I have questions for 2A absolutists

[JEDIYoda]

Like I said repeal the federal gun control laws on the books, then you can have whatever bans you want in your state.

The problem is Federal does not Trump state law all the time!!
Does federal law trump state law...

So check out US Code 42-5207 at

42 U.S. Code § 5207 - Firearms policies

www.law.cornell.edu

It discusses the Federal Govt's restrictions during a State of Emergency with respect to firearms confiscation. Currently the US code states that firearms can't be confiscated during a state of emergency mentioning State law prevails. However, Most state codes refer to this US code as setting precedent if the state is receiving Federal funding to help in the emergency.

 

[ivwshane]

Like I said repeal the federal gun control laws on the books, then you can have whatever bans you want in your state.

Sure and we can make interstate travel with a gun a federal offense and implement federal gun registration laws and require gun owners to carry insurance and pay registration fees.

 

[glenn1]

Sure and we can make interstate travel with a gun a federal offense and implement federal gun registration laws and require gun owners to carry insurance and pay registration fees.

Yeah that’s a real surprise. So you want to have your cake and eat it too, restrict guns as a state rights issue and still restrict at the federal level too. That’s about the least shocking turn of events and completely unforeseen.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah that’s a real surprise. So you want to have your cake and eat it too, restrict guns as a state rights issue and still restrict at the federal level too. That’s about the least shocking turn of events and completely unforeseen.

What restrictions? You can still have whatever guns you want. It certainly sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. Remove all federal laws and take zero responsibility for your penis replacement.

 

[Skel]

The difference between British citizens overthrowing their government and US citizens overthrowing their government was something called taxation without representation. The founding fathers created a government for, by, and of the people. In order for us to have a tyrannical government we would have had to vote them in, which means those that would be overthrowing the government would be the real tyrants as they would obviously be the minority overriding what the majority wants using force.

But don't you think it's odd that the founding fathers, who understood how this country came to be, would put in the constitution that one of the governments duties is to put down rebellions and insurrections if they also believed that the people have the right to rebel against their government?

I'll dig up that post for you with some of the cases.

First and foremost.. thanks for the links. I'll look at them later..

I'm not sure I follow the same logic you do here. The reasons we overthrew British rule doesn't really have much to do with our country wanting to make sure it's citizens had the arms to do so if something happened again. The rest of your stuff about who's overthrowing who is just chasing it's own tail. It's sounds like the idea that people must think like me so when people vote the other way it must be some trickery from the minority, and not because most people disagree with what I think.

Also didn't Jefferson say something about if the government stops serving the people it should be overthrown? Again, not saying that we should, or that I have any "Red Dawn" power fantasies, but the founding fathers did foresee the possibility that we might need to overthrow those in power. To say nothing of the threat that another crown would attempt to subjugate us, which was a threat at the time 2A was written. As I've said before perhaps 2A is outdated in today's world in both it's concepts as well as tech, and it should be looked at and redone. I don't see it happening in our lifetime though. I doubt you'd get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

 

[Skel]

Sure and we can make interstate travel with a gun a federal offense and implement federal gun registration laws and require gun owners to carry insurance and pay registration fees.

What restrictions? You can still have whatever guns you want. It certainly sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. Remove all federal laws and take zero responsibility for your penis replacement.

To be fair you are wanting it both ways here. You want all the rights to be removed from a federal level but then want to turn around and place burdens and restrictions at the federal level.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What restrictions? You can still have whatever guns you want. It certainly sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. Remove all federal laws and take zero responsibility for your penis replacement.

I'm surprised they haven't tried to get waivers so they can carry them (like on planes) as "emotional support device" or some bullshit.

 

[ivwshane]

First and foremost.. thanks for the links. I'll look at them later..

I'm not sure I follow the same logic you do here. The reasons we overthrew British rule doesn't really have much to do with our country wanting to make sure it's citizens had the arms to do so if something happened again. The rest of your stuff about who's overthrowing who is just chasing it's own tail. It's sounds like the idea that people must think like me so when people vote the other way it must be some trickery from the minority, and not because most people disagree with what I think.

