In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons. And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.

Yes the original concept of the militia is still relevant since it and the whole people are one and the same. The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the individual being part of a state or federally organized militia or even part of the unorganized militia of the whole people. On the contrary, originally, the militia was dependent on the right of individuals to arm themselves. That right is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed regardless of whether the individual joins the whole people as a defensive force or doesn't. But the 2A does express that the individual can take part in and with the militia in order to defend themselves against any threat.

The federal encroachment on the original militia concept has created a new, federally regulated and funded notion of the militia. In effect, as Mason predicted, the central government has indeed usurped his notion of the militia being the whole people and turned it into what he and the Founders feared--a rather permanent standing army which funds, organizes, and arms a select force that can be used in various circumstances to police and control American citizens.

yep the whole debate is about control

and once they control the food, your ass is grass

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons.

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So because you can buy them now, but you couldn't in 1995, and you can't buy a DAU 19 or rpg today, makes it funny that we are convinced we are right. You must have done great with properties of equality in school

Didn't do great with reading comp, I bet . We think the wording allows the government to make them unattainable, not that the wording itself makes them unattainable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, people being able to legally buy these weapons and then shoot up schools is freaking hilarious.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

Zimmy, your beating your head against the proverbial 2A wall, I've used that argument to no avail many times. Logically back then there was more of a level playing field between a large group of colonialists and either their old (UK) government or their newly formed government, an armed militia could make a difference. Back then that logic worked because of the equality of weaponry, it doesn't work today. I don't care how many hand gun owners, shotgun owners, deer rifle toting militia or ever AR15 owners you put up against our military or any modern military; you loose 100 out of 100 tries.

Then I'd like to see how many pick up those weapons to fight our newly formed tyrannical government and who is calling them to arms, the entire argument is flawed. Oh don't get me wrong I believe in the 2A, but taking it to the extreme as weapons of mass destruction get more and more advanced is just not making sense IMHO. Love to hear the logistical argument for forming this constitutionally given right to bear arms and form this militia. Is the NRA going to send out an email to all you owners telling you the time has come to pick up arms to eliminate what they feel is an overreaching government?

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not fair. Remember plenty retire at 45 than move to another job in the system to grab another 10.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

The default of human history has been tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Freedom (even whittled away as suggested by the Nebster), beats the alternative. The Constitution is a road map on how to guide the country forward, to maintain some level of Freedom and Liberty. They even created a mechanism of the people to amend and replace parts of the Constitution. How prescient.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

Yep, there is room for compromise but it is not being given room. If you banned AR15s tomorrow, what would it change? If you had a reliable and unusable solution to prevent unstable people from having access to ARs, would it not be better? How can you get their without violating other people's rights?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?

[Nebe]

https://youtu.be/nG4V_6pCLVo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Let's get this straight and put aside the semantics,THE NATIONAL GUARD US NOT A MILITIA. I know this may suit the agenda of some but it simply is not the case. Nebe,great video. Ronnie was right,we don't need machine guns to hunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

THE NATIONAL GUARD US NOT A MILITIA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Militia act 1903 (I am sure you know the nickname) divided state militias into two parts-the organized militia (National Guard) and the reserve militia (state militia).

Also, US Supreme Court Maryland v us 1961 381
"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. 8 It has only been in recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military establishment of the United States."

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Smartest thing I’ve read yet, that is the beauty of the good old USA, our system of government has so far won the test of time. It survived world wars, conflicts of all nature around the globe; I suspect we will live through Trump, little rocket man and if we are proactive Putin’s meddling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know how long it will continue and am beginning to wonder if the Republic can be saved. I truly hope it does.

Particularly because a large percentage of Millenials, the cough cough future, believe Socialism/Communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ree/349830002/

Originally Posted by wdmso

You just did ..

?? The Fringe is those Moonies blessing guns. The Fringe is Antifa Legolas going to smash the Fasch. I don't believe either is callable of rational thought, or working together.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't know how long it will continue and am beginning to wonder if the Republic can be saved. I truly hope it does.

