flavor recently as borderline idiots want to threaten fellow citizens under the false pretense of preserving freedom. Informed opinion...ya right.

Informed enough to know how wrong your claim about armed rebellion being a recent development is:


The Whiskey Rebellion (also known as the Whiskey Insurrection) was a tax protest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protest) in the United States beginning in 1791 during the presidency of George Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_Washington). The so-called "whiskey tax" was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. It became law in 1791, and was intended to generate revenue for the war debt incurred during the Revolutionary War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War). The tax applied to all distilled spirits, but American whiskey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_whiskey) was by far the country's most popular distilled beverage in the 18th century, so the excise became widely known as a "whiskey tax". Farmers of the western frontier were accustomed to distilling their surplus rye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye), barley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley), wheat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat), corn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize), or fermented grain mixtures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mash_ingredients) into whiskey. These farmers resisted the tax. In these regions, whiskey often served as a medium of exchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange). Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution), in particular against taxation without local representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_without_representation), while the federal government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) maintained that the taxes were the legal expression of Congressional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) taxation powers.

Tom

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:26 PM
So, before that government gets a shot at governing, some other bunch of malcontents decide they are being oppressed, and rise up and destroy the first batch of rebels.

Ad infinitum.

Anarchy.

The whole point of having a government is to have a framework within which to work out our differences.

If it can be tossed aside on a whim, and one's opponents murdered willy-nilly in the street, What. Is. The .Point?

They weren't talking about a whim:


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

But you seem to be arguing that armed rebellion is a bad idea. You may well be right. All I'm pointing out is that the Declaration argues that it may be necessary in extremis. If you're going to argue that the Declaration doesn't say that, you're going to lose an argument.

Tom

paulf
09-16-2018, 06:36 PM
They weren't talking about a whim:



But you seem to be arguing that armed rebellion is a bad idea. You may well be right. All I'm pointing out is that the Declaration argues that it may be necessary in extremis. If you're going to argue that the Declaration doesn't say that, you're going to lose an argument.

Tom


Yes, And bleeding removes bad humors from the body.

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:40 PM
Yes, And bleeding removes bad humors from the body.

From: http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/modern-leeching/


Haugen:
Why are leeches used in modern medicine?

Well, Heidi, we asked Bill Lineaweaver, a surgeon at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. He says leeches are often the best option for safely removing congested blood from a wound.

Lineaweaver:
Leeches are used in modern medicine because they work. They're an extremely effective artificial vein in certain situations where uh, a body part such as a finger has been replanted after an amputation, but only the arterial side is working. The, the leech then serves as an artificial vein by drawing off the excess blood or the congested blood, until the person can actually grow back small, venous capillaries.

He says some modern techniques for drawing off excess blood result in too much blood loss. Leeches, though, are considered to be a cost effective, more efficient, and less damaging alternative.

BY:D

And the Declaration says what it says, no matter how foolish you may find its arguments.

Tom

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 06:49 PM
The Whiskey Rebellion also offers support for the idea that the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not meant to be the rebel force, by the way:


Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(United_States)) of Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland), New Jersey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey), and Pennsylvania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania).

Militia=government

Tom

skuthorp
09-16-2018, 08:17 PM
I agree ozna, there is no point and it would not work, but in my humble reading it MAY be there. I say MAY because I doubt it has been tested, and then of course what body could test it?

oznabrag
09-16-2018, 11:08 PM
They weren't talking about a whim:



But you seem to be arguing that armed rebellion is a bad idea. You may well be right. All I'm pointing out is that the Declaration argues that it may be necessary in extremis. If you're going to argue that the Declaration doesn't say that, you're going to lose an argument.

Tom

You seem to be arguing that the US Government, the very embodiment of our Constitution, has an obligation to dissolve itself in the face of an insurrection, if only the insurrectionists are sincere.

You're overthinking it.

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 11:10 PM
I agree ozna... but in my humble reading it MAY be there. I say MAY because I doubt it has been tested, and then of course what body could test it?

If you mean the right of citizens to instigate armed rebellion against their government (I think you do but I'm not sure), it certainly has been tested. The American revolution, the French Revolution, modern Syria, probably others as well.

I'm not saying it always goes well, but it has happened. As for this:


there is no point and it would not work

that's probably exactly what King George and his advisors thought back in 1776.

Tom

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 11:15 PM
How very interesting…………………… So where does this leave Websters definition of treason….

Definition of treason

1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust

By definition under the 2nd there is no allegiance to the Government of the day, or the state for that matter if they wish to establish another. At least that's my reading.

