Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[Quantum Quack]

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not the issue. Allowing the NRA to frame gun control as a conflict with the 2nd Amendment is a capitulation to gun lobby propaganda, and a reinforcement of the bothsides jamb.

And yet again the 2nd raises it's ugly head to thwart productive change.
I thought you said the 2nd was irrelevant?
The 2nd amendment empowers people to violently rebel against the rule of law, the passing of laws and guess what?

It does nothing like that. It does not "promote" anything.

By enshrining bloody revolution in a founding document, with out taking into account the limitations of an extremely patriotic, ignorant and intellectually challenged population is a recipe for disaster as you well know.
The mere inclusion of the 2nd in the indoctrination of children from an early age is sufficient to fuel the fires of those who may not have the the capacity to differentiate as you are doing.
Young Johnny grows up a true patriot and part of the patriotism is due to the fact that he is empowered to violently act against a government he deems to be tyrannical by his own personal standard. He is empowered to fight violently against the rule of any laws he deems tyrannical.
To say that the 2nd is irrelevant is nonsense as it is, I believe to be, the core issue driving your problem.

To have such an obvious contradiction in such a revered document is incredible and can only lead to massive subconscious and conscious confusion, especially for the youth of your nation.

The purpose of the Constitution might be described as the limitation of the rule of Law. The entire document is devoted to that.

I guess promoting violence as a solution when you think a law is tyrannical could, at a stretch, be considered a "limitation" (certainly an intimidation) by someone who has endured the life long indoctrination involved.

Explain how the 2nd can be considered as a limitation with out raising the issue of contradiction?

Claim:
The 2nd amendment is in direct contradiction to the rule of law.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You gotta consider the stats that state that at least 1 in 5 persons (pop. 200 million/5 = 40 million) will experience serious mental health issues in their lives. Add to that the obvious empowerment of the constitutions 2nd amendment and how people suffering mental illness are often "right/justice/fame** obsessed" and bingo you can start to see why schools are getting shot up (aside) every time the news and citizen vigilance dies down from the preceding shooting.

In fact the next major school shooting is about due as the media interest and high vigilance due to the last one has almost died down.

** self esteem

 

[Quantum Quack]

The 2nd Amendment was not born in cowardice, or argued by bluster.

could it have been a way to expedite and consolidation of the union under a federal government?
A way to placate the fears of independent states so that a union could be more easily established.
A serious concession to grant a "if you don't like it then you can revolt" "let's see what happens " type approach that is now currently devoid of any sane purpose ?

 

[iceaura]

The 2nd amendment is in direct contradiction to the rule of law.

The entire Constitution is written to limit the rule of law. The whole thing. The Bill of Rights is just the most explicit part.

The 2nd amendment empowers people to violently rebel against the rule of law, the passing of laws and guess what?

It does not.

And yet again the 2nd raises it's ugly head to thwart productive change.
I thought you said the 2nd was irrelevant?

You have been deceived by the NRA. You should not believe their propaganda - it is bs and lies in the service of the firearms industry and Republican political power.

A way to placate the fears of independent states so that a union could be more easily established.

Of course that was one role. That the fears were justified - not of bogeys and phantasms, not rooted in guilt or other fertilizers of cowardice - is worth noting, btw.

A serious concession to grant a "if you don't like it then you can revolt" "let's see what happens " type approach that is now currently devoid of any sane purpose ?

Uh, no, - reference this post

There was a theoretical threat, the new government might become tyrannical. There was also a very real threat, the First Nations who had been dispossessed or were afraid they would be. One of those would have been primary, one secondary. Reading the literature of the day sorts this out nicely.

Much as I objected to what I regard as a false breakdown of the situation (and its implications of no valid motive), that is a much truer depiction of the situation than the NRA has foisted upon you.

And that truer depiction also points to the continuing reality and relevance of that concern.