Particularly because a large percentage of Millenials, the cough cough future, believe Socialism/Communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ree/349830002/



?? The Fringe is those Moonies blessing guns. The Fringe is Antifa Legolas going to smash the Fasch. I don't believe either is callable of rational thought, or working together.

Freedom? Let’s talk about freedom.

Want to build a house? You need a permit.
Want to go fishing? You need a permit
Want to drive? You need a permit
Want to own a gun? You need a permit.
Want to vote? You need a permit
Want to own a business? You need a permit
Want to get a good job? You need a degree (stealth permit)
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? You need a reservation.
Want to drive across the bridge? You need to pay a toll.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? Get ready to pay a lot more for it than someone with good credit. (Rich getting richer poor getting poorer)
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? Get ready for Fines.
Want to invest your life savings in the stock market and have Wall Street crash and wipe out 50% of your nest egg while the elites sold yesterday ? (Stealth wealth redistribution)

Shall I go on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Freedom? Let’s talk about freedom.

Want to build a house? You need a permit.
Want to go fishing? You need a permit
Want to drive? You need a permit
Want to own a gun? You need a permit.
Want to vote? You need a permit
Want to own a business? You need a permit
Want to get a good job? You need a degree (stealth permit)
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? You need a reservation.
Want to drive across the bridge? You need to pay a toll.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? Get ready to pay a lot more for it than someone with good credit. (Rich getting richer poor getting poorer)
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? Get ready for Fines.
Want to invest your life savings in the stock market and have Wall Street crash and wipe out 50% of your nest egg while the elites sold yesterday ? (Stealth wealth redistribution)

Shall I go on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Want to defend yourself, take a firearms safety course, apply(bow to your master) for an LTC from your town police, wait for them to maybe issue, go to gunshop put down your money wait while they call in background check after filing out the form truthfully and sign it, once approved you take your firearm that is on a list of approved firearms and can now defend yourself legally.


no need to go on and on


How did we get here? chasing our tails that is how
Progressive socialists wanting bigger government and more government protection to make decisions for us got their way and allowed it to happen while hard working Americans built businesses only to have Lizzie Warren and Obama tell us we did not build our businesses.

Don't like it? having freedom taken away? Vote Libertarian then and arm yourself, Otherwise enjoy slavery

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Want to defend yourself, take a firearms safety course, apply(bow to your master) for an LTC from your town police, wait for them to maybe issue, go to gunshop put down your money wait while they call in background check after filing out the form truthfully and sign it, once approved you take your firearm that is on a list of approved firearms and can now defend yourself legally.


no need to go on and on


How did we get here? chasing our tails that is how
Progressive socialists wanting bigger government and more government protection to make decisions for us got their way and allowed it to happen while hard working Americans built businesses only to have Lizzie Warren and Obama tell us we did not build our businesses.

Don't like it? having freedom taken away? Vote Libertarian then and arm yourself, Otherwise enjoy slavery

Everyone thinks I am a liberal art fag but the truth is, I identify more with libertarianism. Here’s the catch with being a libertarian.... you expect everyone else to be as smart as you. Truth is, thanks to the dumbing down of america by education cuts, brainwashing by the TV and mass corruption in our government, we need laws to protect us from those with no moral compas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Freedom? Let’s talk about freedom.

Want to build a house? You need a permit.
Want to go fishing? You need a permit
Want to drive? You need a permit
Want to own a gun? You need a permit.
Want to vote? You need a permit
Want to own a business? You need a permit
Want to get a good job? You need a degree (stealth permit)
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? You need a reservation.
Want to drive across the bridge? You need to pay a toll.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? Get ready to pay a lot more for it than someone with good credit. (Rich getting richer poor getting poorer)
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? Get ready for Fines.
Want to invest your life savings in the stock market and have Wall Street crash and wipe out 50% of your nest egg while the elites sold yesterday ? (Stealth wealth redistribution)

Shall I go on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me where on earth you can have liberties such as those you mentioned without filling out the paperwork? Perhaps that place is where you could relocate your business. It could be a perfect time for you to realize Xanadu. Start all over in a place that makes you happy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't know how long it will continue and am beginning to wonder if the Republic can be saved. I truly hope it does.

