HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The 2nd Amendment was not...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:59 PM

 

The 2nd Amendment was not put in place to protect against tyrannical gov't.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/the-rights-second-amendment-lies/

It was put in place to protect the STATE against indian uprisings, rebellious civilians (think Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion) and to put down slave rebellions. It was also a way of assuaging the angst of some of the so-called "founding fathers" like Thomas Jefferson who were suspicious of standing armies during times of peace.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

72 replies, 4593 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply The 2nd Amendment was not put in place to protect against tyrannical gov't. (Original post)
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 OP
rrneck Jan 2013 #1
unblock Jan 2013 #2
jmg257 Jan 2013 #5
unblock Jan 2013 #8
jmg257 Jan 2013 #14
fingusernames Jan 2013 #47
jmg257 Jan 2013 #49
rrneck Jan 2013 #15
unblock Jan 2013 #23
rrneck Jan 2013 #25
JohnRebel Jan 2013 #69
unblock Jan 2013 #71
jmg257 Jan 2013 #3
rrneck Jan 2013 #13
derby378 Jan 2013 #16
rrneck Jan 2013 #19
jmg257 Jan 2013 #17
rrneck Jan 2013 #18
jmg257 Jan 2013 #20
rrneck Jan 2013 #22
jmg257 Jan 2013 #24
rrneck Jan 2013 #26
Loudly Jan 2013 #29
jmg257 Jan 2013 #30
Loudly Jan 2013 #32
jmg257 Jan 2013 #35
Loudly Jan 2013 #37
jmg257 Jan 2013 #39
rrneck Jan 2013 #34
Loudly Jan 2013 #36
rrneck Jan 2013 #38
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #40
rrneck Jan 2013 #41
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #43
rrneck Jan 2013 #44
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #45
rrneck Jan 2013 #48
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #60
rrneck Jan 2013 #62
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #63
rrneck Jan 2013 #65
JohnRebel Jan 2013 #70
Vattel Jan 2013 #4
banned from Kos Jan 2013 #6
X_Digger Jan 2013 #10
banned from Kos Jan 2013 #21
X_Digger Jan 2013 #28
banned from Kos Jan 2013 #31
X_Digger Jan 2013 #33
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #42
regjoe Jan 2013 #50
jmg257 Jan 2013 #51
regjoe Jan 2013 #52
jmg257 Jan 2013 #54
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #53
regjoe Jan 2013 #72
jmg257 Jan 2013 #7
bossy22 Jan 2013 #9
jmg257 Jan 2013 #11
GodlessBiker Jan 2013 #12
TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #27
libdem4life Jan 2013 #46
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #56
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #55
Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #57
slackmaster Jan 2013 #58
IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #59
slackmaster Jan 2013 #61
logicnreason Jan 2013 #64
jmg257 Jan 2013 #66
catpuke9000 Jan 2013 #67
JohnRebel Jan 2013 #68

Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:04 PM

1. Hmmmmm,

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't have a militia without people. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That way, if the people want to have themselves a militia, they can do it with the arms they have a right to keep and bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:13 PM

2. no, not the people to have themselves a militia. *the state* to have a militia.

it does not say "... for the security of a free *people*..." it's for the security of a free *state*.

the purpose was to have a body of able-bodied men the *state* could press into service (i.e., draft).


whether or not the right to bear arms belongs to people absent a military is a matter for much debate, but the original *purpose* is really pretty clear -- it was so the *state* could raise a militia (in lieu of maintaining a standing army).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:28 PM

5. Close...the federal government declared who must serve.

And how they would muster, be organized an trained. It was those peoples' right AND duty o do so.

"necessary" is a pretty strong word...and rightly so. In the Constitution, the Militias were given very specific very vital roles for securing the blessings of liberty.

And so the States HAD to maintain a Militia. By law neither the federal govt nor the States could ignore the requirement of effective Militias...our freedom depended on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:41 PM

8. Yes, that is the meaning of "state" in this context

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:57 PM

14. I think state meant 1 of the 13 states. They shared the

Militia powers with the Federal govt, and the Militias were State entities, pre-dating the Constitution. The US could have troops - an Army, and a Navy, but only the States had (& could only have) well regulated Militias (which could be called forth for federal service).

FWIW..."free country" was replaced by "free State" by the Select Committee. (Boudinot). Likely as a way to figuratively move away from the neutral term "country" and associate more with the individual "state"s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:15 PM

47. State != government

Regarding "free country" being replaced by "free State" -- that plays right into my view that we conflate modern language and concepts with that of the past. When I studied history in university (double major), I was warned against the danger of "presentism." That was in ancient history classes, but it applies equally to the more recent period.