Let's be clear, the right to rebel has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly allows for "well-regulated militias" and specifically as being "necessary to the security of a free State"--that is, the militia is an arm of the government, not a rebel force.

The right to rebel is asserted not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence. And yes, if you rebel and don't win, you are likely to end up being hanged for treason. The Founders were arguing that, since the government had been unresponsive to their grievances and was no longer representing their interests fairly, they no longer owed any allegiance. And further, that they had a right and duty to rebel. They knew very well King George viewed their actions as treason.

Tom

WI-Tom
09-16-2018, 11:22 PM
You seem to be arguing that the US Government, the very embodiment of our Constitution, has an obligation to dissolve itself in the face of an insurrection, if only the insurrectionists are sincere.

I'm arguing no such thing. As I posted earlier, the right to rebel comes with no guarantee of success. And no obligation for the government to bow to the demands of insurrectionists.


You're overthinking it.

Nonsense. You don't have to think very hard to understand something that's so clearly and explicitly stated.

Look, you apparently think armed rebellion is impractical and unlikely to succeed, and that it would bring an increased risk of anarchy and chaos. And you're right about all that. And the Declaration of Independence still clearly asserts that citizens have a duty and a right to overthrow a government that is tending toward "absolute Despotism."

Can you really not imagine a scenario in which government could be so despotic that armed resistance would be called for? I'm not saying it has happened here yet, or that it's likely. I suspect my standards for the need would be higher than the Founders'. But I can envision it.

Tom

David G
09-16-2018, 11:36 PM
Good topic... and one we should address.

Hard to imagine how you think there'll be an informed honest discussion of it here. Way too polarized. If it would ever be possible, it would take a mediator with serious chops to guide the discussion. Anything else is simply stirring the pot.

oznabrag
09-16-2018, 11:53 PM
Let's be clear, the right to rebel has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly allows for "well-regulated militias" and specifically as being "necessary to the security of a free State"--that is, the militia is an arm of the government, not a rebel force.

The right to rebel is asserted not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence. And yes, if you rebel and don't win, you are likely to end up being hanged for treason. The Founders were arguing that, since the government had been unresponsive to their grievances and was no longer representing their interests fairly, they no longer owed any allegiance. And further, that they had a right and duty to rebel. They knew very well King George viewed their actions as treason.

Tom

The Trumpists will be happy about this, and will use it to try and exonerate their Sleazy Jesus AND themselves.




I'm arguing no such thing. As I posted earlier, the right to rebel comes with no guarantee of success. And no obligation for the government to bow to the demands of insurrectionists.



Nonsense. You don't have to think very hard to understand something that's so clearly and explicitly stated.

Look, you apparently think armed rebellion is impractical and unlikely to succeed, and that it would bring an increased risk of anarchy and chaos. And you're right about all that. And the Declaration of Independence still clearly asserts that citizens have a duty and a right to overthrow a government that is tending toward "absolute Despotism."

Can you really not imagine a scenario in which government could be so despotic that armed resistance would be called for? I'm not saying it has happened here yet, or that it's likely. I suspect my standards for the need would be higher than the Founders'. But I can envision it.

Tom

Not much of a right.

The truth is that you are insisting that the Founders' press release, intended to justify their own treason and persuade others to join in their crime, is a freestanding pillar of some lofty philosophy.

IMO, there is no 'right to rebel', precisely because the definition of 'absolute Despotism' is completely subjective.

Every Trumpist who has ever breathed would agree that they had the right to rebel against the embodiment of the Constitution they think they love, simply because that government oppresses their need to disenfranchise the Browns, hate on the Muslims, and saw the random homosexual in half over a barbed wire fence.


Perhaps there is a 'duty', but that's a different ball of wax.

WI-Tom
09-17-2018, 12:25 AM
The Trumpists will be happy about this

Which has nothing to do with whether that's what the Declaration of Independence argues.


The truth is that you are insisting that the Founders' press release, intended to justify their own treason and persuade others to join in their crime, is a freestanding pillar of some lofty philosophy.

Actually, the only thing I'm arguing is that the Declaration of Independence makes an argument that all people have the right and duty to rebel against a government tending toward "absolute Despotism."


Every Trumpist who has ever breathed would agree that they had the right to rebel against the embodiment of the Constitution they think they love, simply because that government oppresses their need to disenfranchise the Browns, hate on the Muslims, and saw the random homosexual in half over a barbed wire fence.