 

[Quantum Quack]

ou have been deceived by the NRA. You should not believe their propaganda - it is bs and lies in the service of the firearms industry and Republican political power.

again you miss the obvious....
The NRA's BS is a reality you have to deal with.
The NRA's BS involves a historically obsolete amendment.
If the flawed amendment had been dealt with, the NRA would have nothing to say or fight for. The 2nd is very relevant to the ongoing debacle of gun reform and gun tragedy in the USA and is being used to maintain that debacle.
Yes or no?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Did a little research into that time line regarding the federation of the States of North America.
"The Democratic-Republican Party, the opposition to the Federalist Party, emphasized the fear that a strong national government was a threat to the liberties of the people." wiki
Bill of rights including the 2nd amendment: Proposed after an often bitter battle to get the Constitution ratified in 1787/88

I think a very strong case could be made that the 2nd amendment which was essentially unnecessary regarding the right to bear arms (at the time) was proposed to smooth over the fears that were causing a lot of of the problems with ratification of the constitution. A political maneuver that simply stated a pre-existing natural right to rebel against tyranny that all persons have any how. It worked! And the constitution is ratified 1788 with the 2nd amendment adopted a few year later in 1791.

hmmm

 

[iceaura]

N

Yes or no?

No.
The NRA's bs, that we all have to deal with, is where your idea of the nature of the 2nd Amendment came from. Your posting here, in other words, is an extension of the NRA bs. You are accepting their frame, won over by their remarkably successful media effort to make gun control a pro/con 2nd Amendment issue.

The NRA's BS involves a historically obsolete amendment.

That is probably not the case. There is little evidence we live in a utopian new era permanently free of abuse by the minions of the rich and powerful.

I think a very strong case could be made that the 2nd amendment which was essentially unnecessary regarding the right to bear arms (at the time) was proposed to smooth over the fears that were causing a lot of of the problems with ratification of the constitution

Sure.
But: the fears were legitimate. The threat was real. Cowardice (or bluster) was not involved.

The cowardice and bluster we see from the NRA crowd is not rooted in the 2nd Amendment, or vice versa. It has other sources, and gun control's American context comprises them - not the second Amendment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sure.
But: the fears were legitimate. The threat was real. Cowardice (or bluster) was not involved.

And do you believe that the threat still exists?
Do you believe the right to bloody revolution is still needed to be enshrined in a 21st century USA constitution?
(M)
BTW thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[iceaura]

And do you believe that the threat still exists?

I do, yes. We still live in a non-utopian world, on the evidence; e.g. the situation in Mexico (the southwestern region of the US has more in common, politically, with Mexico than with Canada).
But that's not what the NRA is banging on about - NRA-approved governance would more exacerbate than reduce that threat, imho. And it does incorporate cowardice and bluster, significantly rooted in racial delusions and guilt and inculcated fear.

Do you believe the right to bloody revolution is still needed to be enshrined in a 21st century USA constitution?

The 2nd Amendment has almost nothing to do with that. It's short - an easy read. There's no bluster or cowardice in it.

 

[sculptor]

corporatocracy
Here is one man's take on the subject:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html

It is a myth that the United States of America was ever a democracy (most of the famous founder elite such as John Adams equated democracy with mob rule and wanted no part of it). The United States of America was actually created as a republic, in which Americans were supposed to have power through representatives who were supposed to actually represent the American people. The truth today, however, is that the United States is neither a democracy nor a republic. Americans are ruled by a corporatocracy: a partnership of “too-big-to-fail” corporations, the extremely wealthy elite, and corporate-collaborator government officials.

Your thoughts?

.................................
I have previously stated that the greed of the merchant elites in Massachusetts which led to Shays rebellion led to the creation of and widespread support of the bill of rights, with the second, most likely. a direct response to Adams' riot act.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Depends on which part of the elephant you have hold of.

 

[iceaura]

Your thoughts?

Boiler plate leftwing stuff, back to before Reagan made it official.

The preference of most Americans for single payer health care, say, was historically well documented when Paul Wellstone was pushing a developed proposal of his in the early 1990s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone

The guy is interesting to me in that he identifies the obstacle of adult male US citizens accepting humiliation, facing the fact of having been played and conned into acting badly and foolishly, as a major (even the major) factor in general US political reform. And in writing from Cincinnati.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here in Australia we had a relatively small example of armed revolt or rebellion against the British oppression of the times called the Eureka Rebellion, Dec 1854. wiki ( 60 odd years after the ratification of the 2nd amendment in the USA)
In brief ( my take):
Gold miners (diggers) in mid region of Victoria ( not yet a part of a Federation. Fed~1900) set up a protest against excessively punitive taxes and license fees for the mining of Gold. It led to the building of a blockade and stand off between British troops (276) and miners (190) subsequently causing the immediate death of 14 diggers and 6 soldiers( estimated ) with many diggers wounded and perishing later. It was only timing (chance?) that prevented upwards of 10,000 diggers defending the blockade, including 200 USA miners ( it was the Sabbath~Sunday and an assault by the British was unexpected)
The battle itself is said to have lasted little more than 10 minutes or so and was ultimately a pubic relations disaster for the British.