Also didn't Jefferson say something about if the government stops serving the people it should be overthrown? Again, not saying that we should, or that I have any "Red Dawn" power fantasies, but the founding fathers did foresee the possibility that we might need to overthrow those in power. To say nothing of the threat that another crown would attempt to subjugate us, which was a threat at the time 2A was written. As I've said before perhaps 2A is outdated in today's world in both it's concepts as well as tech, and it should be looked at and redone. I don't see it happening in our lifetime though. I doubt you'd get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

I noticed you didn't address the second part of my post that deals with the constitutional requirement that the government is to put down insurrections and rebellions.

 

[Skel]

I noticed you didn't address the second part of my post that deals with the constitutional requirement that the government is to put down insurrections and rebellions.

Apologies. I thought it was pretty simple that the only difference between insurrections and rebellions is who wins. Of course the government has a job to put down those who threaten it. To be fair though, what you are conveniently ignoring is the whole reason for 2A was for common people to rise up and defend against those who would threaten the government, as well as rebelling against tyrannical rule... you know, giving people the power to choose for themselves. There's a word for it.. freedom?

Again, maybe it's outdated in today's world. I just don't think twisting it around to attempt to make it something it's not so we can justify removing the right it grants people is something that we should do.

 

[ivwshane]

Apologies. I thought it was pretty simple that the only difference between insurrections and rebellions is who wins. Of course the government has a job to put down those who threaten it. To be fair though, what you are conveniently ignoring is the whole reason for 2A was for common people to rise up and defend against those who would threaten the government, as well as rebelling against tyrannical rule... you know, giving people the power to choose for themselves. There's a word for it.. freedom?

Again, maybe it's outdated in today's world. I just don't think twisting it around to attempt to make it something it's not so we can justify removing the right it grants people is something that we should do.

Yeah that's a contradiction that doesn't make sense. Especially considering the state and sometimes the federal government was supposed to call upon those very same militias for their security. What you are advocating for is anarchy where might makes right. For such a profound policy its odd that the founding fathers would put into place so many checks and balances only to be thrown out by whoever can overthrow the government. Is that what you think the founding fathers intended? Do you have a link to such thinking by the founding fathers to back that up?

Its also at odds with past supreme court decisions that ruled that the federal government can limit what kind of weapons its citizens have access to. If the intention of the 2nd was to overthrow the government then not allowing citizens to own weaponry, that at the very least puts it on par with an oppressive government, would be a huge violation of the constitution and yet that's how they ruled.

Can you explain that?

 

[Skel]

Yeah that's a contradiction that doesn't make sense. Especially considering the state and sometimes the federal government was supposed to call upon those very same militias for their security. What you are advocating for is anarchy where might makes right. For such a profound policy its odd that the founding fathers would put into place so many checks and balances only to be thrown out by whoever can overthrow the government. Is that what you think the founding fathers intended? Do you have a link to such thinking by the founding fathers to back that up?

Its also at odds with past supreme court decisions that ruled that the federal government can limit what kind of weapons its citizens have access to. If the intention of the 2nd was to overthrow the government then not allowing citizens to own weaponry, that at the very least puts it on par with an oppressive government, would be a huge violation of the constitution and yet that's how they ruled.

Can you explain that?

It's not quite that simple. Your premise assumes that the FF envisioned a Government that would stay the same. The Government was designed to change, and does. In example look at the filibuster. That's an example on how we changed the rules on how we do things.It also shows that all those checks and balances could theoretically go away. I do point out that I don't think they'll do it in my lifetime, but it is possible.. gerrymandering and all. Like I said before Jefferson said something about when the Government stops serving the people it should be overthrown, which does give insight into them thinking it was possible. Point being nothing lasts forever and the possibility existed/exists that those in power could rewrite the rules to stay in power. They were also under threat of someone like France coming in an subjugating them back then. 2A was to make sure the people had arms to make sure they stayed free.