Which again has nothing to do with whether the Declaration of Independence asserts a right and duty to rebel. Which it does. Which, clearly, you think it shouldn't. Which, just as clearly, does nothing to change the fact that it does.

Note, also, that your hypothetical Trumpists would be wrong, because however subjective the definition of "absolute Despotism" may be, guaranteeing the right to vote is not despotism, nor is prohibiting murder.

Tom

oznabrag
09-17-2018, 12:43 AM
Which has nothing to do with whether that's what the Declaration of Independence argues.



Actually, the only thing I'm arguing is that the Declaration of Independence makes an argument that all people have the right and duty to rebel against a government tending toward "absolute Despotism."

. . .

Which again has nothing to do with whether the Declaration of Independence asserts a right and duty to rebel. Which it does. Which, clearly, you think it shouldn't. Which, just as clearly, does nothing to change the fact that it does.

I have no opinion on whether it should or shouldn't, only that the entire concept of 'rights' is just that, a concept.

Government IS coercion






Note, also, that your hypothetical Trumpists would be wrong, because however subjective the definition of "absolute Despotism" may be, guaranteeing the right to vote is not despotism, nor is prohibiting murder.

Tom

So you say, from your subjective POV.

John Smith
09-17-2018, 07:03 AM
I pretty much agree--but the U.S. has made extensive use, including overseas combat deployments, of National Guard units in the past 17 years. They may not quite be the "impromptu amateurs" you mentioned, but they come uncomfortably close to that in my opinion (having been a member of 2 reserve units after my active duty service).



Well, here I think you're incorrect. The Revolutionary generation was keenly aware that people have a right to resist governments that oppress and over-reach. Not surprising, given the country's own origins. While that is more explicitly expressed in the Declaration of Independence than in the Constitution, six of the Founders signed both documents.

But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms). The 2nd amendment seems pretty clearly to refer to a government-controlled citizen military force (since the idea of the standing army had not been accepted yet).

The Founders very definitely intended that citizens should have the power to overthrow their government if other reforms proved impossible.

Tom

Do you think the government would arm those who would rise against it? The militia referenced in the constitution was armed and trained by the government.

John Smith
09-17-2018, 07:06 AM
How very interesting…………………… So where does this leave Websters definition of treason….

Definition of treason1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust

By definition under the 2nd there is no allegiance to the Government of the day, or the state for that matter if they wish to establish another. At least that's my reading.

Again, the 2nd does not stand alone. art 1, section 8, defines/describes the militia. It was an arm of the government to be armed and trained by the government to enforce laws, suppress uprisings, etc.

Art. 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

skuthorp
09-17-2018, 07:17 AM
Hmmm, describes the National Guard eh John? "suppress uprisings", what? The ones that the 2nd amendment supposedly encourages as a matter of duty to be ready to do just that?

Curiouser and curiouser.

I must add this a dry argument from me, a citizen of Australia. but I am really interested and am reading as much as I have time for.
The legal arguments are fascinating once you seperate the propaganda, but the realities of it seem tragic, and possibly disastrous to me.

Keith Wilson
09-17-2018, 07:45 AM
"Suppress uprisings", what? I think at the time this was generally understood to mean slave uprisings. In many southern states, the population was about 1/3 slaves, and in a few they were a majority. The Haitian revolution scared southerners witless.

John Smith
09-17-2018, 10:30 AM
Hmmm, describes the National Guard eh John? "suppress uprisings", what? The ones that the 2nd amendment supposedly encourages as a matter of duty to be ready to do just that?

Curiouser and curiouser.

I must add this a dry argument from me, a citizen of Australia. but I am really interested and am reading as much as I have time for.
The legal arguments are fascinating once you seperate the propaganda, but the realities of it seem tragic, and possibly disastrous to me.

You make my point, although I'm not sure you meant to. Once we had National Guard, we no longer had a need for the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment, and without that need, the 2nd amendment should have been deemed moot.

paulf
09-17-2018, 10:44 AM
I think at the time this was generally understood to mean slave uprisings. In many southern states, the population was about 1/3 slaves, and in a few they were a majority. The Haitian revolution scared southerners witless.

Right! Now back to those 1760 medical texts....Oooo the chapter on removing a leg, with a saw, a stick and a bottle of brandy!

Keith Wilson
09-17-2018, 10:59 AM
Better than without the bottle of brandy.