At the time the whole of Australia was under the colonial rule of the British. ( our government was based in London)
Due to the pubic outcry about the massacre, over kill employed by the British and failed treason trials held for the survivors the Electoral act 1856 was passed that allowed a greater degree of suffrage ( voting rights and representation in law making to the Australian people. The Eureka Blockade could be controversially considered as "the birth of democracy" in Australia and the prospect of eventual armed rebellion Australia wide against the British was averted.
Australia became a federation in the 1900. (46 years later) and adopted an early version of governance that we have today. ( Constitutional Monarchy)
There has been no significant armed rebellion since the Eureka Blockade.
=====
Essentially our constitution is designed so that people are empowered by local representation to govern the government. ( bottom up - perhaps?) We have no need to formally recognize natural right to armed rebellion ( via militia) such as suggested in the 2nd amendment USA constitution. The rule of law is thus strengthened, more reasonable and not constantly challenged as appears the case in the USA.

What I believe is that the USA needs to evolve a system that allows the people to govern the government by ensuring that the government is more representative of the people. The need for a draconian 2nd amendment would then become historically redundant as it should be and the issue of Gun control becomes more pragmatic and less emotional.
The 2nd was employed, I believe, as a fail safe against the potential feared by the states when applying a new and innovative system of governance. A way of protecting the rights of the states against over indulgence of/by the yet to be tested centralized Federal Government. A fail safe against a feared union wide oppressive tyranny by that untested federal government.

Does America have the courage to reform it's political systems so that the threat of and actual violence is minimized or are you going to go on fearing your own elected government as you currently do?

btw, we have compulsory voting for all Australian citizens of voting age for a very good reason.

 

[iceaura]

What I believe is that the USA needs to evolve a system that allows the people to govern the government by ensuring that the government is more representative of the people. The need for a draconian 2nd amendment would then become historically redundant as it should be and the issue of Gun control becomes more pragmatic and less emotional.

There is nothing draconian about the 2nd Amendment - the opposite: it protects individuals from one of the very common overreaches of central government (then and now). And there's nothing emotional about it - any more than any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

We have no need to formally recognize natural right to armed rebellion ( via militia) such as suggested in the 2nd amendment USA constitution.

You keep wandering into the NRA funhouse.
The natural right to armed rebellion has almost nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. That Amendment does not "formally recognize natural right to - - rebellion" of any kind, armed or otherwise. The militias recognized in it are explicitly described as contributing to - not threatening - the security of the State.

It's short - read it.

 

[Capracus]

There is nothing draconian about the 2nd Amendment - the opposite: it protects individuals from one of the very common overreaches of central government (then and now).

What common overreach of the central government were you referring to?

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is nothing draconian about the 2nd Amendment - the opposite: it protects individuals from one of the very common overreaches of central government (then and now). And there's nothing emotional about it - any more than any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

how does the 2nd protect any one?
Please explain the means or method with out contradicting yourself.

The wording as per Cornell law school.
"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."

 

[Quantum Quack]

The militias recognized in it are explicitly described as contributing to - not threatening - the security of the State.

you need to read what I wrote better...
I wrote #153:

The 2nd was employed, I believe, as a fail safe against the potential feared by the states when applying a new and innovative system of governance. A way of protecting the rights of the states against over indulgence of/by the yet to be tested centralized Federal Government. A fail safe against a feared union wide oppressive tyranny by that untested federal government.
(sheesh! I even doubly explained my point and you missed it entirely)
so try again perhaps...

