I have a 2A question particularly with regard to 'free state' threats

[Homerboy]

The "militia" is now known as the National Guard.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So that pretty much nullifies that little snippet from the 2A as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Paratus]

Right.

This would be true if elected leaders were all elected by popular vote. Senators used to be selected by state legislators instead of being elected by popular vote.

But, I digress. I wasn't trying to derail the OP's thread. However, whether it's a 5th grade point or not, the difference appears to be lost on the majority of the American people. If and when the majority actually does rule in this country I think that a lot of people are going to wish it wasn't so. Even some of the majority.

But senators are now elected by popular vote which is more democratic. If you are referring to the electoral college as being anti-democratic then I agree.

However you appear to happy that the majority doesn’t rule in this country? If so can you explain your desire for minority rule?

 

[ivwshane]

The USA is not a democracy.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing.com/the-difference-between-a-constitutional-republic-and-a-democracy/article_e87457a6-f105-593c-9486-2a15413f3bbc.html

Indeed it is, it’s a representative democracy where we elect politicians on our behalf.

The U.S. Is Both a Republic and a Democracy

[I thought I'd repost this item of mine from several years ago, since I keep seeing the issue come up.]...

reason.com

What that has to do with my post I’m not sure because you can replace any instance of democracy in my post with the word representative democracy and nothing would change.

 

[bba-tcg]

But senators are now elected by popular vote which is more democratic. If you are referring to the electoral college as being anti-democratic then I agree.

However you appear to happy that the majority doesn’t rule in this country? If so can you explain your desire for minority rule?

Yes, that was the point. That we're moving towards a [direct] democracy. When we get there, we can throw out the constitution.

I didn't say anything about minority rule. I just don't think, and neither did the people that set up the constitutional republic, that 50.1% should be the deciding factor. If they did, we'd have been living in a full-on democracy from the start.

 

[MrSquished]

Yes, that was the point. That we're moving towards a [direct] democracy. When we get there, we can throw out the constitution.

I didn't say anything about minority rule. I just don't think, and neither did the people that set up the constitutional republic, that 50.1% should be the deciding factor. If they did, we'd have been living in a full-on democracy from the start.

We should throw you people out is what should really happen vs living with a document that appeased slave owning regressive states.

 

[bba-tcg]

We should throw you people out is what should really happen vs living with a document that appeased slave owning regressive states.

"you people". Do tell. Lol.

 

[Greenman]

You're kidding, right?

The reason why Afghanistan was such a problem was because the Taliban runs a billion-dollar drug operation and funds its militaristic efforts through that operation. There's simply no comparison between that and any vaguely normal developed country.

And you think 50 million armed citizens wouldn't fair as well?
The point is that armed indigenous people are dangerous. The only way to beat them is wholesale slaughter, and I very much doubt the military would order such a thing or that the troops would carry out those orders.

All of that is a sideshow, and off topic. That you don't like the right of citizens to be armed means nothing. The second stands until the constitution is changed.

 

[Pens1566]

Nvm, not worth it.

 

[ivwshane]

And you think 50 million armed citizens wouldn't fair as well?
The point is that armed indigenous people are dangerous. The only way to beat them is wholesale slaughter, and I very much doubt the military would order such a thing or that the troops would carry out those orders.

All of that is a sideshow, and off topic. That you don't like the right of citizens to be armed means nothing. The second stands until the constitution is changed.

It’s funny you say that because the 2nd stood for 150 years until 2008 when it was reinterpreted to mean an individual right. I must have missed when the constitution was changed, can you enlighten us on how and when that happened and then explain why that couldn’t happen again?

 

[MrSquished]

It’s funny you say that because the 2nd stood for 150 years until 2008 when it was reinterpreted to mean an individual right. I must have missed when the constitution was changed, can you enlighten us on how and when that happened and then explain why that couldn’t happen again?

At the end of the day, greenman, for all intents and purposes, is functionally illiterate when it comes to any reality that counters any of his regressive cult beliefs

 

[mikeymikec]

And you think 50 million armed citizens wouldn't fair as well?

You think 50 million (which is a number you pulled out of your ass in terms of the number of American people actually willing and able to fight) gun-owners with no requisite experience of combat, all they've known is the relative comfort of a peaceful life and on the whole knowing nothing of the kind of sacrifices that people fighting for their livelihood have to be committed to, with no leaders, no prep, no supply lines, separated by enormous distances, no equipment to quickly traverse those distances, and no funding (relative to the costs of modern warfare) are in any way a match for an organised, competent, experienced and physically fit fighting force being deployed in a competent fashion, and that's without factoring in the extra resources that a competent modern military force could and would bring to such a fight such as air support, encrypted comms, comms jamming, satellite coverage, military drones, etc., or using tactics like rationing the essentials and cutting off Internet / cellular access.

Your point of view is completely absurd.

 

[Pens1566]

You think 50 million (which is a number you pulled out of your ass in terms of the number of American people actually willing and able to fight) gun-owners with no requisite experience of combat, all they've known is the relative comfort of a peaceful life and on the whole knowing nothing of the kind of sacrifices that people fighting for their livelihood have to be committed to, with no leaders, no prep, no supply lines, separated by enormous distances, no equipment to quickly traverse those distances, and no funding (relative to the costs of modern warfare) are in any way a match for an organised, competent, experienced and physically fit fighting force being deployed in a competent fashion, and that's without factoring in the extra resources that a competent modern military force could and would bring to such a fight such as air support, encrypted comms, comms jamming, satellite coverage, military drones, etc., or using tactics like rationing the essentials and cutting off Internet / cellular access.