Particularly because a large percentage of Millenials, the cough cough future, believe Socialism/Communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom.

the same people that can't seem to understand what "the right of the people" means...think that socialiam/communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom....funny that

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

the same people that can't seem to understand what "the right of the people" means...think that socialiam/communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom....funny that

Yep. The same people that think if you give others lots of power they will wield it beneficially and kindly.

[Nebe]

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The United States could never become Libertarian, who would support all the lawyers. Do you know any that ever produced anything?
Just remember we are the only country in the world where a business cannot plug two extension cords together, thank a lawyer. If you don't believe that ask your local OSHA inspector.
1. U.S. 1 lawyer for every 300 people
2. Brazil: 1 lawyer for every 326 people
3. New Zealand: 1 lawyer for every 391 people
4. Spain: 1 lawyer for every 395 people
5. UK: 1 lawyer for every 401 people
6. Italy: 1 lawyer for every 488 people
7. Germany: 1 lawyer for every 593 people
8. France: 1 lawyer for every 1,403 people

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Do you think the militia concept is still relevant?

Here is an article which I highly, highly recommend entitled "The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality". It has a Libertarian sounding point of view that talks about the actual civility that existed under local, private, control in what has erroneously been referred to as the "Wild West." In the main it contrasts the civility of a type of local self governance of people associating in mutual commerce to the breakdown of civility caused by the intervention of a powerful central government reshaping that society in order to advance the interests of political ideology fueled by greedy politicans and corporate types. It touches on the relative peacefulness and civility during the militia concept in practice in the Western U.S. frontier in contrast to the change to violence that occurred when the federal army entered and replaced the militia with federal law:

http://www.independent.org/publicati...cle.asp?id=803

It's a trifle longish, but an extremely interesting, eye opening, and not boring, article. Here is the excerpt that specifically mentions militia:

"Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians. By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘[i]n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole."

"The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians."

"Anderson and McChesney do not consider why a standing army replaced militias in 1865, but the reason is not difficult to discern. One has only to read the official pronouncements of the soldiers and political figures who launched a campaign of extermination against the Plains Indians."

Much of the article can be applied to the current nexus of big government with big business. And to a potential danger in federalizing the "militia"--of making it a form of a select standing federal army rather than a localized "whole people" defense force.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Not my assertion. it's the 2A's assertion--the right to keep and "bear" arms. As in the Macmillan definition:

"to carry or hold something, for example a weapon--bear arms (=carry weapons): Do you support the citizen’s right to bear arms?"

And I didn't say that you're not "entitled" to nukes or tanks. I said the 2A guarantees the right to bear arms. You might be "entitled" to a tank, but that doesn't mean you have a 2A guaranteed right to one.

And I specifically said about nukes: "And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.:


Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

That was about all he could "bear." And his rifle was the "assault" weapon of the day. AR15's are not even as "assault" worthy as the automatic weapons that todays soldiers have.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That was about all he could "bear." And his rifle was the "assault" weapon of the day. AR15's are not even as "assault" worthy as the automatic weapons that todays soldiers have.

To carry a weapon also implies its use otherwise what's the point? If the ability to serve in a militia was bound by the weight of the arms you'd think that would have been called out. It really doesn't make any sense.

That an AR-15 isn't fully auto doesn't really matter. It's still a military design and from what I understand using an M-16/MP4 full auto is usually a waste of ammunition and something most in the infantry would rarely do.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

To carry a weapon also implies its use otherwise what's the point? If the ability to serve in a militia was bound by the weight of the arms you'd think that would have been called out. It really doesn't make any sense.

That an AR-15 isn't fully auto doesn't really matter. It's still a military design and from what I understand using an M-16/MP4 full auto is usually a waste of ammunition and something most in the infantry would rarely do.

That an AR15 does not go Fully Auto or Selective Fire DO matter as to where a rifle is a military weapon or not. You can hang a grenade launcher underneath if you re in the military (and your superiors approve) but you cannot legally do it on a civilian firearm.