Putting restrictions on arms isn't the same as removing the right to have them. It's the most dicey part of how our laws work, but it exists to keep some order and further define what those rights are and how they work. 2A isn't special here, if you look at 1A it also has restrictions. It doesn't remove our right to say stuff, but it also restricts how that right can cause issues in certain circumstances.

You're focusing on the part about overthrowing a government, which is important, but you also have to account for defending the government. Which was probably more important at the time. We had just used the common people to overthrow Britain. It's also why I do agree that it's possible that 2A is out of date for today's world. I honestly don't know.

 

[ivwshane]

It's not quite that simple. Your premise assumes that the FF envisioned a Government that would stay the same. The Government was designed to change, and does. In example look at the filibuster. That's an example on how we changed the rules on how we do things.It also shows that all those checks and balances could theoretically go away. I do point out that I don't think they'll do it in my lifetime, but it is possible.. gerrymandering and all. Like I said before Jefferson said something about when the Government stops serving the people it should be overthrown, which does give insight into them thinking it was possible. Point being nothing lasts forever and the possibility existed/exists that those in power could rewrite the rules to stay in power. They were also under threat of someone like France coming in an subjugating them back then. 2A was to make sure the people had arms to make sure they stayed free.

Putting restrictions on arms isn't the same as removing the right to have them. It's the most dicey part of how our laws work, but it exists to keep some order and further define what those rights are and how they work. 2A isn't special here, if you look at 1A it also has restrictions. It doesn't remove our right to say stuff, but it also restricts how that right can cause issues in certain circumstances.

You're focusing on the part about overthrowing a government, which is important, but you also have to account for defending the government. Which was probably more important at the time. We had just used the common people to overthrow Britain. It's also why I do agree that it's possible that 2A is out of date for today's world. I honestly don't know.

What do you think would last longer, a democracy or a democracy under threat by its citizens with guns with the express permission to overthrow said democracy? Now why would the founding fathers put in such a time bomb for their newly created government? A government, I will remind you, that was not ruled by a king or dictator but by the people with many checks and balances, state and federal. It seems silly that they would put in a clause to tear it all down with no guidance as to what constituted a tyrannical government and when it would be appropriate. Not only that but it's even more ridiculous to include the duty of the government to put down rebellions and insurrections, if they thought overthrowing the government was a legitimate option the people should have. Keep in mind these are the same founding fathers who were so concerned with corruption, overreach, and an abuse of power that they didn't even want the US to have a standing army. And you are going to tell me they thought it was smart to ensure that it was up to the people to decide when it was time to overthrow the government, the same founding fathers who didn't think the American people were smart enough to directly elect their president, or senators?

I'm sorry but that sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

[Bird222]

What do you think would last longer, a democracy or a democracy under threat by its citizens with guns with the express permission to overthrow said democracy? Now why would the founding fathers put in such a time bomb for their newly created government? A government, I will remind you, that was not ruled by a king or dictator but by the people with many checks and balances, state and federal. It seems silly that they would put in a clause to tear it all down with no guidance as to what constituted a tyrannical government and when it would be appropriate. Not only that but it's even more ridiculous to include the duty of the government to put down rebellions and insurrections, if they thought overthrowing the government was a legitimate option the people should have. Keep in mind these are the same founding fathers who were so concerned with corruption, overreach, and an abuse of power that they didn't even want the US to have a standing army. And you are going to tell me they thought it was smart to ensure that it was up to the people to decide when it was time to overthrow the government, the same founding fathers who didn't think the American people were smart enough to directly elect their president, or senators?

I'm sorry but that sounds like wishful thinking to me.

How long would it remain a democracy if the citizens had no way to overthrow it? Some would argue that the government has too much power now even with citizens having arms.