Your point of view is completely absurd.

Yeah, this is a more detailed/depth version of what I was going to say earlier but decided it wasn't worth it. Your avg MEAL Team Six cosplayer is buttery soft in comparison to the other examples that have been held up as a successful guerrilla effort. They couldn't handle different colors on a beer can, or a certain type of Mr. Potato head. But sure, they're gonna rally and fend off the 82nd AD or 10th MD. GTFOH

 

[Homerboy]

You think 50 million (which is a number you pulled out of your ass in terms of the number of American people actually willing and able to fight) gun-owners with no requisite experience of combat, all they've known is the relative comfort of a peaceful life and on the whole knowing nothing of the kind of sacrifices that people fighting for their livelihood have to be committed to, with no leaders, no prep, no supply lines, separated by enormous distances, no equipment to quickly traverse those distances, and no funding (relative to the costs of modern warfare) are in any way a match for an organised, competent, experienced and physically fit fighting force being deployed in a competent fashion, and that's without factoring in the extra resources that a competent modern military force could and would bring to such a fight such as air support, encrypted comms, comms jamming, satellite coverage, military drones, etc., or using tactics like rationing the essentials and cutting off Internet / cellular access.

Your point of view is completely absurd.

You know how fast a single A-10 could decimate 50,000 people with guns.
The right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical gov't (viewpoint not withstanding) is a laughable idea in today's world.

 

[Pens1566]

You know how fast a single A-10 could decimate 50,000 people with guns.
The right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical gov't (viewpoint not withstanding) is a laughable idea in today's world.

How is an A-10 gonna be able to hit all those Golden Corrals/Walmarts by itself???

 

[cytg111]

The USA is not a democracy.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing.com/the-difference-between-a-constitutional-republic-and-a-democracy/article_e87457a6-f105-593c-9486-2a15413f3bbc.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is

"And when critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic."

- Ooooh. Its you.

 

[bba-tcg]

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is

"And when critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic."

- Ooooh. Its you.

Lol. No it's not. You know nothing about me.

 

[cytg111]

Lol. No it's not. You know nothing about me.

And yet you always stay the same.

 

[kt]

Yes, that was the point. That we're moving towards a [direct] democracy. When we get there, we can throw out the constitution.

I didn't say anything about minority rule. I just don't think, and neither did the people that set up the constitutional republic, that 50.1% should be the deciding factor. If they did, we'd have been living in a full-on democracy from the start.

Actually, it's closer to 25% since women couldn't vote until 1920.

 

[bba-tcg]

Actually, it's closer to 25% since women couldn't vote until 1920.

Really, it would only be 50.1% of the percentage that voted. So, in your scenario, it would be well less than 25% because not 100% of the eligible voters will have voted. 🙄

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah, this is a more detailed/depth version of what I was going to say earlier but decided it wasn't worth it.

Admittedly I was borderline "is this worth it" when Mr "logic slides off me like water off a duck's back" likened 50m civilians with the freaking Taliban. Maybe for an encore he'll seriously make this comparison next:

 

[kt]

Really, it would only be 50.1% of the percentage that voted. So, in your scenario, it would be well less than 25% because not 100% of the eligible voters will have voted. 🙄

That's not what you said. You only said 50.1%, but not 50.1% of what. Since you like to fact check everyone, maybe you should learn to be more specific.

 

[bba-tcg]

That's not what you said. You only said 50.1%, but not 50.1% of what. Since you like to fact check everyone, maybe you should learn to be more specific.

Yeah. Obviously the percentage would be of the measurable, which would be of the people voting. Lol.

 

[bba-tcg]

That's not what you said. You only said 50.1%, but not 50.1% of what. Since you like to fact check everyone, maybe you should learn to be more specific.

btw, where's you "of what"? Or, are you going to tell me that's it's implied?

Actually, it's closer to 25% since women couldn't vote until 1920.

 

[Greenman]

You think 50 million (which is a number you pulled out of your ass in terms of the number of American people actually willing and able to fight) gun-owners with no requisite experience of combat, all they've known is the relative comfort of a peaceful life and on the whole knowing nothing of the kind of sacrifices that people fighting for their livelihood have to be committed to, with no leaders, no prep, no supply lines, separated by enormous distances, no equipment to quickly traverse those distances, and no funding (relative to the costs of modern warfare) are in any way a match for an organised, competent, experienced and physically fit fighting force being deployed in a competent fashion, and that's without factoring in the extra resources that a competent modern military force could and would bring to such a fight such as air support, encrypted comms, comms jamming, satellite coverage, military drones, etc., or using tactics like rationing the essentials and cutting off Internet / cellular access.

Your point of view is completely absurd.

My point of view is that the second amendment stands. Americans are armed and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We can play pretend games all you want and that fundamental fact won't change.

 

[Homerboy]

My point of view is that the second amendment stands. Americans are armed and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We can play pretend games all you want and that fundamental fact won't change.

To be fair, VERY few people are really calling for complete repeal of the 2A. I mean there are some, do not get me wrong, but that is beyond a small minority.
All most people are looking for are more stringent gun laws/checks to help prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. On top of that, and I personally even think more so, America has to get away from it's insane gun-loving "must have" culture.