There are other considerable differences as well. I know of one that looks scary but frankly would melt and fail if you placed it under the rigors of actual combat, selective fire, or full auto.

Oh and Legal Definitions Matter

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?

Old Abe (if I could go back in time that would be the one thing I would sure fix - Ford Theater) actually significantly increased the power of the Federal Government during his time.

Not me - No Militia IT guy here. For Reals.

P.S. Go look up the Socialist Rifle Association.

So lemme get this straight - if DJT wanted to pull a XI Zedong and become President for life - you wouldn't want citizens saying NO?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Old Abe (if I could go back in time that would be the one thing I would sure fix - Ford Theater) actually significantly increased the power of the Federal Government during his time.

Not me - No Militia IT guy here. For Reals.

P.S. Go look up the Socialist Rifle Association.

So lemme get this straight - if DJT wanted to pull a XI Zedong and become President for life - you wouldn't want citizens saying NO?

See that's where this argument just gets crazy for me, can I assume that DJT has control over the military or not? If not then no the military and the good men and women it the service of our country will take care of things and no citizens militia is needed. If yes then I fall back to my previous post and we are all screwed and no amount of armed citizens is going to make a hill of beans difference.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

The militia aspect is relevant to the self-government aspect. If the people are armed and consider themselves a militia, for instance, mass school shootings, Chicago gun violence, gang violence, drug cartel violence, border protection issues, criminal assaults, corrupt local law enforcement tyrannies, could be eliminated or lessened to a tiny minimum, and a host of other things including rescues, disaster relief and rebuilding of communities and so forth, could be handled more quickly at local levels rather than depending on national agencies. The civic and civil nature of citizen self-government would be far, far more prominent in our national psyche than it is now in our current dependence on the federal government and the POTUS, to solve our problems. The danger of continuous movement to large, bureaucratic, centralized government with its growing control of the nation's market in fascistic tandem with large centralized corporate monopolies, and its need to gain and keep power by taking on to itself the individual responsibilities inherent in a self regulating society, and which sucks the initiative/motivation out of nearly half the population, could all be put back into the Pandora's box of creeping tyranny that is now occurring.

At the "time of writing" the citizens did not have the same weapons as the federal government. But they had a federal government which was faithful to the Constitution that they had all written. They had federal and state politicians who knew that subverting that Constitution, "interpreting" it in deceitful ways that transferred newly guaranteed individual powers and rights from the people to the central government, would be an end to the great experiment in individual freedom they had just created. Preservation of the constitutional order was a far greater goal for them than the quest for power. The Constitution they had just written was a check and balance against the quest for power.

The notion that the federal government will use the federal army and air force to come after Americans on American soil goes against all the founding, constitutional values of this nation. If it gets to such a place, it will be because we the people have allowed it. Because we have given up our Constitutional powers and transferred them to a government that we thought would give us security instead of the liberty with responsibility that the Constitution ordained and established for us.

The notion that the government would use F-22's and all the massive firepower of the federal armed forces against citizens of this country is even more foolish than the notion that people would try to resist such force with handguns and AR15's. The optics would be horrible.

And if we have truly arrived at such a place, then blame those who in the past 100 years kept voting for a government that promised to do for us what we had the responsibility to do for ourselves.

[Pete F.]

So the thought is that armed revolutions are more successful than unarmed ones.
Statistically over the past 50 years how true is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Well you have twisted that around for sure, but no if Trump goes off the rails and wants to suddenly proclaim himself the next coming and the military isn't in his pocket, I suspect our neighbors, friends and relatives serving will right the ship and kick his ass to the curb, so no I'm not worried.

So you and I agree on that, as I stated in the first paragraph of my post to which you're replying here: "If not, then per your assumption about the good men and women in the military, we can assume that we don't need to be concerned about the oft proffered scenario of F-22's and the massive firepower of the federal military devastating the militia.


But if you have added a third alternative, where DJT goes off the rails, the military stop him, but then hungry for power decide to declare military law, that's my alternate #2; we are screwed and all your 38 magnums, 12 ga, deer rifles and AR-15s aren't going so save your butts.