But again, no government anywhere on earth that has the resources to do otherwise now relies on a citizen militia to do anything that requires the use of force. Not police work, nor any kind of military operations. This should tell you something about the current usefulness of a militia.

paulf
09-17-2018, 11:03 AM
Better than without the bottle of brandy.

But again, no government anywhere on earth that has the resources to do otherwise now relies on a citizen militia to do anything that requires the use of force. Not police work, nor any kind of military operations. This should tell you something about the current usefulness of a militia.

How many flavors of militia are there in this country? The whole argument is crazy. Talk about a reason for declaring martial law!

John Smith
09-17-2018, 11:26 AM
How many flavors of militia are there in this country? The whole argument is crazy. Talk about a reason for declaring martial law!

Seems we have many flavors today, but NONE of them conform with the militia described in the constitution.

oznabrag
09-17-2018, 11:55 AM
I think at the time this was generally understood to mean slave uprisings. In many southern states, the population was about 1/3 slaves, and in a few they were a majority. The Haitian revolution scared southerners witless.

According to WI-Tom, from 1877 onward, the African American population of the US has had the right and the duty to rebel against the US government as being radically despotic, and unfit to govern them.

John Smith
09-17-2018, 12:15 PM
You are correct, we no longer have need for that militia, given the National Guard, yet we have almost a hundred pointless posts on that topic here.

You are correct again. Indeed the 2nd amendment was moot - i.e., subject to debate and uncertainty.

That uncertainty in essence was removed when the Supreme Court declared "the right of the people" to be prime in 2008. We now have an individual right, but per the court, it is subject to many existing restrictions, and is open to future restrictions too. You can see how these restrictions are evolving in many states. You can complain about that decision and /or work to add further restrictions that you want, if you are inclined to.

That is all true. As I recall, that court had to so 'dancing' to get 'keep' to mean 'own'

Until, as a nation, we get our court to deem the second amendment moot, THAT militia no longer being needed, we will have an uphill battle to get any reasonable gun laws passed.

Sans the 2nd amendment, NOTHING in the constitution prohibits owning guns. It's actually silent on that subject.

WI-Tom
09-17-2018, 01:27 PM
Do you think the government would arm those who would rise against it? The militia referenced in the constitution was armed and trained by the government.

Which is why I posted this:


Let's be clear, the right to rebel has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly allows for "well-regulated militias" and specifically as being "necessary to the security of a free State"--that is, the militia is an arm of the government, not a rebel force.

And this:


The Whiskey Rebellion also offers support for the idea that the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not meant to be the rebel force, by the way:


Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(United_States)) of Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland), New Jersey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey), and Pennsylvania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania).


Militia=government

Tom

WI-Tom
09-17-2018, 01:31 PM
According to WI-Tom, from 1877 onward, the African American population of the US has had the right and the duty to rebel against the US government as being radically despotic, and unfit to govern them.

It's generally accepted that Thomas Jefferson was the lead author of the Declaration of Independence. Not me. Wrong Tom.

Tom

Keith Wilson
09-17-2018, 01:35 PM
According to WI-Tom, from 1877 onward, the African American population of the US has had the right and the duty to rebel against the US government as being radically despotic, and unfit to govern them.And had they done so, won their war of independence, and established their own nation in what used to be the US states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and parts of Georgia and the Florida panhandle, their school textbooks would now explain it exactly that way; a just rebellion against cruel and despotic rulers. Who could argue with them? It might make an interesting alternate-history novel.

WI-Tom
09-17-2018, 01:38 PM
I think at the time this was generally understood to mean slave uprisings. In many southern states, the population was about 1/3 slaves, and in a few they were a majority. The Haitian revolution scared southerners witless.

Slave uprisings were no doubt part of it, but not the whole picture. Again, the Whiskey Rebellion (1791)--an armed insurrection of white farmers in the frontier states--occurred during George Washington's presidency. It was put down (without much open armed conflict, I think) by government militia forces.

The Founders seem to have been at least somewhat concerned that what they had done to King George could be done to them. Not an unreasonable fear for a new nation just starting to find its way. There was no guarantee of success, even after the Revolutionary War was over. It was a grand experiment, and not without risk.

Tom

WI-Tom
09-17-2018, 01:46 PM
I have no opinion on whether it should or shouldn't[assert a right and duty to rebel]

Except that every response you offer on the topic suggests exactly the opposite. Which is fine--you can believe what you want.


Government IS coercion

Yes, but with a difference Osbourne Russell pointed out earlier: we get to have a say about who does the coercing.


So you say, from your subjective POV.

