Why the second amendment argument is a joke

[Doppel]

guns are the only reason we still have freedom in this country. the government knows if they ever tried to turn america into a north american north korea that a hundred million armed adam lanzas would stand up and fight, thank god

Do Canadians not have freedom?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Do Canadians not have freedom?

Canadians have us protecting them. That ensures their freedom from foreign threats, and of course the domestic threats are already working their magic up there and have been for quite some time.

 

[sandorski]

Canadians have us protecting them. That ensures their freedom from foreign threats, and of course the domestic threats are already working their magic up there and have been for quite some time.

lolwut?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Guess you missed the comma and then the entire "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


Why in the everliving fuck would the framers of the Constitution put, as the 2nd amendment no less, that the government has the right to have an army and that army has the right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to have guns??? On what planet does that make sense? Are you seriously implying that the government would not be able to form an armed army without the 2nd amendment??

You are using your convenient interpretation of part that clause to support your argument whilst ignoring the full clause.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Your preferred clause exists in the context of my bolded part. Taken as a whole it indicates that citizens who are part of a militia can bear arms.

The clause does not say "A militia..." which is the only context where your interpretation would come even close to making sense.

 

[xj0hnx]

You are using your convenient interpretation of part that clause to support your argument whilst ignoring the full clause.



Your preferred clause exists in the context of my bolded part. Taken as a whole it indicates that citizens who are part of a militia can bear arms

The clause does not say "A militia..." which is the only context where your interpretation would come even close to making sense.

No, it doesn't. It is stating that a militia is needed for the security of the state, and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[brandonb]

You are using your convenient interpretation of part that clause to support your argument whilst ignoring the full clause.



Your preferred clause exists in the context of my bolded part. Taken as a whole it indicates that citizens who are part of a militia can bear arms.

The clause does not say "A militia..." which is the only context where your interpretation would come even close to making sense.

Again. Like I mentioned on the previous page (or was it 2 pages now)... If you don't have arms, you can't have neither a militia or a well regulated one. So this point you are trying to make is moot.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Because the 1st Amendment on the Bill of Rights wasn't created by a rebellion, it was created by the Government (capitalizing that word shows you're fucking insane), the same one that constantly threatens to censor and seize control of the internet, and the same one that has thrown people in prison for the thoughtcrime of being anarchists or muslims. Right you are.

Dear mr public schools as prison daycare centers,

Your argument is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Your Government (vs a governement) doing "bad things" does not mean that your Government is a "bad government" or that all governments are bad. Nor does it invalidate the original point, which is that Democracy has been good for human civilization.

Your humble servant,

Mr Fucking Insane.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Again. Like I mentioned on the previous page (or was it 2 pages now)... If you don't have arms, you can't have neither a militia or a well regulated one. So this point you are trying to make is moot.

Nope, you and xJohnx are

a) willfully ignoring the meaning of well regulated. and
b) putting words in my mouth I never typed (eg you cant have arms or that we dont need militias for the security of the state).

Its pretty simple. If you are a member of a well regulated militia you can have arms.

Unfortunately the framers didnt quite spell out what they meant by well regulated militia in the constitution itself, so we are left to divine what they meant.

 

[master_shake_]

Canadians have us protecting them. That ensures their freedom from foreign threats, and of course the domestic threats are already working their magic up there and have been for quite some time.

really, we do!!

protecting us from what?? the USA...terrorist's, chickens??

no one hates canada, we don't instigate fights we don't go and invade a country because they MIGHT have WMD's

and our leader never said you're either with us or a terrerist.

 

[OverVolt]

A militia would form if we needed one. Thats what a militia is, derp.

 

[schneiderguy]

Nope, you and xJohnx are

a) willfully ignoring the meaning of well regulated. and
b) putting words in my mouth I never typed (eg you cant have arms or that we dont need militias for the security of the state).

Its pretty simple. If you are a member of a well regulated militia you can have arms.

Unfortunately the framers didnt quite spell out what they meant by well regulated militia in the constitution itself, so we are left to divine what they meant.

Well regulated = well trained/well armed. Read Federalist #29.

 

[Darwin333]

You are using your convenient interpretation of part that clause to support your argument whilst ignoring the full clause.



Your preferred clause exists in the context of my bolded part. Taken as a whole it indicates that citizens who are part of a militia can bear arms.

The clause does not say "A militia..." which is the only context where your interpretation would come even close to making sense.

Wrong. The people who wrote this just fought a tyrannical government, one that tried to outlaw guns too by the way. The realized that a standing army was necessary for their freedom and any nation in general. That is why the comma separates the two, they understood that a well regulated militia was necessary (the government) and wanted to ensure that the people had the means to fight said government (or well regulated militia) should the need arise.

BTW, can you point out any other place in the bill of rights where the word "people" really meant the government or people employed by the government exclusively?

 

[sandorski]

How about a Compromise?