 

[Sunburn74]

How long would it remain a democracy if the citizens had no way to overthrow it? Some would argue that the government has too much power now even with citizens having arms.

Citizens have been overthrowing governments for centuries without being armed en masse. No other government in history has the second amendment yet goverments have been falling left and right since the beginning of time without it.

Also as stated before, overthrowing the government is strictly illegal and is considered a highly odious crime. It's not something the Constitution codifies as being a legal expression of citizen rights. You're basically stating that you should have access to guns in case you want to break the law.

 

[ivwshane]

How long would it remain a democracy if the citizens had no way to overthrow it? Some would argue that the government has too much power now even with citizens having arms.

Lol the citizens overthrow the government on average every two to four years, they are called elections.

 

[VRAMdemon]

How long would it remain a democracy if the citizens had no way to overthrow it? Some would argue that the government has too much power now even with citizens having arms.

If you've reached the point where you're shooting at your own armed forces, you've already lost. Everyone's already lost.

There's lots of forms of tyranny that are being conveniently ignored. It should be considered tyranny for a government to saddle future generations with insurmountable public debt due to mismanagement. There are very real dangers posed to many families from a lack of medical insurance is several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by the remote possibility of having to fight of a foreign or domestic invader in my home, which is in turn several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by chance possibly needing to (and being able to) fight off a tyrannical government.

I am a gun owner of multiple firearms...But the fetish of today's gun culture is disturbing

Do you consider it tyrannical for the government to deny you a rocket propelled grenade launcher, should you choose that means of defense? It’s a choice the government is denying you when you are deciding how to protect yourself and your family. And if the government can deny you that choice without descending into tyranny, why does the denial of a Automatic weapon become tyrannical? Neither “Auto rifle” or “rocket launcher” are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, yet both are arguably “arms”, which is referenced. So, if there is a distinction, what is it?

 

[ivwshane]

If you've reached the point where you're shooting at your own armed forces, you've already lost. Everyone's already lost.

There's lots of forms of tyranny that are being conveniently ignored. It should be considered tyranny for a government to saddle future generations with insurmountable public debt due to mismanagement. There are very real dangers posed to many families from a lack of medical insurance is several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by the remote possibility of having to fight of a foreign or domestic invader in my home, which is in turn several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by chance possibly needing to (and being able to) fight off a tyrannical government.

I am a gun owner of multiple firearms...But the fetish of today's gun culture is disturbing

Do you consider it tyrannical for the government to deny you a rocket propelled grenade launcher, should you choose that means of defense? It’s a choice the government is denying you when you are deciding how to protect yourself and your family. And if the government can deny you that choice without descending into tyranny, why does the denial of a Automatic weapon become tyrannical? Neither “Auto rifle” or “rocket launcher” are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, yet both are arguably “arms”, which is referenced. So, if there is a distinction, what is it?

And that right there is the biggest problem with people who say the 2nd is for putting a tyrannical government in check; who gets to determine when that point is reached? Its just such ridiculous notion that I have no idea how anyone could come up with such reasoning.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's telling that the people who claim to need guns to protect democracy are the most likely to both subvert & reject democracy. We see it in all the voter fraud bullshit, the gerrymandering & the sleazy power plays. We see it in the selective closure of polling places & reduction in voting days & hours. It's all designed to deny access & power to oppositional voting groups. The constant din of bothsiderism discourages participation, as well. If the opposition doesn't vote, one way or another, they win.

David Frum said it-

If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.

I wonder how many conservatives even understand that about themselves & their leadership.

 

[Skel]

What do you think would last longer, a democracy or a democracy under threat by its citizens with guns with the express permission to overthrow said democracy? Now why would the founding fathers put in such a time bomb for their newly created government? A government, I will remind you, that was not ruled by a king or dictator but by the people with many checks and balances, state and federal. It seems silly that they would put in a clause to tear it all down with no guidance as to what constituted a tyrannical government and when it would be appropriate. Not only that but it's even more ridiculous to include the duty of the government to put down rebellions and insurrections, if they thought overthrowing the government was a legitimate option the people should have. Keep in mind these are the same founding fathers who were so concerned with corruption, overreach, and an abuse of power that they didn't even want the US to have a standing army. And you are going to tell me they thought it was smart to ensure that it was up to the people to decide when it was time to overthrow the government, the same founding fathers who didn't think the American people were smart enough to directly elect their president, or senators?

