Traditionally before the adoption of a more organized national military, militias were the state and national means of mobilizing troops for local and national defense. Those functions are currently executed by the US armed forces and the state national guards. The 2nd amendment rights today are essentially a matter of personal protection. Any notions by gun owners concerning keeping the government in line through force of personal arms are either misguided fantasy or preparation for acts of treason.
Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster
- Thread starter Xelor
- Start date
Perhaps to not only secure the states at a time of tremendous change but also to offer a defense if the British should return and attempt to restate a claim? At the time there was no national military to defend the brand new republic against any future British or other aggression. (reiteration)
Could it be said that the state national guards are an evolution from a state regulated reserve militia to a more formal form? ( research suggest this to be the case)
Yet so often the 2nd is mentioned as a way to ensure a militant action is available against a potential tyranny with in the nation's governments thus automatically applying intimidation by way of threatening "treason".
As you state:
Under reasonable circumstances this sounds all well and good.
However why maintain an amendment that is subject to misinterpretation when a better version would be far more productive?
and
using the 2nd as a way to placate that distrust...and apply coercion by threat of armed rebellion.
and using the 2nd in this way, as suggested by the two of many examples above and displayed many times here on this fora demonstrates the confusion with in the national community that significantly contributes IMO to the level of gun violence seen in your society.
Last edited:
With:
"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."
state and personal is terribly confused.
the key word missing IMO is "and" as included below.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
to clearly differentiate between state and personal issues or alternatively the two could be in separate amendments.
"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."
state and personal is terribly confused.
the key word missing IMO is "and" as included below.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
to clearly differentiate between state and personal issues or alternatively the two could be in separate amendments.
Not hardly.
?
I suppose. Just as protecting free speech allows potential liars and frauds to thwart the rule of law, and protecting freedom of religion allows potential clerical child abusers to thwart the rule of law, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure allows potential hoarders of stolen goods to thwart the rule of law, and so forth. People do tend to thwart the rule of law on occasion - rob banks, even, thwarting not only the rule of law but the rule of money.
It does not. It is illegal to do that, now. If the 2nd Amendment were abolished tomorrow, it would still be illegal to do that. No difference.
That would be silly. The Constitution sets limits on the rule of law. There is no contradiction between that and having the rule of law - quite otherwise: without limits and definitions, the rule of law ceases to exist - it becomes the rule of the King's Whim or the like.
Yes, in part. Of course. That's what the Constitution is for, one of its major functions, the reason for its existence.
These gun threads are very odd conversations - I would not have guessed the workings of a Constitution would be so utterly mysterious to educated people.
Absolutely not. Completely explicit and thoroughly argued and pressingly relevant at that time and all other times past and present.
When I pointed out to you that the 2nd Amendment was carefully worded, I kind of thought you might direct your attention to that careful wording before questioning it. Do you see anything there about RPGs, for example? Do you regard a silencer as a minimum necessary piece of equipment for a well-regulated militia?
The well-documented importance to central government oppression of disarming the natives, subjects, serfs, peasants, slaves, plebians, Irish, Scots, Welsh, wogs, Picts, Celts, churls, thralls, tribes, fuzzies, lower classes generally, is a universal and ubiquitous feature of the entire history of Britain from the Roman invasion through the British Empire rise and fall to the present day. It provides many of my go-to examples of disarmament and its consequences. You cannot possibly have missed it.
Of course. A fairly large fraction of the adults in my community have not only adequate gear but genuine professional military training - they could be called up on a day's notice, organized and coordinated within a week, maybe less. Many others have the requisite gear but inadequate training - they would take longer to organize and coordinate. Then there is a large fraction - possibly a majority - who do not even possess a rifle, field kit, etc. They would take the most time to become "well-regulated" - but the basic gear (such as a suitable firearm, etc) is available nearby, and the necessary expertise as well (both protected by the 2nd), so they would need only time and effort and maybe some money (for equipment, such as a suitable rifle).
All of these adults in my community are in the militia already, of course - the question is one of "regulation".
"Well-regulated" has nothing to do with State governance, necessarily. Militia are not necessarily regulated by State agency. Not even my local State level militia is currently regulated by State agency (let alone the national and regional militia - afaik there is no town level militia that includes me).
It's a term in English, a bit old-fashioned these days, once more commonly applied to things such as merchant and military ships, railroad and factory setups, colonial outposts of one kind or another: human endeavors involving complex organization and maintenance of machinery, animals, resources, and people. A well-regulated sailing ship would have adequate supplies of rope of the right kinds all properly stored and ready to hand via standard procedures, for example - what it needs, put in order according to principles and standards and rules.
It's use in reference to written rules of regulation - as if the written rules were themselves the regulation(s), were themselves the physical fact rather than the guidelines for accomplishment and evaluation of said regulation - is derivative, however well-entrenched. In a world as full of bureaucrats as it once was of yoemen and sailors and craftsmen, that slide in reference does not surprise us. But it need not confuse us.
Point is: cowardice and bluster came later - much later - than the Constitution, the gun control issue, or the guns themselves. They need other explanation.
