Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 2nd amendment was never written so that there would be some kind of reserve civilian armed force that would stand up to the duly elected United States government or the duly elected government of any of its states. That fallacy is proven wrong with anyone who knows their history - since President George Washington personally put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania at the head of an army in 1794. Those rebels were doing EXACTLY what "2nd amendment enthusiasts" say they need to be prepared to do.
No, it was about the desire to avoid the U.S. keeping a large standing army that might have loyalty to a general over the United States. At that time, the notion of a "United States" was still somewhat of an abstract idea.
Of particular concern was that a general of a standing military force (read: paid soldiers or mercenaries, often used by European royalty) might be bribed by foreign interests into turning over a piece of the U.S. & aligning with Spain, France, England, etc... in return for them making him prince of it or something. That was what the framers were concerned about when they crafted the 2nd amendment, which was a repeat of something already in of the state constitutions and something in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
Indeed this was attempted in the U.S. frontier a couple times, most famously by Aaron Burr and Gen. James Wilkinson in 1805-06.
In a country made up of citizen-soldiers who all defended their own farms, that kind of thing wouldn't happen.
It had nothing to do with the government needing to be afraid of its own citizens rising up. That's absurd. The way the constitution is designed, the government is OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE. Therefore rising in arms against it is to rise against your own people since they elected the government. Meaning, if you rise up against it, you're not a patriot, you're an insurrectionist. That's not what the framers wanted & indeed the constitution was created because the previous U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to put down insurrections.
The 2nd amendment was a statement affirming that U.S. citizenship came with privileges and rights, but also responsibilities, which included defending your country against threats. The framers would have been the first to denounce these idiots as making a mockery of those responsibilities.
If the goal is to protest some kind of injustice, then the way to do it is to protest peacefully, such as the civil rights protesters. That force the government to display its tyranny by unleashing disproportionate force against people who are only exercising their rights peacefully. The guns completely negate that high ground. More accurately, the civil rights protesters were demonstrating in order to show that local and state governments were not living up to their constitutional responsibilities & that the federal government was allowing states to violate the 14th amendment.
In this case, these armed protesters are protesting their state governments' actions to contain a public health threat. This would be like protesting sandbagging before a hurricane because you don't like the way the sandbags get in the way of the boardwalk when you take a stroll on the beach, or protesting the construction of a fort or airbase in a time of war.
Last edited by redguard57; 05-25-2020 at 06:57 PM..
Recently, we've all seen the photos of the armed protestors on the steps of the state capitals. Are these guys delusional or what? Do these guys think they are in a movie?
This is real life. Who were they going to shoot? If they shot any counter protestors, that would be murder. If law enforcement had a reason to ask them to leave, they would have to comply. Were they going to engage in a full shootout with police on the grounds of a government building?
Now, this isn't a discussion about the second amendment. They can own guns. That's not the issue.
This alleged "show of force" is just theater being performed by people who think they are living in a Rambo movie.
Plus, there are a ton of other problematic issues that are clearly on display here.
Those armed protesters show how little sense they have. As you say, they're damaging their own cause and could ultimately be endangering gun ownership for all those who quietly and peacefully possess and use them for legitimate purposes. If the nation ever gets to the point where all private gun ownership is banned and door-to-door searches are made to seize them, we'll have these characters to thank for it.
Those armed protesters show how little sense they have. As you say, they're damaging their own cause and could ultimately be endangering gun ownership for all those who quietly and peacefully possess and use them for legitimate purposes. If the nation ever gets to the point where all private gun ownership is banned and door-to-door searches are made to seize them, we'll have these characters to thank for it.
Melodramatic blather.
These people are exercising their rights and they are NOT damaging yours.
It's no different than people marching with "Abortion is Murder" (or "My Body, My Choice") placards.. People burning the flag or the nutsy fagans at Westboro Baptist Church with their "God Hates ****" signs.
To have a free society you have to give others free speech that you might not agree with. And whether you like it or you don't like it.. What they're doing, along with the folks in the other examples I mentioned above, is exercising their free speech.
And.. Yes.. Sometimes people should remember the old adage about it being better to let people think you're an idiot than opening your mouth and removing all doubt. That holds true in free speech events as well.
Sorry - you just went above the pay grade of 99%+ of C-D posters.....
Waiting for the "you can't yell 'fire!' in a movie theatre" myth to pop up in 3....2...1....
Recently, we've all seen the photos of the armed protestors on the steps of the state capitals. Are these guys delusional or what? Do these guys think they are in a movie?
This is real life. Who were they going to shoot? If they shot any counter protestors, that would be murder. If law enforcement had a reason to ask them to leave, they would have to comply. Were they going to engage in a full shootout with police on the grounds of a government building?
Now, this isn't a discussion about the second amendment. They can own guns. That's not the issue.
This alleged "show of force" is just theater being performed by people who think they are living in a Rambo movie.
Plus, there are a ton of other problematic issues that are clearly on display here.
Thoughts?
"Gun guys" come in all intensities. That's what scares you the most. You can't easily identify them.
Courts have ruled many of the actions unconstitutional, so they weren't all "authorized by law".
They have abused their powers.
We "understand" the illness well enough to know it's just a virus, and we have never tried to stop the whole world for a virus before.
Therefore, doing so now can only be considered "overreaction".
Please cite all court decisions indicating the state actions against coronavirus "weren't authorized by law". Other than one is Wisconsin made by the unusually partisan supreme court there, I cannot think of one.
Its more than just a virus. Its a particularly deadly virus that spreads more easily than something like influenza does.
That's the whole point. Sounds like you missed it.
Those armed protesters show how little sense they have. As you say, they're damaging their own cause and could ultimately be endangering gun ownership for all those who quietly and peacefully possess and use them for legitimate purposes. If the nation ever gets to the point where all private gun ownership is banned and door-to-door searches are made to seize them, we'll have these characters to thank for it.
You really don't get the whole "rights" thing do you?
By what new mechanism of constitutional government would the will of people like you become the determinate factor for what rights people have? Because 'some' people get upset, that will cause guns to be banned and door-to-door searches will follow?
How have such beliefs been instilled in you and where; do you reside within the United States?
You are actually making the argument that armed protests are absolutely required and should occur every day, just to remind anti-American, anti-liberty people that rights are not defined or delineated by feelings and your anxiety does not transform into legitimate power to restrict rights.
As long as there are people out there espousing what's quoted and threatening such anti-liberty actions, there reason to retain effective arms to resist with force such actions.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
