Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

iceaura said:
Restricting the rule of law by violent use of firearms is obviously a different way to do it, since a firearm and a Constitution are quite different entities.
Click to expand...
tragic. That you have to use violence or the threat of violence to restrict the rule of law... and then go on to claim to be civilized and rational!

It is little wonder that the USA has such issues regarding violence and elects politicians of such caliber ( ie. Trump)
What a mess!
Has the USA got the courage to move into the 21st century and drop their confrontational, adversarial and threatening posture in world affairs?

Good leadership will not eventuate if a fear of a 2nd amendy sniper on a roof exists... Little wonder the history of leadership in your country is as it is.
 
Last edited:
"Sniper on the roof"
It sort of ironic that a POTUS is called upon to honor and protect the constitution yet can not expect any real protection by that constitution ( re: 2nd amendment) in return.
 
Quantum Quack said:
That you have to use violence or the threat of violence to restrict the rule of law... and then go on to claim to be civilized and rational!
Click to expand...

You seem to be working with a very strange and seemingly presumptive definition of "rule of law".

State is a monopoly on coercive violence; rule of law, generally speaking, will eventually rely on that monopoly.

Little wonder the history of leadership in your country is as it is.
Click to expand...

Well, we learned it from your Crown.
 
Tiassa said:
State is a monopoly on coercive violence; rule of law, generally speaking, will eventually rely on that monopoly.
Click to expand...
a very good point!
In your opinion what was the reason for the development of the rule of law?
Tiassa said:
Well, we learned it from your Crown.
Click to expand...
perhaps so...
However the Crown that you refer to has evolved tremendously since your war of independence but the constitution of the USA has not, so much.
 
You do know that I hold the USA with the greatest respect don't you...

I only wonder just how great the USA would actually be if it was capable of evolving it's political systems with out the inhibition of the 2nd amendment frustrating everyone including those who support it.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I only wonder just how great the USA would actually be if it was capable of evolving it's political systems with out the inhibition of the 2nd amendment frustrating everyone including those who support it.
Click to expand...
The 2nd Amendment has probably had almost no effect on the evolution of US political systems, except possibly in its role as discourager of mercenaries and extrajudicial terrorism - an underestimated benefit, imho, considering the possibilities inherent in the rest of the culture.
 
iceaura said:
The 2nd Amendment has probably had almost no effect on the evolution of US political systems, except possibly in its role as discourager of mercenaries and extrajudicial terrorism - an underestimated benefit, imho, considering the possibilities inherent in the rest of the culture.
Click to expand...
I believe that most reasonable persons would say that the current interpretation of the 2nd is merely a symptom of a greater problem. A problem the the 2nd and it's current interpretation perpetuates.
You only have to look at the political history and what is even happening now to state quite easily that something is really wrong with a system that generates these sorts of outcomes.
Trump and his supporting party, the democrats etc are all symptoms of a system that fails to inspire the greatness, and the leadership that USA citizens crave.
Fear is the key. Excessive fear that warrants the public to bear arms is palpable, affecting every aspect of life in the USA and poisoning relations internationally.

Lower the fear, fix the constitution and bingo... make USA great again has meaning.

"Fear is not over come by courage, fear is only put aside by courage so that you can learn something from it" ~ read it somewhere...
 
