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.
You doth take it too seriously. It would be interesting to see how a country awash in guns and combat experience would fare against a formal military takeover, though. Someone please design an algorithm to explore that.
C'mon. The people would always eventually lose to an organized military with the will to finish. But the point is to make it so painful, it is not worth the cost.
Reference the Vietnam War and the war in Afghanistan. The Afghanis actually defeated 2 separate super powers. All you have to do is see how we lost the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and you have your model of the outcome posed in your question.
So while a determined military assault on the US civilian population could eventually win, it would probably be a Pyrric victory, or else they would destroy everything and leaving nothing worth having after the conquest. In either case, the cost is not worth the gain.
That is the point of arming everyong in America. It makes the government think, "Gee, do we really want to do this".
Look at Antifa vs. the police when the police can't use their guns. They still have batons and tasers and tear gas, but it costs a high price when Antifa has
I interpret 2A as meaning: in order to overthrow tyrannical governments the people must be allowed to have weapons. That made perfect sense in 1776 when the best national army was only slightly better than any tribal warriors. But by WW2 national armies had fighter planes and even nuclear bombs. For 2A to allow for any govt to be overthrown people would have to be allowed to own nukes.
Not overthrow their government, but prevent the government to use force to tyranize them. There is a differnce. In an overthrow, the government has to lose. In defending against tyrrany, the government only has to quit. The people only need to fight to a stalemate, like the Vietnam War. All it take is for the government to lose will and quit trying to FORCE the people using arms.
Now I'm going off topic, but in a true climate where the people seek to overthrorw the government, things would not be as one sided as you think. In order for the government to win, it has to have the loyalty of all of the military. It is very likely, such a scenario would not be the people vs. the government, but a Civil War, wherein the US armed forces would be divided along the lines of those loyal to the government vs. those loyal to the people and opposing the government. You would have entire military units first refusing to attack the people, and later they would then get in their tanks and aircraft, choppers and personnel carrier and they would fight pitched battles against the government loyal troops.
That is a much more likely scenario than the entire government military on one side and all of the US firearms owners on the other.
Anway that is WAY off topic, and not the debate about the Second Amendment we should be discussing, as propose by the OP.
C'mon. The people would always eventually lose to an organized military with the will to finish. But the point is to make it so painful, it is not worth the cost.
Reference the Vietnam War and the war in Afghanistan. The Afghanis actually defeated 2 separate super powers. All you have to do is see how we lost the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and you have your model of the outcome posed in your question.
So while a determined military assault on the US civilian population could eventually win, it would probably be a Pyrric victory, or else they would destroy everything and leaving nothing worth having after the conquest. In either case, the cost is not worth the gain.
That is the point of arming everyong in America. It makes the government think, "Gee, do we really want to do this".
Look at Antifa vs. the police when the police can't use their guns. They still have batons and tasers and tear gas, but it costs a high price when Antifa has
Not saying you’re wrong, but this branch of the thread really just evolved from an offhand comment. Are you right? Yeah I’d say so.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add one more thing. If you take the entire text of the 2nd Amendment and break it up into a p and q argument form, you could also make out both A Well Regulated Militia and common individuals have the right to bear arms. Where such individuals can bear arms and exactly what type of arms is then open to debate and interpretation.
Nope. Not unless I am missing something.
The Second Amendment guarntees an individual right to keep and bear arms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the militia, and "well regulated" is irrelevant. By the way, when the Founders wrote "well regulated" it simply meant "well trained", not some formalized military group. Well regulated simply meant well trained and well provided for.
There was much debate about including the militia clause or not for this very reason. That is why there are so many quotes about "what is the militia". It was not a foregone conclusion that they were going to include the militia clause in the amendment.
Not saying you’re wrong, but this branch of the thread really just evolved from an offhand comment. Are you right? Yeah I’d say so.
Right, this is off topic to the OP's question regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. We should stick to that. Not that it really matters.
By the time this thread is found Monday morning, all the internet warriors from both sides are going to turn this from a peaceful discussion into another typical gun-bashing vs. you're just a commie flame war, and the Mods will have to shut the thread down, like all the rest of them where people can't play nice with others.
I give it 2 pages on Monday and thread will be locked.
I answered your question but you don't like my answer or accept it. Good grief. What is the point in trying?
Beyond that, once again, the militia cause is completely irrelevant. It is pointless for you to say that the definition of "militia" is up for interpretation, when the Heller dicision cites an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Group affilliation is completely irrelevant.
You could redefine the meaning of "militia" to the US Space Force and it would not change the meaning of the Second Amendment in any regard. The militia clause is superfluous.
If you cut out the militia clause entirely, the Heller decision makes it pointedly clear that the Second Amendment right of the people to both keep arms and then to bear those arms they keep, would be completey unaffected. It would be identical in either case, since those rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED either way. Either with or without a militia. It is an INDIVIDUAL right.
* Bolded capitals are for emphasis, not for the purpose of shouting at you. I am not trying to shout but simply underscore the extreme importance of both of these items. I'm not trying to be rude here.
Chill. I don't entirely disagree with you. There is a logical reason why this amendment came right after the first one protecting free speech so the Founding Fathers obviously believed it was very important to the individual. Yet if this amendment and all other amendments were so clear cut, there would be no need for interpretation and debate over all the subsequent laws and protections that stem from it. And as I said before, I may agree with the decision but my opinion is pointless because the Heller case is only one decision in which 4 out of 5 justices dissented. Somewhere down the road another Supreme Court might interpret the law differently and side with the dissenting argument presented by Justice Stevens instead. Actually I'd like to read up more into Stevens' dissenting opinion beyond what Wikipedia says because it seems like he made the argument that the 2nd Amendment did not necessarily make the right for individuals to bear arms set in stone. That throws the argument into a loop.
Right, this is off topic to the OP's question regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. We should stick to that. Not that it really matters.
By the time this thread is found Monday morning, all the internet warriors from both sides are going to turn this from a peaceful discussion into another typical gun-bashing vs. you're just a commie flame war, and the Mods will have to shut the thread down, like all the rest of them where people can't play nice with others.
I give it 2 pages on Monday and thread will be locked.
I credit our regulars here with knowing how to conduct a civil debate. Thank you to all who have participated so far!
The caveat I posted in the OP stands, as do the forum-specific rules for Great Debates (posted at the top of this forum in a sticky). For anyone who desperately desires a collection of infractions and forum suspensions... Well, I hope you feel it's worth it -- because the Mods on this forum are closely watching this topic.
By your standard then, it references*only "the security of a free state" i.e people can bear arms to secure their state, but not themselves personally. Can you supply some authority to support your claim on intent?
Federalist Papers
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
No matter how many times I read the second amendment, I can't imagine the Founding Fathers intended that this amendment's intent was, "to protect individuals and their property FROM the government." In fact, it was never understood that way NRA first came up with that interpretation.
Federalist Papers.
Keep in mind that there were no police dept's in the late 18th century. One was responsible for protecting his own life, family and property...and The Federalist Papers clearly state that the purpose of the militia was to protect the States from the Feds.
BTW- The NRA was established after the war of succession because it was obvious that the urbanized Yankees were largely ignorant of how to use firearms, as opposed to the easy familiarity the more rural Rebs had with them.
Chill. I don't entirely disagree with you. There is a logical reason why this amendment came right after the first one protecting free speech so the Founding Fathers obviously believed it was very important to the individual. Yet if this amendment and all other amendments were so clear cut, there would be no need for interpretation and debate over all the subsequent laws and protections that stem from it. And as I said before, I may agree with the decision but my opinion is pointless because the Heller case is only one decision in which 4 out of 5 justices dissented. Somewhere down the road another Supreme Court might interpret the law differently and side with the dissenting argument presented by Justice Stevens instead. Actually I'd like to read up more into Stevens' dissenting opinion beyond what Wikipedia says because it seems like he made the argument that the 2nd Amendment did not necessarily make the right for individuals to bear arms set in stone. That throws the argument into a loop.
That can be said for any Supreme Court ruling right down to Roe v. Wade, can't it.
I didn't know that laws upheld by 5-4 rulings carried less weight than those upheld by 9-0 ruling.
The wording of the 2nd Amendment is not to blame for the tortured modern re-interpretations. It is because so many people have an agenda to overturn the Second Amendment, they completely torture the simple language to justify their own beliefs.
It is 27 simple little words. 27.
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.
Since the introductory militia clause is superfluous, it really is really 14 simple words. An entire law in 14 words.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I could say, "The right of the people to communicate freely, in speech or in writing, or by any other means, shall not be infringed," and it would convey a clear right to Freedom of Speech.
Now if I said, "A well organized media, being necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to communicate in speech or in writing, or by any other means, shall not be infringed," it would not modify the Freedom of Speech right one iota.
That Freedom of Speech right would not suddenly be available only to journalists in newsrooms for TV and newspapers. It is superfluous. It enhances but does not change the individual right of all people in America to the Freedom of Speech.
The Second Amendment is no different. Yet people seeking to weaken or negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms continually invent interpretations needed to get their way.
Federalist Papers.
Keep in mind that there were no police dept's in the late 18th century. One was responsible for protecting his own life, family and property...and The Federalist Papers clearly state that the purpose of the militia was to protect the States from the Feds.
BTW- The NRA was established after the war of succession because it was obvious that the urbanized Yankees were largely ignorant of how to use firearms, as opposed to the easy familiarity the more rural Rebs had with them.
Oh that’s fascinating. Didn’t know that about the NRA, but am more interested in militias. That’s a really interesting nuance in the normal line of “individuals vs. the government” line on 2A thinking.
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.
