|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Second Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
The Second Amendment
NoNukes writes: I see lots of assertions about why we have a second amendment, but not one of them, by people on either side of the debate, is historically correct. quote: I HAD thought the term "well regulated militia" was often dishonestly and conveniently omitted by gun enthusiasts so that they could illegally legitimize their stockpile of guns. I HAD thought the word 'people' was referring to 'collective,' not individual. I HAD thought the first two of three interpretations of the amendment were correct:
quote: But it seems the third model for individual rights were upheld in 2001, 2008, and 2010:
quote: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia Not sure if this is a worthwhile topic for 'debate' as I am really not offering any argument but maybe a potential springboard for discussion. If a moderator wants to delete this, ok. And if there isn't any substance to pursue, then please feel free to continue the gun control debate from the other thread. (it seems that it might still have legs)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
nwr writes: I'm not any kind of lawyer. Me neither. This is just an interesting subject that I don't know enough about, and I hope that this thread could illuminate the amendment's original intention and how it has morphed into today's usuage.
nwr writes: I have always taken the point to be "the security of a free state". This includes the need to defend against external invaders. But it also includes the need to defend against a tyrannical local government which threatens freedom by virtue of its tyranny. Yes, I think that is correct. It seems the original intent of the second amendment was to guard against the tyranny of a federal or standing army and, less so, with foreign invasion. So, in the 1700 and 1800s, it was all about securing STATE'S rights and powers to counter dictatorial threats via a regulated 'FEDERAL' militia. However, as was amply demonstrated in the other thread, there is now no militia that could counter the US military. Also, american rights and liberties have been greatly eroded by the feds since 1700 (except for individual gun rights, ironically), so the second amendment wasn't even successful. So, since the amendment hasn't been useful for this purpose in a long time, should it have been abolished 150(?) years ago? Should amendments be allowed to morph into other purposes? Edited by dronester, : corrected STATES to 'FEDERAL'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
jar writes: Gun rights are limited in the USA but at the State and Local level. Gun rights are not limited at the federal level? (I really don't know too much about this subject.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
NN writes: What case are you citing from 2001? According to Wiki:
quote: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia Thanks for the replies guys, i find the historicity of such things interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Crash writes: Is it actually anybody's position that a popular uprising against the US military is doomed to fail because they would deploy nuclear weapons against their own cities? I do not recall that being anybody's position. Can you provide a source?
Crash writes: "no ordinary rabble could hope to stand in the face of the modern military" Was the Branch Davidians "ordinary rabble?"
Crash writes: "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do" In another decade or two, what would Palestinians say about that question? But no need to answer these questions, Staggler's inciteful response has made them moot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
Drone writes: Was the Branch Davidians "ordinary rabble?" Crash writes: I don't understand the question, I guess, or it's relevance. i wasn't the one who originally wrote "ordinary rabble" so I cannot help you.
Crash writes: "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do" Drone writes: In another decade or two, what would Palestinians say about that question? Crash writes: Who knows? . . . Well, if that answer is correct, then that tentatively nullifies the assertion that "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do"
Crash writes: But the question has always been what the military is willing to do, and frequently the force the military is willing to bring against its own citizens and cities is a lot less than their full capability. This has been demonstrated to be self-evident. Why use a nuclear bomb when rubber bullets or gas can be used? OTOH, the dictator that america had enthusiastically supported for dozens of years, Saddam Hussein, IMO, would have used ANYTHING he had to stay alive and in power.
Crash writes: That's why armed rebellions in Chechnya, Syria, Libya, and other places are succeeding. I don't see how the world post-Arab-Spring can deny the capability of people to successfully contend with their own military government. Perhaps. I hate to be a Dora Downer to nit-pick because I would love to read encouraging reports about oppressed people successfully fighting for their liberties and human rights, but your specific examples above are poor because: Libya's armed rebellions had a "little bit" of help. Syria may be spiraling into a civil war. In what parameters do you see the Chechnya rebels 'succeeding?' Although you didn't state Egypt in your Arab-Spring example, its rebellion has not fully succeeded yet, and is still in danger of becoming a military state. Thus, your original binary question: "which is it?," Message 14, doesn't really help to make things clearer. Anyways, besides going off-topic with these complex, yet, unimportant side issues to the thread, I think Straggler's post Message 15 is much more on target to the topic. Edited by dronester, : clarity Edited by dronester, : added "...oppressed people..." and attributed posts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
STRAG writes: Frankly if democracy is ever forcibly eliminated in the US it won't be by the government. It will be eliminated by a mass of gun nuts who decide that the elected government isn't white, homophobic or right wing enough for their tastes...... Straggler prophesized that in 2012. M'eh, . . . lucky guess.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024