I'm sorry but that sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I did a quick search for "democracy that was overthrown" and the first thing I got was an old LA Time article that starts

Fifty years ago, the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the popular, democratically elected prime minister of Iran, and reinstalled the country’s exiled monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah.

I point this out as you seem to be running under this impression that democracies aren't vulnerable to people twisting it or removing it completely. The FF (and I admit I'm doing guesswork here based upon the Bill of Rights and the other docs like the Federalist papers, I don't have the ability currently to ask them directly... unless this counts) knew that people in power are often very reluctant to give up said power. Hell our current President has in the past stated he should get a third term. Don't think it'll happen, but I can't ignore that a possibility exists. Other than it's citizens who does whole the power to make sure things stay the same? You also point out another reason why 2A was probably drafted.. if they didn't have a standing army who would defend the US? Without a standing army where would those people get arms to defend the US with? You keep fixating on overthrowing a tyrannical government that you keep ignoring other reasons why the FF might have wanted to make sure we had arms.

To answer your question directly.. I do think a democracy under threat of it's own armed citizens is more stable. At the least it would give pause to someone wanting to straight out refuse to follow the rules. As for permission.. how... what?? As I pointed out the only different between rebellion and insurrection is who wins. It's not something one does only if they've some kind of permission to do it. The FF didn't directly say overthrow our government, only that if it goes too far the people have a better ability to do it.

Citizens have been overthrowing governments for centuries without being armed en masse. No other government in history has the second amendment yet goverments have been falling left and right since the beginning of time without it.

Also as stated before, overthrowing the government is strictly illegal and is considered a highly odious crime. It's not something the Constitution codifies as being a legal expression of citizen rights. You're basically stating that you should have access to guns in case you want to break the law.

Guns provide more than overthrowing the government.. defense if nothing else. Sport for some.. and while some people might not think it's a sport I do point out there are Olympic shooting events. Not sure how more one could define a sport than that. Just my opinion, YMMV greatly.

Lol the citizens overthrow the government on average every two to four years, they are called elections.

Who ensures those elections are held and enacted? The army that works for the Government? Again, I point out I have no Red Dawn fantasies.. only that the people are the ones that make sure our Government tows the line. Without the ability to have arms we'd be at a much higher risk of being plain subjugated.

If you've reached the point where you're shooting at your own armed forces, you've already lost. Everyone's already lost.

There's lots of forms of tyranny that are being conveniently ignored. It should be considered tyranny for a government to saddle future generations with insurmountable public debt due to mismanagement. There are very real dangers posed to many families from a lack of medical insurance is several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by the remote possibility of having to fight of a foreign or domestic invader in my home, which is in turn several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by chance possibly needing to (and being able to) fight off a tyrannical government.

I am a gun owner of multiple firearms...But the fetish of today's gun culture is disturbing

Do you consider it tyrannical for the government to deny you a rocket propelled grenade launcher, should you choose that means of defense? It’s a choice the government is denying you when you are deciding how to protect yourself and your family. And if the government can deny you that choice without descending into tyranny, why does the denial of a Automatic weapon become tyrannical? Neither “Auto rifle” or “rocket launcher” are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, yet both are arguably “arms”, which is referenced. So, if there is a distinction, what is it?