Life is subjective. And yet we manage to achieve wide agreement on what words mean, and on what actions are legal.


The exercise of absolute power, especially in a cruel and oppressive way.‘the ideology of enlightened despotism’


count nounA country or political system where the ruler holds absolute power.‘some nations are democracies, others are despotisms’

Tom

oznabrag
09-17-2018, 02:15 PM
It's generally accepted that Thomas Jefferson was the lead author of the Declaration of Independence. Not me. Wrong Tom.

Tom

And the Declaration is not the Constitution.

Any mention of the Constitution granting the right to rebel?

No?

I figgered! (©GL)



And had they done so, won their war of independence, and established their own nation in what used to be the US states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and parts of Georgia and the Florida panhandle, their school textbooks would now explain it exactly that way; a just rebellion against cruel and despotic rulers. Who could argue with them? It might make an interesting alternate-history novel.

I wonder if WI-Tom thinks the citizens of a State have the right to rebel against the despotic predations of that State, or is that 'right' limited to the national stage?

BrianW
09-17-2018, 10:21 PM
In Vietnam and Afghanistan but the militias aren't VC or Mujaheddin. They'd end up fighting each other for beer.

I agreed to this sentiment in a post above. The types you see on TV are almost always the tacti-kool types who didn't have what it takes to Serve, led by a few who Served, but aren't much better.

BrianW
09-17-2018, 10:26 PM
Except that the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment WAS the army OF the government. Also the police force. NOTHING in the constitution describes the militia they way you just did.

The militia referenced in the 2nd amendment was to be armed and trained BY THE GOVERNMENT. It was to be call up to enforce laws, stifle uprisings, and defend against invasions.

Once again, I'm agreeing with you on the definition of the militia. Therefore, again, since it was determined the USA needed a standing Army/militia, the right of the People to bear arms was guaranteed to keep that standing Army/militia in check if needed.

BrianW
09-17-2018, 10:31 PM
I've come around to the idea that the 2nd allows me to protect myself from the Trump wackos should they pop off. I've personally been, in a round about way, threatened at least more than 25 times in the past month by Trumpers who say they're going to revolt if Trump is "removed", they're getting more fevered as more of Trump's world unravels. I wouldn't feel threatened if guns weren't so prolific in our society however. ;)

Likewise the Antifa crowd.





No we haven't. You know as well as I do, in fact, better than I don't you, that the ROE prevents our military from wielding our power to it's fullest potential. In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that you "forgot" this fact while formulating your point. Disappointed, but not surprised. ;)

. . . oh yeah :) :) :)

So it's your opinion that the ROE inside the US are to more be more liberal than those employed overseas? Civilians will be targeted more often, the intelligence chain of evidence required before releasing the Hellfires will be less stringent than in Iraq?

I hadn't considered that point of view. Now that I do, I don't find it likely.

BrianW
09-17-2018, 10:36 PM
How very interesting…………………… So where does this leave Websters definition of treason….

Definition of treason

1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust

By definition under the 2nd there is no allegiance to the Government of the day, or the state for that matter if they wish to establish another. At least that's my reading.

Do we consider it treason when protesters burn a flag? Did we consider it treason when Chelsea Manning released evidence of military wrong doing in Iraq?

Some did, others celebrated it as a sign of a true patriot.

To be honest, it's only treason if you lose.

skuthorp
09-18-2018, 05:31 AM
"To be honest, it's only treason if you lose."

So it's a bit like free speech really, you are free to say what you like, but there may be consequences you also will have to wear……….

WI-Tom
09-19-2018, 01:37 AM
And the Declaration is not the Constitution.

I'm glad you've got that straight. :)


Any mention of the Constitution granting the right to rebel?

No?

I figgered! (©GL)

Had you been paying attention to what I have actually been saying, instead of trying to attribute Jefferson's and the other Founders' beliefs about the right to rebel to me, you might have noticed this from post #197:


But I think it is the Declaration that establishes the right of rebellion as a last resort (and by implication, the right to bear arms). The 2nd amendment seems pretty clearly to refer to a government-controlled citizen military force (since the idea of the standing army had not been accepted yet).

As for this, it's an interesting question:


I wonder if WI-Tom thinks the citizens of a State have the right to rebel against the despotic predations of that State, or is that 'right' limited to the national stage?

Again, Jefferson (not me) had this to say:


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Would he have applied that right to individual state governments? I suspect he would have, given the wording, and the looser ties to Federal government that some of the Founders anticipated--more a confederation of sovereign states than a unified central government.

Tom