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.
I suppose we could play a war game where you pretend to be the armed civilian militia, and I pretend to be the big bad government with the U.S. military at my command, and we could see how long that game lasts, but suffice to say..., you would lose in my opinion.
You incorrectly assume that the military could or would attack US citizens.
First, the fed cannot order the military to wage war on its citizens. It can only use the military to 'restore public order', and the refusal to cooperate with federal officials may not be viewed as public disorder.
Second, military commanders might widely regard an order to attack civilians as an unlawful order and refuse to carry it out. Depends on the situation.
Third, many in the military would simply refuse to attack their fellow citizens. Many would just go AWOL.
I have a month's worth of food in the pantry and about a dozen ponds within walking distance according to the satellite view on Google Maps. I also have 12 days of dehydrated food in our bug-out bags in case we have to leave on foot.
Within a days walk, I have lake south of here that supports 2M visitors a year. If that doesn't work out, the MS river is about 30 miles west. If that doesn't work out, I have a family member with his bug-out location on the MS river about 60 miles south of here. Finally, my wife's family farm is about 150 miles down the MS river.
When the SHTF, I will not interact with government therefore I will not depend on their food. My wife and I have discussed this bug-out plan based on scenarios ranging from civil unrest to natural disaster.
Well..., I know there are some folks in some of the more remote areas of the country that might have an easier time getting to food and/or water when things go South on us, some that even live out in them parts for the same reasons they think our guns will somehow protect us from tyranny, but unfortunately for most of America, we live in urban centers (on the order of 80 percent).
That's a fair bit different than back in the late 1700's but after reading this comment I feel better that there will be those out there yonder who can keep our dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness alive for our next generations...
You incorrectly assume that the military could or would attack US citizens.
First, the fed cannot order the military to wage war on its citizens. It can only use the military to 'restore public order', and the refusal to cooperate with federal officials may not be viewed as public disorder.
Second, military commanders might widely regard an order to attack civilians as an unlawful order and refuse to carry it out. Depends on the situation.
Third, many in the military would simply refuse to attack their fellow citizens. Many would just go AWOL.
Silly though this back-and-forth tends to be, you really can't be serious to explain what the feds can or cannot do when considering the tyrannical government we're assuming instead, right?
Right, who needs guns? All we need to do is remind this government what they can and cannot do.
You incorrectly assume that the military could or would attack US citizens.
First, the fed cannot order the military to wage war on its citizens. It can only use the military to 'restore public order', and the refusal to cooperate with federal officials may not be viewed as public disorder.
Second, military commanders might widely regard an order to attack civilians as an unlawful order and refuse to carry it out. Depends on the situation.
Third, many in the military would simply refuse to attack their fellow citizens. Many would just go AWOL.
Actually I am going to side with LearnMe, I learned one thing from him though, our military would attack US citizens. They did that many times already. The whole idea that military people would go AWOL is laughable.
That said, regardless you right or wrong, isn't that more reason we need our guns?
Actually I am going to side with LearnMe, I learned one thing from him though, our military would attack US citizens. They did that many times already. The whole idea that military people would go AWOL is laughable.
That said, regardless you right or wrong, isn't that more reason we need our guns?
I'm guessing some sort of back-handed agreement here, but I can't make it out. We've been wasting a bit of time going around about hypotheticals and fictional tyrannical governments looking to take us Americans over, internally or otherwise. I'm not sure who has learned anything by this fun, but where does this notion that our military people are going to go AWOL come from? Did I suggest any such thing? Not even sure what that means in the context of this little check with reality here, about our ability to fight off a tyrannical government power.
Can't make much better sense from any of that to "more reason we need our guns," but if you can connect those dots, maybe we WILL learn something...
I'm guessing some sort of back-handed agreement here, but I can't make it out. We've been wasting a bit of time going around about hypotheticals and fictional tyrannical governments looking to take us Americans over, internally or otherwise. I'm not sure who has learned anything by this fun, but where does this notion our military people are going to go AWOL. Not even sure what that means in the context of this little check with reality here, about our ability to fight off a tyrannical government power.
Can't make much better sense from any of that to "more reason we need our guns," but if you can connect those dots, maybe we WILL learn something...
If military needs to be called to restore public order, would you not want guns in your hands?
If military needs to be called to attack its citizens, would you not want guns in your hands?
If military needs to be called to restore public order, would you not want guns in your hands?
If military needs to be called to attack its citizens, would you not want guns in your hands?
Yes and yes, especially given how many guns are all around me, but I don't know where that leaves us in terms of the argument that we can repel our government with our guns should it decide to go tyrannical on us. I don't think really anywhere. Also when all is said and done, those who want guns for these reasons or others pretty much have them with the exception of a very small minority who takes this concern to the extreme and insists we should have access to the same guns as the FBI.
I'm with them when it comes to your questions as well. On both counts if either happens, I'd like some grenades, bazookas and RPGs if/when we begin to approach any sort of armageddon type scenarios.