I agree with you on most of your points. The US' gun fetish is disturbing. I just don't think it's something new. You go back to any time and you'll find the gun. We were founded by the gun and we've loved it ever since. Look at the loving tales of the 'Old West'. Those are almost all gun stories. It's also one of the reasons why I believe we're much different than other countries that got rid of guns. It's been ingrained into our culture... hell most (if not all) the summer blockbuster movies all have guns in them. We love the gun, right or wrong. I don't consider restrictions a bad thing, nor do I think they fly in the face of 2A. I only get bothered when we start placing restrictions that don't make sense. such as when we define a type of gun based upon it's color.

And that right there is the biggest problem with people who say the 2nd is for putting a tyrannical government in check; who gets to determine when that point is reached? Its just such ridiculous notion that I have no idea how anyone could come up with such reasoning.

The people do. Who else would? It's not like anyone would be asking permission from the Government to do so, and I'm completely baffled at why you allude to it. It would have to be a majority in order for any amount of chance of succeeding (The South learned it's pretty hard), and yes, there would be many that wouldn't agree. The US had a Nazi rally during WWII in NY. Shows you that there will always be some that don't agree with the popular choice.

It may be counter intuitive, but it's not that difficult to see how a group of people that were OK with British rule until it went too far wanted to make sure the Government they were forming didn't go too far. Things were built into our Constitution that did the best it could to make sure that power remained with the people of it's country and not just those in power. Again, with the tech we have now and the way the world has turned, 2A might be outdated. It's founding made sense at it's time at least...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-06-bk-keddie6-story.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLQP0c9ffU&feature=youtu.be

 

[VRAMdemon]

I agree with you on most of your points. The US' gun fetish is disturbing. I just don't think it's something new. You go back to any time and you'll find the gun. We were founded by the gun and we've loved it ever since. Look at the loving tales of the 'Old West'. Those are almost all gun stories. It's also one of the reasons why I believe we're much different than other countries that got rid of guns. It's been ingrained into our culture... hell most (if not all) the summer blockbuster movies all have guns in them. We love the gun, right or wrong. I don't consider restrictions a bad thing, nor do I think they fly in the face of 2A. I only get bothered when we start placing restrictions that don't make sense. such as when we define a type of gun based upon it's color.

I disagree that it's "something new". For decades, there had been a lot more people who were pro-regulation than people who were anti. Attitudes are changing and people are questioning the value of guns as not just the top issue, but the issue to the exclusion of all others. The hyperbole, the divisiveness.

Today's Gun lobby say their opponents are afraid of their rifles only because they're scary and black, but have no problem with wooden rifle of similar function. Many of them lack the self awareness to reflect on why they have a fevered insistence on buying the flashy, menacing scary black rifle instead of the wooden-stock rifle of similar function.

Today's Gun fetishists/absolutism live in an alternate reality where it's inevitable that either they will fight the government, or they will outlive a collapsed government.

The gun fetishist/absolutist understand or don't understand that, in a standoff with government forces, they are going to die. They are OK with this. Mainly because it's mostly posturing - it's easy to act badass about something that's never going to happen and, or something that you will never be victorious in.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I disagree that it's "something new". For decades, there had been a lot more people who were pro-regulation than people who were anti. Attitudes are changing and people are questioning the value of guns as not just the top issue, but the issue to the exclusion of all others. The hyperbole, the divisiveness.

Today's Gun lobby say their opponents are afraid of their rifles only because they're scary and black, but have no problem with wooden rifle of similar function. Many of them lack the self awareness to reflect on why they have a fevered insistence on buying the flashy, menacing scary black rifle instead of the wooden-stock rifle of similar function.

Today's Gun fetishists/absolutism live in an alternate reality where it's inevitable that either they will fight the government, or they will outlive a collapsed government.

The gun fetishist/absolutist understand or don't understand that, in a standoff with government forces, they are going to die. They are OK with this. Mainly because it's mostly posturing - it's easy to act badass about something that's never going to happen and, or something that you will never be victorious in.

Very wise words!!

 

[ivwshane]

Where to begin...