I guess I missed this third alternative in either of your two previous posts, still don't see it in them probably because I may not fully understand what you were saying. But if there were some military coup that took over the federal government, then we would very well want the 2A to mean that individuals and militias would have the right to own and use the same weapons of war that the military has. 100 to 200 million militarily equipped combatants vs. the approximately 2.7 million in the federal military would pose a very formidable, probably an insurmountable threat to such a coup. Anywhoo, the extreme notions of individuals owning WMDs or the government sending F22's to mow down citizens is beside the primary reason for the 2A. It is meant, as is the rest of the Constitution, to be part of its structural deterrent to any thought that those in government might have to tyrannize the people. It is not meant to be some whacko saber rattling of the people in order to make government officials daily quake in their boots.

So, even if the government had to oppose 100 to 200 million armed not with military grade weapons but with AR15's and a good supply of ammunition in the combined militias, it would still be a formidable task for the federal armed forces to cover the entire U.S. loaded with 100 to 200 million armed civilian militia. And what would be left in the aftermath, if somehow the federal military "won" would be worse than a mere pyrrhic Victory. That's even provided that all in the federal forces would side with their commanders. It would be highly likely, if the people did resist and fight back, that many, if not most, would not obey their commanders and desert to join the militias, carrying and taking their tanks and planes, etc., with them. So the notion of such a coup is silly. At least at this time. That is what a tyrannically minded government would have to think about. An armed citizenry should give such a government the conclusion that stripping the people of their constitutional rights would have to be done by a political transition rather than a military one.

However, given some more "evolving" toward our acceptance of central power over individual freedom, who knows?

If the constitution were written in stone 300 years ahead of when it was written, I suspect you would still be interpreting it literary as you see those early people meant it to be interpreted.

The Constitution is not a codex of civil or criminal laws which can often become obsolete under new technological or social/cultural conditions. It is merely a structure under which the federal government works. It is a political structure, not meant to respond to specific technological or cultural advances per se, but only if they fall into the one of the broad categories of power (enumerations) that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate.

It is a system designed to constrain government from oppressing individuals. It is designed to promote optimal individual freedom, not to promote or regulate individual or collective, or scientific behaviors. It is based on human nature, human proclivities to desire power to rule others by coercion. It is meant to be the most viable blueprint for protecting natural rights as well as the freedom to express those rights, to fully achieve individual potentials, to protect the market place of ideas and the marketplace of commerce. It is meant to be a means toward equality for all before the law. And it provides the means to change the structure if needed.

Human nature has not changed in 300 years. Human proclivities have not changed. What is there to be interpreted differently in our structure of government in order to still protect natural rights and the expression of those rights? And why, if the people demand it, couldn't the Constitution be amended to address a better way instead of doing so by fiat?

Difficult problems of "interpretation" usually arise when government wishes to impose regulation for which the Constitution does not give it the power to do so, and it wants to get around and beyond those constitutional limitations. In most of those cases it is a question of government reaching beyond the power granted to one of its particular branches. Honest constitutional judges would resolve such disputes simply by determining if the government claim actually fits into one of its enumerated powers which are few, but broadly worded so that any issue could be determined whether or not it fell into the purview of government power to regulate. If not, the regulation should be struck down as unconstitutional. If so, it should be allowed as constitutional no matter how unpopular it might be. The government has no rights outside of its enumerated powers. But it has plenary, basically unlimited, power within those enumerations. What more does it need unless it desires to deny individual rights in favor of gaining more power to itself?

But judges who believe that government should not be constrained, especially if it purports to do what they personally consider social good, regardless of how it affects the structure of the Constitution, and therefor how it affects individual liberties, such judges, in liaison with Progressive politicians, over time and with compounded precedent, corrupt and destroy the constitutional structure. And what is left is not a framework that protects individual rights, but a government that determines what your rights are. And those rights, under such an unstructured and basically unconstrained system, will constantly and frequently change.

So, yes. If the Constitution was written 300 years earlier and had the same structure, I would interpret it in the way it was originally composed.