My viewpoint has always been that the "State" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is not a reference to a particular government, but rather to the larger concept of a free State, comprised of free and sovereign people. The 2nd Amendment secures to free people their right to secure their State, in which they can form the government of their choosing. Keep in mind that the amendments were proposed to secure the votes from those wavering, who did not want a strong central government.

This is like the term "well regulated" -- think of a clock, not a bureaucrat.

Keep in mind the times. These were men who revolted against their legal government and sovereign, and waged war against his troops. Their militias, which were considered to consist of all free men, predated the revolution, and the states. The Lexington militia fired on the British before we issued the Declaration of Independence. The possession of arms by the people at large would have been a fairly uncontroversial concept. The concept that the people should retain the right to their arms, lest their experiment in self-government go wrong, would seem to likewise be uncontroversial. The 2nd Amendment, part of a collection propose to assuage the wavering states that feared yet another overbearing central government, was clearly written to assure the people that their right to those arms would not be subject to any restriction by the federal government.

I think it is fine to oppose recognition of the right of free people to have arms. However, it is a bit Orwellian to try to claim that the 2nd Amendment, a product of our revolutionary period, written by people who had engaged in armed illegal revolution, was intended to limit arms to only government run militias. In particular because prior to the 14th amendment, the 1st, 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights was not considered to be applicable to the state governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fingusernames (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:01 PM

49. I used to think that, just not so much any more.

Last edited Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:54 PM - Edit history (5)

From the Declaration of Independence:
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States..."

Article of Confederation
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence..."

"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia..."


Constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

"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 ...against domestic Violence."


The colonial States were VERY important entities like independent nations and countries, which were, in order to create a stronger Union, now giving up vast amounts of power & independence to a new federal govt, including alot of control over their military.
But a free State was a free country, a land of liberty and free of depotism. And in free states, a well regulated well armed Militia was vital to avoid oppression & tyranny.

In order to better secure the State Militias AND the rights of the people from federal usurpation, the FF specifically declared how important the Militias were to a free state/country (necessary), to build on what the Militias would be securing (freedom - a republican form of govt was guaranteed), and for whom - in this case the people of each State and the State of The United States of America (a new Republic).

edit emphasis added on State phrases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:59 PM

15. If you want to be a constittional originalist

you will have to get rid of about twenty thousand firearms laws. The 2A protects the right of people, some of whom may serve in whatever militia seems appropriate at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:36 PM

23. I'm not an originalist

To me, the discussion of reasons the the second amendment was created and ratified are a matter of history.

It informs today's interpretation but does not dictate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:47 PM

25. Well

if you want the 2A to limit the right of people to keep and bear arms to service in a militia, you will be asserting an infringement on that right which is expressly prohibited. Of course at the same time limited, which is to say infringed, arms ownership is already the law of the land and rightfully so. The average American has the financial wherewithal to own some serious weaponry. Now, that's not to say the AR15 is a fearsome weapon of destruction, far from it. But there are weapons that are fearsome that are also within the financial means of many people who should never have access to them. Those weapons are already highly regulated if not outright illegal to own.

We are finding our way forward with a living document. There will always be contention in its interpretation. This is as it should be. But those details get worked out in the mountain of case law that has been considered in light of changes in our culture. To my mind, arguing about the 2A is really quite pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:25 AM

69. I see you disagree with the SCOUS

 

In 2012, the Supreme Court decided the second amendment was an individual right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnRebel (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:10 AM

71. i didn't say anything about that.

i commented on the original *purpose* of the second amendment.

whether or not the right belongs to individuals is a matter of constitutional interpretation.
whether or not the original purpose was for the state to raise a militia is a matter of history.

there's nothing inconsistent about believing that the second amendment ensures an individual right but that it was put in the constitution to ensure that the state could raise a militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:17 PM

3. Nope. Militia were ALWAYS governmental entities.

Made from the body of the people yes, but always under a governing authority.

In ths case, under the authority of the States (and well regulated according to federal guidelines) for the defence of the State, and the United States. Hence the terms "Militia of the several States".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:56 PM

13. The right of the people...

Picture a crowd of people. Imagine (if you're not already) a musician. You want to have a band. You go through the crowd and find people who a) have musical instruments and b) know how to play them. Now you have a band. That doesn't mean nobody else can own a trombone.