I did a quick search for "democracy that was overthrown" and the first thing I got was an old LA Time article that starts



I point this out as you seem to be running under this impression that democracies aren't vulnerable to people twisting it or removing it completely. The FF (and I admit I'm doing guesswork here based upon the Bill of Rights and the other docs like the Federalist papers, I don't have the ability currently to ask them directly... unless this counts) knew that people in power are often very reluctant to give up said power. Hell our current President has in the past stated he should get a third term. Don't think it'll happen, but I can't ignore that a possibility exists. Other than it's citizens who does whole the power to make sure things stay the same? You also point out another reason why 2A was probably drafted.. if they didn't have a standing army who would defend the US? Without a standing army where would those people get arms to defend the US with? You keep fixating on overthrowing a tyrannical government that you keep ignoring other reasons why the FF might have wanted to make sure we had arms.
To answer your question directly.. I do think a democracy under threat of it's own armed citizens is more stable. At the least it would give pause to someone wanting to straight out refuse to follow the rules. As for permission.. how... what?? As I pointed out the only different between rebellion and insurrection is who wins. It's not something one does only if they've some kind of permission to do it. The FF didn't directly say overthrow our government, only that if it goes too far the people have a better ability to do it.
Guns provide more than overthrowing the government.. defense if nothing else. Sport for some.. and while some people might not think it's a sport I do point out there are Olympic shooting events. Not sure how more one could define a sport than that. Just my opinion, YMMV greatly.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-06-bk-keddie6-story.html
Who ensures those elections are held and enacted? The army that works for the Government? Again, I point out I have no Red Dawn fantasies.. only that the people are the ones that make sure our Government tows the line. Without the ability to have arms we'd be at a much higher risk of being plain subjugated.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-06-bk-keddie6-story.html
I agree with you on most of your points. The US' gun fetish is disturbing. I just don't think it's something new. You go back to any time and you'll find the gun. We were founded by the gun and we've loved it ever since. Look at the loving tales of the 'Old West'. Those are almost all gun stories. It's also one of the reasons why I believe we're much different than other countries that got rid of guns. It's been ingrained into our culture... hell most (if not all) the summer blockbuster movies all have guns in them. We love the gun, right or wrong. I don't consider restrictions a bad thing, nor do I think they fly in the face of 2A. I only get bothered when we start placing restrictions that don't make sense. such as when we define a type of gun based upon it's color.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-06-bk-keddie6-story.html
The people do. Who else would? It's not like anyone would be asking permission from the Government to do so, and I'm completely baffled at why you allude to it. It would have to be a majority in order for any amount of chance of succeeding (The South learned it's pretty hard), and yes, there would be many that wouldn't agree. The US had a Nazi rally during WWII in NY. Shows you that there will always be some that don't agree with the popular choice.
It may be counter intuitive, but it's not that difficult to see how a group of people that were OK with British rule until it went too far wanted to make sure the Government they were forming didn't go too far. Things were built into our Constitution that did the best it could to make sure that power remained with the people of it's country and not just those in power. Again, with the tech we have now and the way the world has turned, 2A might be outdated. It's founding made sense at it's time at least...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-06-bk-keddie6-story.html

I'm under no such impression. Lets take your example of trump and lets say some how he doesn't leave office and he's somehow managed to convince whoever would remove him from office not to do so. Do you think the current crop of gun owners with the most weapons and the baddest weapons will defend trump or suddenly turn on him? I'll bet money they'll support him no matter what. So now what? Who is going to save our democracy now? Is the military going to side with trump or will they now fight the heavily armed trump supporters? How is our democracy secured using your interpretation of the 2nd? By making sure more people have guns? So basically if we ever get to that point then the remedy would be a civil war. Is that what the founding fathers envisioned?

What you have failed to realize is that those that work in government be it pencil pushers or professional soldiers and everything in between, are the people. If so many people are willing to break the law to support a tyrant and every check and balance we've put in place, via the constitution or laws an institutions then democracy as we know it is already dead.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Where to begin...