Last edited:
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
This is more about, people having the personal freedoms to choose for themselves, rather than the nanny state slowly hammering away our rights and liberties under the guys of "safe and secure" society.
It's like how they banned lemonade stands, because of the "danger of some little kid poisoning the lemonade." Now if you want to have a garage sale, you need permits, and of course, fees.
America land of the fee and home of the slave.
If some stupid redneck, puts a loaded gun next to an infant, almighty "All Nation Under God" Nanny State will use the situation to come alter and effect my life, like I am somehow the Christ paying the sins of the land of the mentally retarded.
I am not understanding the concept. Why am I being punished, and losing my rights and freedoms, when some random retards I have no control over, do something stupid. It seems like I'm in a Borg collective or daycare school where a teacher punishes all the students as a collective, the absolute and total facism.
It seems like people will only be satisfied, until everyone is castrated and "liberated", under artificially imposed moral codes bordering on the edge of the spirit of the Catholic Church, until they suck the word "fun" right out of the dictionary.
It's like how they banned lemonade stands, because of the "danger of some little kid poisoning the lemonade." Now if you want to have a garage sale, you need permits, and of course, fees.
America land of the fee and home of the slave.
If some stupid redneck, puts a loaded gun next to an infant, almighty "All Nation Under God" Nanny State will use the situation to come alter and effect my life, like I am somehow the Christ paying the sins of the land of the mentally retarded.
I am not understanding the concept. Why am I being punished, and losing my rights and freedoms, when some random retards I have no control over, do something stupid. It seems like I'm in a Borg collective or daycare school where a teacher punishes all the students as a collective, the absolute and total facism.
It seems like people will only be satisfied, until everyone is castrated and "liberated", under artificially imposed moral codes bordering on the edge of the spirit of the Catholic Church, until they suck the word "fun" right out of the dictionary.
Last edited:
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
Very relevant.
Typos, extremely important to the discussion at hand.
I can see that people on here have their priorities well organized.
Let me know when you want to adult.
PS: I saw the typo and chose not to correct, just to see who would post about it.
The state of society is very sad.
Second it was a metaphor referring to "the guys" the police-state automaton pigs of the fascist lawmakers of america.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Ah yes the 2nd
An epistemological waltz through the ragged pages of this thread leave one to surmise that almost any thread title can be used to proclaim one's towering expertise on almost anything except the subject at hand. We even have a person, not of this country, who regularly offers to rewrite our constitution for us. How generous that he would bless us with his hubristic intellectual pretensions.
From his perspective, we obviously need his help.
shortly gl
I would expect that you will receive a missive from one of our moderators who upon occasion seem to prefer moderation.
Hee hee
Because nobody can tell you guys apart.
The Nanny State is tasked by the citizenry to essentially do what the title implies, which is to keep us children from hurting ourselves, others, and the yard we play in. We collectively have to determine how much free exercise of a given behavior can be permitted by individuals before it has a detrimental impact on society as a whole. In the case of firearms for example, how much lethality is needed by a weapon to constitute an adequate defensive tool. We restrict the speed of cars on our roadways because of the inherent lack of capability of vehicle and driver pose an unacceptable safety risk to all road users. Likewise there should be restrictions on self defense weapons that can maximize the defense of the user and minimize the lethality to the intended and unintended targets.
How are you punished?
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
A missive for what? Making a typo? Asking you to act in a mature manner and not like some pedantic grammarNazi?
I don't believe in "rights". I am a human being, an entity of my own accord. I don't need some big Government to tell me what my "rights" are.
Second, I never shot up a bunch of innocent people, so what rite do you have to take away my guns? I never did anything to your tribe.
This is the problem with analogies. They just don't apply in physically different scenarios.
Roads can be regulated by police. People running red lights, can be seen and reported.
But if some dumb, inbred redneck family, puts loaded guns next to infants, it cannot be seen or reported or enforced. So your analogy describes two completely different and irrelevant scenarios, both completely physically different.
Punished as in having to obey laws and rules I did not consent to and taking my own freedoms away. Like daycare, being told I have to sit in a corner, or obey the teacher I never consented to obey.
Self defense is something other people are into as well. People who think all gun control is part of an agenda by the nanny state to take away their guns are obviously operating with a few loose screws - some limits on the kinds of firepower they can get their hands on easily seem in order, on self defense grounds.
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
I am all against the facist prison system and Puritan religious people dictating to me laws and rules under the guise of democrasy which is all just a form of organized tyranny. I am all very much against marijuana laws and the fascism that it implies and against human beings herded like cattle into schools of complacency.
Governments are regularly known for their mass genocide of civilians, Winston Churchill killed 6 million indians, Hitler killed 6 million jews, and the Russians killed 66 million of their own people.
So don't expect me to simply roll over and expect civilians to just hand up their guns to notably corrupt and fascist governments such as America which has a prison population six times higher than China. To me, anyone who trusts or respects the government is a man with a few screws loose.
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
The dictionary definition says facism is a tyranny of one dictator.
However my personal views hold this definition to be inadequate, as a cabal or group of tyrants can be every bit as facist as a one-man rule.