You form a militia by rounding up people to serve in it. The 2A says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed whether they are in a militia or not. It just says a militia is a handy thing to have for the security of a free state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:00 PM

16. That's the way I see it

With all this talk of "rugged individualism," the important thing to remember is that Americans always do better as a body with a common cause instead of a bunch of individuals roaming through the weeds. The citizen militia was meant to foster a spirit of community and togetherness, not isolation and xenophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:21 PM

19. Ain't it the truth.

This talk of "American rugged individualism" is a load of crap. Americans fall into various associations probably more readily than any other nationality. Shit, we do it for entertainment. I guess it has something to do with that whole "freedom of association" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:14 PM

17. You're trying to broaden a term that was well understood & defined as a govt entity.

And Constitutionally defined as the Militia of the several States.

A rubber band is not the E Street Band.


Militias were created (and well regulated) by lawful acts of government, not Bubba the trombone player and his Unlawful Combination Band.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:18 PM

18. The government can create a militia

but it doesn't create people, whose right to keep and bear arms is protected by the second amendment. It's right there in plain English. The right to uninfringed arms is not given to militias, but to the people. This means you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:26 PM

20. Well see, now you are making different point. And one I have not argued against.

Although I will point out that in 98% of the time, the phrase "keep and bear arms" was ALWAYS connected with the Militias. Debates in Congress with regards to this clause, both in the Amendment process and the Militia Acts, never referred to an individual right to arms without the militia tie-in.

Mute point I know - for various reasons, but curious none the less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:34 PM

22. It just doesn't seem all that complicated to me.

Maybe I'm missing something, but requiring someone to be in a militia before they can keep and bear arms would be an infringement, which is expressly prohibited.

I don't see much point in constitutional originalism. I don't really care what the founders thought. I don't think they would care that I don't care. I think they tried to craft a document that would stand the test of time and we should interpret it as such. Sometimes, although not often in this country, people have to defend themselves and the best tool for that job is a gun. If the government wants to tell the people the can't use that tool, or a particular variation of that tool, it needs to have a damn good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:45 PM

24. To me either. But I find it interesting as hell!...

Here's a notion for you.

The vice-president and members of Congress, and most State excutives and legislators & officers (and a ton of others) were exempt from Militia duty.

Do we really want to suppose all these founders, many of whom just fought in a revolution, were to give up the security of a right to arms because they were not in the militia?

Not likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:49 PM

26. I heard that! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:29 PM

29. Don't selectively highlight.

A free state. That should be taken literally from the same words of the Constitution.

States were being courted to ratify the Constitution.

A free state was offered a reservation of right to secede from the federation by means of armed rebellion.

That issue was tried and determined by the Civil War to be moot.

There is no right of armed rebellion, just as there is no right of the People to keep arms.

Stop the misinformation.

We can only say that there is a political indulgence of guns and ammo in the hands of the public.

There is no "right." Give that up already.

And turn your arms over to the People. They will protect your dumb ass, to the extent you deserve protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:33 PM

30. Psst...the states had already ratified the Constitution. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:35 PM

32. Right. The Bill of Rights was not an inducement to ratify.

Wrong. Back to school with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:41 PM

35. "Free state" wasn't part of the bill of rights at that point, it didn't exist yet.

"Free state" wasn't added till the 1st Congress, created by the Constitution previously ratified, decided on it, and amendments as a whole.

Or maybe I read your post wrong...seems to say "free state" was included In the 2nd to court the states into ratifying the Constitution, which of course you'll agree makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:50 PM

37. I don't agree, it means exactly that.

A free state is one which is free from the compact they were being courted to enter into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:55 PM

39. I see..you are just making an observation. Thought you were referring to

The phrase in the 2nd, which would be ridiculous.

Things like treason being defined and punishable, and armed rebellion (insurrection) dealt with.

Edit:
Though you are indeed correct - there were several states who hadn't ratified it yet.
I'm thinking A free state would be one guarded against tyranny, invasion, etc.

Hmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:38 PM

34. Explain how

restriction of arms to those in a militia is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:48 PM

36. Seriously? That is a balance eternally sought by jurisprudence.

If you have guns and ammunition in the hands of the public, what does that do to "rights" generally?

It reduces them to naught, that's what.

You empower individual shooters to deprive their targets of all their genuine rights.

Entirely at their whim.

Explain what "due process" means when you purport to give that capability as a Constitutional right to anyone with a personal grudge to settle?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:55 PM

38. So explain it.

Or keep running. Whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:06 AM

40. You don't get to choose which words you want to ignore.....

 

You have to read the amendment in it's entirety to understand the intent.