I'm under no such impression. Lets take your example of trump and lets say some how he doesn't leave office and he's somehow managed to convince whoever would remove him from office not to do so. Do you think the current crop of gun owners with the most weapons and the baddest weapons will defend trump or suddenly turn on him? I'll bet money they'll support him no matter what. So now what? Who is going to save our democracy now? Is the military going to side with trump or will they now fight the heavily armed trump supporters? How is our democracy secured using your interpretation of the 2nd? By making sure more people have guns? So basically if we ever get to that point then the remedy would be a civil war. Is that what the founding fathers envisioned?

What you have failed to realize is that those that work in government be it pencil pushers or professional soldiers and everything in between, are the people. If so many people are willing to break the law to support a tyrant and every check and balance we've put in place, via the constitution or laws an institutions then democracy as we know it is already dead.

I totally agree!!

 

[Jhhnn]

And that right there is the biggest problem with people who say the 2nd is for putting a tyrannical government in check; who gets to determine when that point is reached? Its just such ridiculous notion that I have no idea how anyone could come up with such reasoning.

Shee-it. They don't recognize tyranny when they're the ones exercising it. Quite the contrary.

 

[Skel]

I disagree that it's "something new". For decades, there had been a lot more people who were pro-regulation than people who were anti. Attitudes are changing and people are questioning the value of guns as not just the top issue, but the issue to the exclusion of all others. The hyperbole, the divisiveness.

Today's Gun lobby say their opponents are afraid of their rifles only because they're scary and black, but have no problem with wooden rifle of similar function. Many of them lack the self awareness to reflect on why they have a fevered insistence on buying the flashy, menacing scary black rifle instead of the wooden-stock rifle of similar function.

Today's Gun fetishists/absolutism live in an alternate reality where it's inevitable that either they will fight the government, or they will outlive a collapsed government.

The gun fetishist/absolutist understand or don't understand that, in a standoff with government forces, they are going to die. They are OK with this. Mainly because it's mostly posturing - it's easy to act badass about something that's never going to happen and, or something that you will never be victorious in.

My point had been that the US has always had a gun fetish. That's the not new part. While there are new conversations, and I do point out that there isn't a new uprising of wanting to regulate it, or just plain get rid of the gun. Even Roosevelt attempted gun restrictions. This isn't anything new other than it's more publicized due to modern media.

I agree that anyone attempting to stand up to the Government would die.. and probably very badly. It's one of the main reasons why I do agree that 2A is possibly out of date with today's world.

Where to begin...



I'm under no such impression. Lets take your example of trump and lets say some how he doesn't leave office and he's somehow managed to convince whoever would remove him from office not to do so. Do you think the current crop of gun owners with the most weapons and the baddest weapons will defend trump or suddenly turn on him? I'll bet money they'll support him no matter what. So now what? Who is going to save our democracy now? Is the military going to side with trump or will they now fight the heavily armed trump supporters? How is our democracy secured using your interpretation of the 2nd? By making sure more people have guns? So basically if we ever get to that point then the remedy would be a civil war. Is that what the founding fathers envisioned?

What you have failed to realize is that those that work in government be it pencil pushers or professional soldiers and everything in between, are the people. If so many people are willing to break the law to support a tyrant and every check and balance we've put in place, via the constitution or laws an institutions then democracy as we know it is already dead.

Now you're chaning the argument. You were speaking of why the Founding Fathers would have put a system in place that would allow it's citizens the tools to remove the Government if it went from serving the people to subjugating them. It's why I pointed out that there have historically been countries that had democracy and decided to remove it.. which is something the FF probably knew was always a risk. Ergo why I said it's (to me) pretty straight forward on why they thought it was important.

You're speaking of today's world suddenly, the same world where I've repeatedly said that I agree it's very possible 2A is completely outdated. Also, the system has only been tested once when the South attempted to secede. We haven't, and hopefully never will, have a test like you speak of. I haven't a clue what would happen. I honestly don't think anyone does.