iceaura said:
This is mistaken.
No insurrection against the army of the State is indicated as the normal manner in which a central government is kept in check by 2nd Amendment guaranteed civilian arms. Insurrection is almost irrelevant - the Constitution has been discarded at that point. For example, the Civil War was not fought by militia.
Click to expand...
When a rebellious group takes up arms against the US government, they are by definition siding against the armed forces of that government. When the Constitution was adopted, the main ground forces of the US were composed of state militia. In the 1790s the US began the process of building a standing army to augment the use of state militia. At the beginning of the Civil War the US regular army was about one fifth of personnel requested to form the Union Army, the rest were composed of volunteers and state militia. The Confederate Army was composed of state militia and volunteers. The vast majority of forces on both sides were composed of volunteers. Whether state militia, regular army, or state volunteers, Congress has the duty and authority to direct these various forces as needed to put down acts of insurrection. In what manner could armed US citizens use their personal weapons as a check against a perceived abuse of government, and not be considered an act of insurrection?
iceaura said:
The authors of the Bill of Rights were sophisticated and experienced, they knew how central government oppression actually worked both from the history they had read and the events of their lives. They knew that civilians in revolt against the army of the State was last ditch desperation. The Constitution was written to prevent that situation, forestall it, not abet it.
Click to expand...
The Constitution was written to establish a government that would not need revolution to correct itself. The framers of the Constitution realized early on that in order to protect the government established by the Constitution, there needed to be a means to defend it from factions of the citizenry that would seek to oppose it. And they did so by constitutionally granting Congress the right to establish the necessary forces to keep the threat of an hostile armed citizenry in check.
 
Why not you have the right to bear arms - the ones when the constitution was written

You don't have the right to bear bullets

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Why not you have the right to bear arms - the ones when the constitution was written

You don't have the right to bear bullets

:)
Click to expand...
I don't think it is about the right to bear arms. Here in Australia I can bear arms legally but under heavy regulation and we don't have to have it mentioned in our constitution.
Sure it isn't easy to ... due to the requirements but I certainly can if I really wanted to.
 
Capracus said:
When a rebellious group takes up arms against the US government, they are by definition siding against the armed forces of that government.
Click to expand...
So?
The armed forces of the US government did not include a large standing army, in 1780. There was no National Guard. The police were local only.
Capracus said:
The Constitution was written to establish a government that would not need revolution to correct itself.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That would have been the hope. Hence the irrelevance of such revolt, to sound interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's intended benefits.
Capracus said:
The framers of the Constitution realized early on that in order to protect the government established by the Constitution, there needed to be a means to defend it from factions of the citizenry that would seek to oppose it. And they did so by constitutionally granting Congress the right to establish the necessary forces to keep the threat of an hostile armed citizenry in check.
Click to expand...
So?
Capracus said:
At the beginning of the Civil War the US regular army was about one fifth of personnel requested to form the Union Army, the rest were composed of volunteers and state militia. The Confederate Army was composed of state militia and volunteers. The vast majority of forces on both sides were composed of volunteers.
Click to expand...
Neither the Union nor the Confederate armies were militia. They were Government uniformed, Government armed, Government trained, Government paid, Government commanded, National armies. The commanding officers were appointed by the State, and could (for example) have people shot for desertion.

Any large army raised at the time would have been raised from militia. That was partly for the same reason any large army now is raised from militia - most adult American men then, and now, are in a militia - and partly because there was little in the way of a standing army. This would have been more important, then, because modern "boot camp" and things like that had not been invented: training in combat, or even basic weapons handling (a tricky business, then), takes time. A well-regulated militia was a source of men who at least had been handling a personal firearm and so forth (since personal ownership of a suitable combat firearm was among their Constitutional rights).
Quantum Quack said:
Trump and his supporting party, the democrats etc are all symptoms of a system that fails to inspire the greatness, and the leadership that USA citizens crave.
Click to expand...
The 2nd Amendment has little to do with that. It has been in force for 250 years, some of them times of great American leadership.
Whatever happened to great leadership in America, it wasn't the 2nd Amendment.
Quantum Quack said:
I believe that most reasonable persons would say that the current interpretation of the 2nd is merely a symptom of a greater problem
Click to expand...
Misinterpretation, is what's involved. The symptoms can kill you. That is: Your current misinterpretation is a problem in itself. Too many Americans share it, at the deliberate instigation of the NRA and its backers.

And my take on one too-common American characteristic they are symptoms of is my focus throughout, here: cowardice. The thread topic.