Your logic is that of corporations using the 14th amendment to justify themselves as "persons"

The historical record of the time up to the writing of the amendment is clear evidence as to the purpose of the amendment. And that purpose was as I stated above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:19 AM

41. Okay

Here it is, posted for the zillionth time

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.

If we restrict the right to keep and bear arms to membership in a militia, how is that not an infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:39 PM

43. Here's my opinion...

 

You have the right to a firearm for self-protection and for hunting.

If the intent of the 2A was to protect against tyrannical gov't they would have said that.

They didn't.

I'm not saying you can't have a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:44 PM

44. So

how does "security of a free state" figure into that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:39 PM

45. It doesn't

 

The 2A is an outdated and meaningless amendment for today's society.

At this point in history it would be next to impossible to confiscate all firearms. Thus my previous posting about owning a weapon for hunting and self defense.

But as written the 2A is an outline of how the State would defend itself through a citizens militia - something not needed in the modern era.

So you've convinced me. There is no need for the average citizen to own a weapon. In a perfect world the 2A as it stands today does not apply.

There is no need for a citizens militia, we have the National Guard performing that function.

We have a standing army for defense.

There are no more Indian uprisings to worry about and slave rebellions are no longer.

Thus the 2A is a meaningless group of words not applicable to today's society.

If you want to own a gun, join the National Guard or the US military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:25 PM

48. The national guard was federalized in 1903.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

It is indistinguishable from the United States Army. That's why we have been using it in our various imperialistic overseas adventures.

Here are some names in case you forgot.

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumnsfeld

Do you think those guys would hesitate to stick your ass in a gulag if they thought they could get away with it? How about this:

Patriot Act
"Free Speech Zones"
Total Information Awareness

Fortunately we got a Democrat in there. But do you think the 1% gave up after the embarrassment that was "W"? They ran a bloodless corporate plutocrat as if nothing happened. Do you think the Koch brothers and the rest of their ilk will give up? Ever? Don't bet on it. They don't want to give one inch, and they don't care who they have to hurt to get richer. They are, by definition, fascists.

It ain't over. Not by a long shot. If we're lucky we'll get it straightened out through the democratic process. We are a declining empire in a time of serious resource depletion. I've got news for you. Fighting for scarce resources is as old as the human race. Thinking we are immune to the barbarity of fear and greed is just starry eyed American exceptionalism.

Look at who the Republicans ran. Look at who they represent. Look at how many people voted for them. Then tell yourself how outdated the second amendment is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:34 PM

60. And your collection of pea shooters is gonna stop the 82nd Airborne?

 

At what point does the US gov't become tyrannical in your mind? I mean they just about already know when you're going to take a bathroom break. What's the tipping point for you to start putting on the camo?

If you truly believe the 2A was put there in order for you to fight the US military then you should be lobbying your elected representatives to allow you to get ahold of some shoulder launched SAM's, land mines, anti-tank weaponry, etc., etc...

If you go up against the US military there is only one outcome - You loose.

The path to change is the same way Christ, Ghandi, King and other NON-VIOLENT protestors brought about change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:32 AM

62. So predictable.

You leap right to some sort of pitched battle with the 82nd Airborne. A friend of mine was a DI in the 82nd and served in Desert Storm. You know what his attitude toward armed conflict with a hostile invading force is? Upgrade. He is perfectly willing to take a Ruger 10/22 or a knife and kill the other guy for his weapon.

You don't seem to understand it's not just about the gun. People fixate on the gun way too much. While I expect that it's true that repressive regimes don't immediately unleash the military on people, but rather use disappearances, selective enforcement of the law, irregular paramilitary "thugs" and other assorted unpleasantness to subjugate recalcitrant populations, it's not about the fight itself but the continuum of force that leads up to it. Because in the end whether it's a common criminal, a government thug, or a professional soldier you have to face the stakes will be the same. But the path you take to that moment may well determine whether or not you actually have to face it.

Has it occurred to you that the Bill of Rights implies a continuum of force?


First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second 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.


The people have a right to speak out against injustice, to collectively speak out, to physically make their presence and their demands heard, and document their grievances. Failing those options, the people have a right to fight. You have a right to fight against a common criminal, and you have a right to fight against a criminal government. There are no guarantees you will win, but you have the right to try.

From The Lion in Winter
Prince Richard: He's here. He'll get no satisfaction out of me. He isn't going to see me beg.
Prince Geoffrey: My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all there is, it matters.