So simply put, you don't trust your own elected representatives. Even though they are elected by people of the USA you still need to threaten them with the 2nd.
Which led me to write the following in the same post:

What I believe is that the USA needs to evolve a system that allows the people to govern the government by ensuring that the government is more representative of the people. The need for a draconian 2nd amendment would then become historically redundant as it should be and the issue of Gun control becomes more pragmatic and less emotional.

 

[iceaura]

What common overreach of the central government were you referring to?

Disarming its citizenry.

how does the 2nd protect any one?

It forbids the State from disarming them and thereby leaving them vulnerable to assault. That was and is common practice planet-wide and throughout history, and an immediate threat in the US at the time.

The 2nd was employed, I believe, as a fail safe against the potential feared by the states when applying a new and innovative system of governance. A way of protecting the rights of the states against over indulgence of/by the yet to be tested centralized Federal Government

It was written so as to protect the rights of individual citizens of the United States.
Its wording is not an accident. It is not careless. It was very carefully written.
It forbids the State - any State under this Constitution - from disarming its citizenry; explicitly forestalling the excuse of State security, explicitly forestalling interpretation of "arms" to mean anything short of what a well-regulated militia needs. One would call it prescient, if in fact the modern debate were new and all. The modern debate is as old as some hills.

So simply put, you don't trust your own elected representatives. Even though they are elected by people of the USA you still need to threaten them with the 2nd.

Nobody should trust any central government past a certain point.
The 2nd Amendment had, and has, nothing to do with threatening Congress, or the President, or any State elected officials.

Again: read the damn thing. It's not rocket science. It's one sentence long, and means what it says.

And in this way we see highlighted, by comparison with the authors, the corruption of cowardice and bluster that has so injured the US in this arena.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Disarming its citizenry.

thus legally by constitutional means, allowing potential gun violence to thwart the rule of law. Tyrannical as it may be, it would still be the rule of law.

yes of course...

You fail to grasp this point. The 2nd empowers the citizenry to protect it self against laws that may be deemed tyrannical. They may do so by violent means with the use of fire arms..
Therefore one could easily state that the constitution is fatally in self contradiction. On one hand setting up the legality of governance and then on the other potentially inciting legal violent action if one deems that legality to be tyrannical.
Under what criteria do we determine what is and what is not tyranny?
Is this set out in the constitution?

For example (trivial): Is excessive speed limits on an open highway an act of tyranny?
According to whose reckoning?
It can not be reckoned by the judiciary as they are complicit and a part of the deemed tyranny.

... thereby leaving them vulnerable to assault.

a later interpretation and not in the context of the original time. Perhaps?
So if the rule of law fails to defend the individual, gun violence will do the job instead. And this is constitutionally enshrined. Vigilantism is considered constitutional. Violence as a solution is not only promoted but enshrined in your constitution.

That was and is common practice planet-wide and throughout history, .

very debatable....certainly not in Australia nor the UK, nor many Commonwealth nations.

Its wording is not an accident. It is not careless. It was very carefully written.
It forbids the State - any State under this Constitution - from disarming its citizenry; explicitly forestalling the excuse of State security, explicitly forestalling interpretation of "arms" to mean anything short of what a well-regulated militia needs. One would call it prescient, if in fact the modern debate were new and all. The modern debate is as old as some hills.

So why are not silencers, fully automatic weapons, RPG's and tanks not included? Why are they not freely allowed in the community?

Nobody should trust any central government past a certain point.
The 2nd Amendment had, and has, nothing to do with threatening Congress, or the President, or any State elected officials.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
You are right it is pretty clear.... security of the free state against what? Federal oppression/ aggression perhaps? By violent means to thwart the rule of law as declared by the constitution. A staggering contradiction IMO.
Are there any "well regulated" militia in the USA?
What does well regulated mean other than by State governance?
Do individual states maintain and regulate a standing militia?

And in this way we see highlighted, by comparison with the authors, the corruption of cowardice and bluster that has so injured the US in this arena.

Perhaps you have been indoctrinated by the NRA in the same way as you have on a number of occasions incorrectly accused me of being.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nobody should trust any central government past a certain point.

so you effectively hold a gun at the heads of your elected representatives. Is that the way to build trust?

It is incredible that you would vote for someone/party that you don't trust enough to vote for, don't you think?