Adopt a more Swiss version of Gun Rights. That is, make every Person above the age of 18(or some arbitrary age) eligible for being part of a locally controlled Militia(States and/or Municipal). These Militia's would have strict structural guidelines(Command/Management structure), secure facilities(shooting ranges, training facilities, Weapon/Munitions storage), and regular Training exercises that Members can partake in(Members must partake in a minimum amount of Training, but can partake in more if they desire).

The Compromise is this: Complete Ban on certain Weapon Sales over-the-counter for Home Storage. However, any Militia Member has full access to Military Grade hardware up to a certain level, they can not remove it from the premises of the secure Militia structure(s) unless in case of Emergency declared by the Command of said Militia.

 

[HumblePie]

MooseNSquirrel,

You are so horribly wrong because you are not reading the 2nd Amendment in the context of when it was written.

It was written AFTER the revolutionary war. A war fought against a tyrannical and imperial regime. A war fought and won by BOTH well regulated militia AND PEOPLE. It wasn't only fought by an American army (ie a miltia), but also by ordinary people.

The way the second amendment is read is that it takes BOTH for the security of a country and that BOTH shall be able to bare arms without infringement. That's how the commas are put in and while. To assign the descriptive conjunctions to BOTH.

It is not saying that PEOPLE must be a part of a well regulated militia. Nor was that how the revolutionary war was won either. When you view the context of when, how, and why that amendment was written it becomes abundantly clear. To state otherwise once you have been told is to be self delusional at best or intentionally disingenuous at worst.

 

[HumblePie]

How about a Compromise?

Adopt a more Swiss version of Gun Rights. That is, make every Person above the age of 18(or some arbitrary age) eligible for being part of a locally controlled Militia(States and/or Municipal). These Militia's would have strict structural guidelines(Command/Management structure), secure facilities(shooting ranges, training facilities, Weapon/Munitions storage), and regular Training exercises that Members can partake in(Members must partake in a minimum amount of Training, but can partake in more if they desire).

The Compromise is this: Complete Ban on certain Weapon Sales over-the-counter for Home Storage. However, any Militia Member has full access to Military Grade hardware up to a certain level, they can not remove it from the premises of the secure Militia structure(s) unless in case of Emergency declared by the Command of said Militia.

While I applaud the Switz for their efforts, that is THEIR country, which is not founded on the same Freedoms as America. Forcing people into a militia/military is infringing upon our freedoms.

Now if our government wanted to give away free firearms with the stipulation that those fire arms can only be free with a training before receiving, I could be fine with that. So long as such a program was done at a state level and not a federal level and paid for by people of a state that wanted such a government action. Even then, that still gives people their right to NOT want to have arms if they don't want them.

 

[brandonb]

Its pretty simple. If you are a member of a well regulated militia you can have arms.

You are wrong.

Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders' definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of 'civil rulers' when he wrote:
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Also, don't you remember signing up for the draft when you are 18? Did you know that means you are already part of a well regulated militia, that the government can call you into service at any time? I do. I'm part of this militia until 45 years old. So that means I'm part of a well regulated militia, and that I can have guns.

 

[dmens]

Dear mr public schools as prison daycare centers,

Your argument is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Your Government (vs a governement) doing "bad things" does not mean that your Government is a "bad government" or that all governments are bad. Nor does it invalidate the original point, which is that Democracy has been good for human civilization.

Your humble servant,

Mr Fucking Insane.

All government action is based on threat of violence or imprisonment, therefore all governments are bad. The atrocities the US government commits is simply the result.

As for democracy being good for human civilization, compared against what? Pure autocracy? Not much of a compliment. I'll say that democracy could have worked if the voting citizenry were vigilant against all government overreach. but as de Tocqueville said, the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. That ship sailed long ago.

Another example, India, the largest democracy in the world, has gotten the Indian people all of jack shit. The transition from colonialism to democracy was nothing more than the handoff between one ruling class to another. The facade of consent created by democracy arguably allowed the new ruling class to engage in even more egregious corruption and theft.

And if you haven't realized it yet, exposing the lies in modern democracy is not advocating a return to autocracy.

 

[jackstar7]

And if you haven't realized it yet, exposing the lies in modern democracy is not advocating a return to autocracy.

Too true. It's not proposing any solutions at all, actually.

 

[dmens]

Too true. It's not proposing any solutions at all, actually.

Sure it is. Minimal government (minarchy) or none at all (anarchy).

 

[jackstar7]

Sure it is. Minimal government (minarchy) or none at all (anarchy).

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

[dmens]

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

And with that, citizen jackstar dismisses alternatives to the status quo. He can vote, after all. His voice MATTERS.

 

[jackstar7]

And with that, citizen jackstar dismisses alternatives to the status quo. He can vote, after all. His voice MATTERS.

I dismissed your alternatives. I've heard others that I prefer, and pursue those.

Fret not for me, anarchist dmens.