You're a lot less likely to get assaulted if your assailant thinks he will get his brains blown out. If he expects a serious fight, he probably won't engage but rather seek easier prey. That's because bullies don't want a fight, they want an easy victory. But if you walk around advertising that you won't resist or expect to lose a fight, every bully in town will come looking for you. You have already been defeated by your own attitude.

And another interesting quote from Lion in Winter.

Henry II: I found out the way your mind works and the kind of man you are. I know your plans and expectations - you've burbled every bit of strategy you've got. I know exactly what you will do, and exactly what you won't, and I've told you exactly nothing. To these aged eyes, boy, that's what winning looks like!


When you announce to the world exactly what your limitation are, your adversaries will know exactly how far to go to defeat you. When you tell the world you will never fight, a fight is exactly what you will get. Or, more specifically, an ass whipping is what you'll get.

How do you feel about the New Deal? These events and many more helped set the stage for it.

Battle of Blair Mountain
Pullman Strike
Streetcar strikes in the United States
Colorado Labor Wars
1905 Chicago Teamsters' strike
Pressed Steel Car Strike of 1909

There's plenty more here. Those workers battled the police, mercenaries hired by industrialists, and the military. They weren't fucking around, and those events were living memories for a lot of people when FDR was elected. People fought and died for social progress on American soil, and anyone who calls themselves a Progressive would do well to remember that.

If you're satisfied to be a keyboard commando go right ahead. If your idea of ultimate political action is "occupying" a public space you have a lot to learn. If you think the oligarchs that want to own this country and everything and everyone in it will stop with squirting a little pepper spray you may have a rude surprise in your future. We have begun to turn a corner and I hope we will keep turning it. I am very interested to see what kind of liberal sits in the Oval Office after the Biden presidency. But success is by no means assured, and it seems that not a few of our fellow Democrats have opted to take precautions no matter whether they will work or not.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:22 PM

63. Good luck to you in your battle....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:44 AM

65. I don't anticipate a battle nor would I welcome one should it occur.

But the denial of conflict is an affectation of wealth and cloistered privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:27 AM

70. Yup

 

That is the truth the lift hopes the people don't find out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:27 PM

4. You are making a claim about what the original purpose of the second amendment was.

But different peole who voted for the amendment may well have had different purposes. And no doubt many anti-federalists would have identified as one purpose of the amendment protection against tyrannical government. Moreover, "state" is singular in the amendment, suggesting that the amendment was intended to protect the freedom of individual states like Virginia or New York. That freedom could be threatened by either a foreign state, an insurrection, or the federal armed forces. Certainly the anti-federalists who supported the second amendment expressed the worry that the federal goverment might pose a threat to the freedom of individual states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:39 PM

6. Yes it was. The entire Bill of Rights protects citizens from our government.

 

Why would the 2nd be any different?

The 1st protects citizens from government censorship, a government religion, --- others protect citizens from illegal seizure and arrest, troops put into your house, etc.

You miss the point of the Bill of Rights entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:45 PM

10. The preamble clears that up..

http://billofrights.org

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:29 PM

21. That is not clear at all. Would you elaborate?

 

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:26 PM

28. The Bill of Rights is a 'the government shall not' document..

.. rather than as some people want to see it as a 'the people can' document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:34 PM

31. Well then we agree in full.

 

Which is why I support the ACLU and their resistance to government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:35 PM

33. *nod* Card-carrying member here too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:24 AM

42. The method for overthrowing the gov't is called ELECTIONS.

 

IF the 2A is to protect against tyrannical gov't, do you advocate for civilian ownership of surface to air missles? Tanks? Attack hellicopters? Land mines? etc., etc...

The "founders" just fought a revolution to throw off a foreign gov't. They weren't going to give that "right" to civilians to throw off a Domestic gov't. otherwise the 2A would have stated "in order to protect against tyrannical gov't"......


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:12 PM

50. Are you saying that the founders

 

who not all were soldiers, did not want to give the right to keep and bear arms to very people (civilians) that fought and helped win the revolution?

That is a very curious opinion that I have not heard before. Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regjoe (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:17 PM

51. Careful - the founders did not give the people anything.

They articulated and secured a right that already existed.