.
 
iceaura said:
Neither the Union nor the Confederate armies were militia. They were Government uniformed, Government armed, Government trained, Government paid, Government commanded, National armies. The commanding officers were appointed by the State, and could (for example) have people shot for desertion.
Click to expand...
Your missing the point. When the federal government needs forces to enforce its mandates, it federalizes those forces from the pool eligible groups, which have ranged from traditional state militia and its current incarnation the state national guard, to volunteers and conscripts. The Union and Confederate armies both incorporated these groups to fill the ranks of their ground forces. The main point is that these forces are constitutionally armed to protect the government, but the citizenry is not constitutionally armed to overthrow it.
 
Capracus said:
Your missing the point.- -
- - -
The main point is that these forces are constitutionally armed to protect the government, but the citizenry is not constitutionally armed to overthrow it.
Click to expand...
I've made that point myself a few times in this thread, and in other threads. Not sure what the problem is -
Capracus said:
from traditional state militia and its current incarnation the state national guard,
Click to expand...
No State National Guard is a militia.
Repeat: The National Guard is not a militia.
Example: there is a State that has a prominent and actively organized State militia - Texas. It also has a National Guard. They are much different organizations.
Example: I am in the State militia of Minnesota (used to be anyway, haven't been monitoring). I am not in the National Guard. I would have to enlist for a defined period of time, undergo training, and so forth, to be in the National Guard. I would then be under the command of officers I had no role in selecting, subject to the regulations and so forth of a State military force, paid and clothed and fed and armed by the State, and obligated to participate in foreign wars and military ventures far from my community for a defined term of service not negotiable by me.
The militia roots of the State National Guards, like the militia roots of the US Army, are long lost in historical event. They are interesting, like the private roads involved in the early days of the State highway systems, but as history - not present circumstance.

One reason this distinction can become critical outside the gun debate is that in many places a National Guard is a primary agent of governmental oppression - it's used in some places as paramilitary and mercenary forces are used in others. In other words, it's a far more likely aspect of that particular threat that militia are designated to forestall than the Army is.
 
Last edited:
iceaura,
What, in your opinion, would constitute cause for a current day 2nd amendment empowered militia or individual, to instigate an insurrection against Government oppression?
It seems to me the only cause for insurrection would be anything that would "impinge on the right" to bear arms...is there any other criteria for armed insurrection?
 
Who or what organization determines what that criteria is for instigating armed insurrection?
What does "government oppression" mean to those who may wish to instigate armed insurrection?
 
Quantum Quack said:
What, in your opinion, would constitute cause for a current day 2nd amendment empowered militia or individual, to instigate an insurrection against Government oppression?
It seems to me the only cause for insurrection would be anything that would "impinge on the right" to bear arms...is there any other criteria for armed insurrection?
Click to expand...
What is your obsession with this "insurrection" NRA crapola? Who cares?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Armed insurrection is any armed action against an oppressive government.
Click to expand...
Got it. The kid who shoots up his high school is engaged in armed insurrection.
Now - why do you keep bringing this up? I kind of understand why the NRA does, especially under Democratic administrations, but here in this thread?
 
iceaura said:
Got it. The kid who shoots up his high school is engaged in armed insurrection.
Click to expand...
The kid who shoots up a school is a product of his society.
That society enshrines a constitutional right to bear arms as individuals (current interpretation)

That right to bear arms is a right to use violence to solve problems. It is considered a right ... and that is the main point.

No one should be granted the right to use violence by a constitution that has the primary function to enshrine a framework for the rule of law. (blatant contradiction - as explained earlier)
(national defense maybe an exception)

The troubled kid that shoots up a school could quite easily, in his confused state incorrectly claim (justify to himself) he is acting according to the rights given under the constitution as promoted by the NRA and others. A vigilante seeking his personal justice outside the rule of law.

By rectifying/reforming the constitution you remove this potential justification.
Clearly indicating in the constitution that the right to bear arms is purely for reasons of national defense for example would go a long way to solving the issue. Of course this does not effect the ability to buy and possess arms as this is another issue again.

Consider that the right to bear arms (national defense) is different to the legal ability to bear arms (domestic)
Here in Australia we have no right to bear arms but we have the legal ability to do so as per Government regulation.

IMO
The use of violence to solve problems is an act of cowardice.
Relying on the rule of law and making the effort to reform the rule of law takes courage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top