The problem we have is with regard to what that law actually guarantees, as written verbatim.
Again, the general agreement by the majority of reasonable people (not to mention rulings by our SCOTUS), is that we are guaranteed a right to bear arms. We CAN bear arms.
It isn't just about "what" the Amendment guarantees, but also, why? Only by answering both questions can you fullly understand the context and scope of the right enshrined.... Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom made it an easy task by including the "why" right there in the amendment itself. We have the right to keep and bear arms, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state....
One does not form a militia and secure a free state by keeping and bearing a .22 rifle with a five round magazine.
"""The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.""" —James Wilson
Quote:
The 2A does NOT say or guarantee as a result of this omission the right to bear ANY arm ever manufactured, past, present or future.
Now who's positing the straw-man arguments? No, I never said that it guaranteed the right to keep and bear any arm whatsoever. However, from an intellectually honest point of view, it's reasonable to conclude that the Second Amendment is supposed to guarantee the right to keep and bear those arms that are most effective in maintaining and preserving a militia.
Quote:
Nor is it reasonable to interpret the law to suggest that any gun control measure, say like a background check to prevent that gun from being purchased by someone mentally deranged, is in conflict with the "spirit manifested" when the 2A was drafted.
Yet another straw-man, attributing an argument to me that I have never made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I will leave it to you and Jefferson to work this out then...
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors..."
You still wearing the clothes you wore when you were a boy too?
I'm genuinely sorry to have to intrude on what you clearly thought was a death blow to my argument, but Jefferson's views and mine are in unison.
Of course Jefferson and the rest of the founders recognized that the Constitution would not be a one size fits all solution to every problem for all time. They knew full well that as the times changed, so to would the Constitution have to adapt in order to better address the issues and problems of the modern era.... which is why they included Article V of the Constitution in order to allow for changes and amendments to be made.
They didn't set the government they formed in stone, but they also didn't say "here's a list of suggestions, interpret them in the way you feel is best suited to your era". They spelled out the legal framework you have to work within if you want to change the Constitution.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-15-2016 at 06:58 PM..
I have pointed at the precise wording of the 2A, not interpretation.
The precise reading is not enough, for reasons that should be obvious. Using a purely textualist reading of the Constitution is nearly as bad as a "living Constitutional" interpretation, for any number of fictions could be constued from the text. From a purely textualist reading, the 1st Amendment could be read to only protect Christianity or Atheism, because you have the right to freedom of religion, but not just any religion you want, and as long as you can choose "a" religion, your freedom of religion is not compromised. Is that truly how we want to read the Constitution?
Quote:
We can probably argue whether the precise choice of words contained in the 2A represent "moderate imperfection," but I for one can accept we need not change the Constitution or 2A any, just so we can better grapple with today's modern day gun problem that our Founding Fathers could have never foreseen.
Conjecture about what the founders could have foreseen or not and what they would or wouldn't have done is an exercise in futility, because this is the document that was ratified in to law, and so this is the framework we have to deal with. Of course I disagree with you that the 2A need not be changed in order to prescribe the kind of controls on guns you and othjers would like to see implemented.
Quote:
Fortunately, I think, that's exactly what the rulings by the SCOTUS have allowed us to do so far, by allowing gun-control measures to be considered in light of our gun problems today rather than auto-dismissed as unconstitutional by all too many misguided lay folks.
Here are some notable quotations from the court that, perhaps you missed:
"""Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct""" -Scalia
"""We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government -- even the Third Branch of Government -- the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon""" -Scalia
"""A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all""" -Scalia
"""Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad""" -Scalia
Those are just the best ones.....
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-15-2016 at 07:03 PM..
It isn't just about "what" the Amendment guarantees, but also, why? Only by answering both questions can you fullly understand the context and scope of the right enshrined.... Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom made it an easy task by including the "why" right there in the amendment itself. We have the right to keep and bear arms, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state....
One does not form a militia and secure a free state by keeping and bearing a .22 rifle with a five round magazine.
I appreciate the arguments having to do with the context. In fact I have often made the point that the context in which the Constitution was written is part of the challenge when it comes to the context in which we address the changes and problems of today that were not part of the context in the late 1700s. I think that is what Jefferson was right to explain with these words, "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors..."
I am asked to consider what the 2A says literally, and I have done that. Also to consider the context in which it was written. This opens the door of "interpretation," but I think all considerations are worthy, not off limits in any case. First problem, I think, when we consider context is what "well-regulated militia" means.
"Well regulated." Reads a good deal contrary to what most pro-gun folks want to argue.
"Militia." Is a military force. I think that's a good deal what our National Guard is there for, certainly not what our group of every-day gun enthusiasts represents.
2A makes plenty good sense in the context it was written back in the late 1700s. Agreed. However, these arguments by pro-gun enthusiasts in today's context just doesn't hold up as well as it did over 200 years ago, nor does the literal argument. Not according to prevailing opinion and SCOTUS rulings anyway...
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.
Funny!