A primary reason being to protect the Militias/people from being disarmed by the new govt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:37 PM

52. Oh, I understand

 

I'm just trying to figure out how the hell the poster came to such an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regjoe (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:14 PM

54. Good luck with that! :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regjoe (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:14 PM

53. The right to bear arms was predicated

 

On the owner being in a well regulated militia. Read the ENTIRE amendment.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #53)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:57 AM

72. Oh, I have

 

as have millions since it was first penned to paper and, well, this interpretation of it that you are promoting has not been the one we have been living with since those times.
Why should people give your personal opinion of the amendment more validity than what our history and the all the rulings since then have been?

My question though, was about how you came to the conclusion that the founders did not want the very people they fought side by side with, to be unarmed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:40 PM

7. The Militias already existed. The Congress already had the duty

And power to come up with guidelines for their organization, training AND arming.

The amendment was an extra security against the federal government using this new power to DIS-arm the Militias/the people.

Militias were not only necessary for the security of the States, but of the United States, and its people. And yes, to protect against a tyrannical govt by reducing the need for that bane of liberty and power of tyrants - a large standing army

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:41 PM

9. does it really matter?

do we interpret the constitution based on "original intent"? no, not really. Despite the fantasy land that Scalia and Thomas live in most of our understanding of the constitution is based on a post-reconstruction/14th amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:46 PM

11. Great point. The whole notion of Militias of the several States was obsoleted by the

Dick Act and creation of the federally controlled and funded National Guard.

Apparently we the people disagreed with the Founders on the nessecity of the Militias, and the importance of a large (huge) standing army.

Though there is still a secured right or 2 in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:46 PM

12. Does it really matter what the "original intent" was? Shouldn't we focus on ...

what the words mean to us today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 11:22 PM

27. Yup it's the preamble which deals with that.

 

And the preamble has no legal force.

What it is is a simple self evident statement that once the system becomes so corrupted that a government turns on its own citizens, it's time to chuck the lot and start again.

Everything, Constitution included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:14 PM

46. Interesting, but can we address how the Lanza and 27 dead kiddies and educators situation

fits in here as it wasn't carried out with "rightfully borne arms" such a 22 or a 6-shooter?

We are a society that cannot live without drugs or alcohol or tobacco or guns, agreed. But we require a prescription, ID and signature and monthly renewal for heroin-type narcotics which are unfortunately necessary for some people...or they go to the pokey. It is, of course, eminently stupid to allow sale from a vending machine or some head shop or a travelling carnival booth.

We require extremely strict rules and loss of livelihood and potential jail time for non-approved sale/purchase of alcohol or tobacco.

At the other end of the scale, for the militia protecting the State, we have the National Guard. I don't believe there has been a need for calling up of the neighborhood "armed regulars" for some decades, yea centuries. Jamestown, Waco and some Idaho cult nutjobs were all prepped out for the dreaded government intervention event they eventually caused, thus proving their relevance to themselves, and their insanity and stupidity to others.

So, whoever can't live and breathe free with a 22 or a 6-shooter, respectively a firearm for hunting and one for protection, has issues beyond the 2nd Amendment. That's where the line in the sand should be, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:39 PM

56. Agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:32 PM

55. Standard boilerplate gun nut bargle.

Like the government isnt always going to have a bigger gun.

These Alex Jones yahoos think they're gonna hold off the "new world order" from their paneled basement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:46 PM

57. Militia's were for external threats - elections for internal threats. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:48 PM

58. "The state" includes towns, neighborhoods, households, families, and individuals

 

The security of the state is important at all levels, and the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:26 PM

59. with your definition of what constitutes the "security of a free state"

 

then "National Security" includes the health of every citizen of the country and thus a public national healthcare system for all should be put in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:11 PM

61. Yes, the system we have now is far from adequate

 

I work in healthcare IT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:52 PM

64. Actually yes it was

 

The second ammendment can be more easily explained if you actually research the founding fathers and quotes by them. The 2a is there to keep us free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to logicnreason (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:04 AM

66. And how was it intended the 2nd accomplish that?

Of course it was meant to help keep us free. By guaranting an effective Militia to secure the states, the Union, and it's people, not to perpetuate armed rebellion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:15 AM

67. I don't understand why people think that their guns would protect them from a tyrannical government.

Government has drones and nukes and tanks.
Plus, let's be honest, the conservative white dudes that own guns and use this argument are not going to be the target of a tyrannical government, it's the left wingers and the immigrants and labor/ poor people that will get tortured and disappeared if America were to become much worse than it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IWelcome TheirHatred (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:23 AM

68. I see you have not done your homework

 

In the federalist papers, Washington's Farewell Address, and the writings of Jefferson, the second ammendment was to protect against a government who has exceed it's limits. Jefferson even expected a Revolution every couple generations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread