What's new
By:
Filters

Current events thread

Zombie said:
The idea that the second amendment is meant to guarantee Americans will some day be able to take up arms against their own country has always befuddled me.
Click to expand...

It’s the idea of defending against tyranny. Kind of important, especially for leaders that had just taken up arms against their own country.
 
RandyForRubio said:
It’s the idea of defending against tyranny. Kind of important, especially for leaders that had just taken up arms against their own country.
Click to expand...

think it makes much more sense the founders had in mind the threat of tyranny from external forces rather than setting up a guarantee that the citizenry could own arms so they could revolt against the government they had just set up. They had just fought a civil war, I doubt they were all that interested in planting the seeds for a future one.
 
Zombie said:
think it makes much more sense the founders had in mind the threat of tyranny from external forces rather than setting up a guarantee that the citizenry could own arms so they could revolt against the government they had just set up. They had just fought a civil war, I doubt they were all that interested in planting the seeds for a future one.
Click to expand...

Tyranny from external forces? Care to explain that further?

I think the founders realized that armed citizens were enough of a threat that the government had to worry about it. It’s essentially another check and balance in the system. They didn’t want another system like what they came from, they wanted the citizenship to have power, responsibility, for the government to care about them. The right to bear arms is one way to ensure that.
 
RandyForRubio said:
Tyranny from external forces? Care to explain that further?
Click to expand...
Seems kind of obvious but sure, Great Britain (or any other great power) could come calling again, and try to put the American colonies under imperial rule once again. Remember we didn't have a standing army at this time, so state run militias were our only defense.

Just prior to the drafting of the constitution there had been an insurrection against the fledgling United States called Shays rebellion. Our country's inability to effectively deal with the rebellion, and the apparent weakness it showed to Europe played a large part in George Washington deciding to take part in and preside over the constitutional convention. Which resulted in a much more centralized and powerful federal government. This is the backdrop against which the second amendment was written.

It's worth noting that the constitution also criminalizes taking up arms against the government, it reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

You'll note it doesn't carve out an exemption for those who feel the government has become too tyrannical. There's also no language in the second amendment itself to that effect. So yeah, the constitutional justification for armed rebellion against our own government just doesn't exist, sorry.
 
One final point, if we were to take seriously that the founders intended to have an armed populace capable of overthrowing the government they had just created as some sort of 'check,' then it stands to reason that we should also allow ownership of tanks and cruise missiles and f-35's to ensure such a rebellion could be successful.

Surely they wouldn't have intended for future patriots to allow themselves to be so thoroughly outgunned. I mean, if that's truly the argument, AR-15s aren't going to be the difference between successful rebellion and defeat.
 
Small arms matter. This idea that they do not, or that nukes make them irrelevant is painting the issue with the fat crayons.

Small arms matter.
 
Zombie said:
think it makes much more sense the founders had in mind the threat of tyranny from external forces rather than setting up a guarantee that the citizenry could own arms so they could revolt against the government they had just set up. They had just fought a civil war, I doubt they were all that interested in planting the seeds for a future one.
Click to expand...

This explains a lot. Read some Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. They didnt create a government, they created a free people. Government is what they were attempting to chain down, not people.

They almost wanted to error on the side of no central government
 
rare144 said:
They almost wanted to error on the side of no central government
Click to expand...

That would not seem to be the case, if one factors in the Whiskey Rebellion:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval.[115] The episode demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It was, therefore, viewed by the Washington administration as a success, a view that has generally been endorsed by historians.[116] The Washington administration and its supporters usually did not mention, however, that the whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, and that many westerners continued to refuse to pay the tax.[33] The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway.[117] The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party came to power in 1801, which opposed the Federalist Party of Hamilton and Washington.[118]

The Rebellion raised the question of what kinds of protests were permissible under the new Constitution. Legal historian Christian G. Fritz argued that there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States, even after ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed that the government was sovereign because it had been established by the people; radical protest actions were permissible during the American Revolution but were no longer legitimate, in their thinking. But the Whiskey Rebels and their defenders believed that the Revolution had established the people as a "collective sovereign", and the people had the collective right to change or challenge the government through extra-constitutional means.[119]

Historian Steven Boyd argued that the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion prompted anti-Federalist westerners to finally accept the Constitution and to seek change by voting for Republicans rather than resisting the government. Federalists, for their part, came to accept the public's role in governance and no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition.[120]
 
zombie owning dudes about the history of our countries creation.
 
Zombie said:
Seems kind of obvious but sure, Great Britain (or any other great power) could come calling again, and try to put the American colonies under imperial rule once again. Remember we didn't have a standing army at this time, so state run militias were our only defense.

Just prior to the drafting of the constitution there had been an insurrection against the fledgling United States called Shays rebellion. Our country's inability to effectively deal with the rebellion, and the apparent weakness it showed to Europe played a large part in George Washington deciding to take part in and preside over the constitutional convention. Which resulted in a much more centralized and powerful federal government. This is the backdrop against which the second amendment was written.

It's worth noting that the constitution also criminalizes taking up arms against the government, it reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

You'll note it doesn't carve out an exemption for those who feel the government has become too tyrannical. There's also no language in the second amendment itself to that effect. So yeah, the constitutional justification for armed rebellion against our own government just doesn't exist, sorry.
Click to expand...
Good post.

Iirc
Shays rebellion was due in large part to the inability of the Continental Congress to pay the soldiers fighting the revolutionary war. These poor guys went home without pay, only to find they were facing charges of not paying their own debts. The inability of the congress to address the rebellion was a reflection of their inability to act on anything in a decisive manner. The Federalists were led by men who had fought in the continental army, and were appalled by ineptitude of the congress to support them. It highlighted the need for a stronger central government, not the need to limit governmental power.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
rare144 said:
This explains a lot. Read some Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. They didnt create a government, they created a free people. Government is what they were attempting to chain down, not people.

They almost wanted to error on the side of no central government
Click to expand...
Jefferson was opposed to a strong central government, but he accepted that he could not win a political battle with Washington and Hamilton and the rest of the Federalists. We're very lucky he did not prevail. Imho.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
str8line said:
The puerile freak show continues...

Trump called Congressman Adam Schiff, "Little Adam Schitt".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-defends-matt-whitaker-200608850.html
Click to expand...
Schiff has it exactly right. The main reason the appointment should be ruled out is because he is on record detailing how he would undermine the Mueller investigation. The idea that anyone could appoint their own prosecutor is BS. This is exactly the scenario that calls for the Senate to be involved in the appointment of the AG.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top