The left is getting armed

[bilby]

That's horseshit.

The militia was intended to be a cheaper alternative to a standing army, so that the government could weild military power without the expense of paying soldiers during peacetime.

The idea that a militia was able to go toe-to-toe against a professional army was understood to be nonsense as early as the Thirty Years War; American governments tried to do defence 'on the cheap', and the Second Amendment was intended to facilitate that - regardless of the revisionism of modern gun rights advocates.

The second amendment gives americans the right to join up and defend their nation or government from foreign or rebellious forces, as part of a 'bring your own weapons' armed force. The burning of the Whitehouse by British/Canadian forces in the war of 1812 demonstrated once and for all that this was ineffective, and that the cost of a standing army was unavoidable if your nation was to protect herself.

A well regulated militia is an historical oddity whose value was already becoming overshadowed by professional standing armies at the time of the Bill of Rights. Only in a backwater such as the colonial region that became the USA was this idea still considered viable - European nations already knew that such militias were a last resort, least viable option for defence.

No serious military or political strategist in history has ever credibly suggested that a militia might be an effective bulwark against a government led standing army - because militias ARE government led armies. They are just the cheap and nasty version of that concept.

You haven't read the Federalist Papers.

I still haven't located the hidden cameras you must have had installed in every place I have ever lived that you would have needed in order to have that knowledge.

The founders had several concerns they addressed and, as usual, there was no easy answers for one concern that did not exacerbate greater problems for another concern.

. They feared maintaining a standing army because of military coups, the tendency of governments to get involved in foreign conflicts, and the use of standing armies to support governments that become oppressive and use the army to control the citizenry. Their "solution" was to allow for the raising and maintaining an army but only for a two year period to repel invasion and to put down uprisings. - This seems to have worked fairly well until the Spanish-American war. Since then, the government has been expanding its authority and now we have our Army's involved in conflicts around the world.

. They feared expanding power of the central government. - Their "solution" was an armed citizenry that was better able to able to overthrow a government in the event it becomes too oppressive. History shows that popular uprisings against oppression have been successful in may cases and fail in many cases but more successful when the citizenry has access to arms. As Thomas Jefferson said, "...what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Governments should understand this so the existence of an armed citizenry should serve as a deterrent to the government assuming authoritarian control.

That's not the same claim you were making before. And it's STILL biased towards your political position and away from reality, albeit slightly less so than your earlier and definitely false claim.

 

[skepticalbip]

I still haven't located the hidden cameras you must have had installed in every place I have ever lived that you would have needed in order to have that knowledge.

It was a conclusion drawn from the fact that what you said the purpose of the 2nd amendment was is contrary to what the founders wrote in the Federalist Papers explaining their reasoning.

The founders had several concerns they addressed and, as usual, there was no easy answers for one concern that did not exacerbate greater problems for another concern.

. They feared maintaining a standing army because of military coups, the tendency of governments to get involved in foreign conflicts, and the use of standing armies to support governments that become oppressive and use the army to control the citizenry. Their "solution" was to allow for the raising and maintaining an army but only for a two year period to repel invasion and to put down uprisings. - This seems to have worked fairly well until the Spanish-American war. Since then, the government has been expanding its authority and now we have our Army's involved in conflicts around the world.

. They feared expanding power of the central government. - Their "solution" was an armed citizenry that was better able to able to overthrow a government in the event it becomes too oppressive. History shows that popular uprisings against oppression have been successful in may cases and fail in many cases but more successful when the citizenry has access to arms. As Thomas Jefferson said, "...what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Governments should understand this so the existence of an armed citizenry should serve as a deterrent to the government assuming authoritarian control.

That's not the same claim you were making before. And it's STILL biased towards your political position and away from reality, albeit slightly less so than your earlier and definitely false claim.

There were several reasons for the second amendment as explained by the founders. What I claimed was the reasons and meaning that applied to the argument in this thread as the founders explained in the Federalist Papers.

 

[bilby]

It was a conclusion drawn from the fact that what you said the purpose of the 2nd amendment was is contrary to what the founders wrote in the Federalist Papers explaining their reasoning.

That's not the same claim you were making before. And it's STILL biased towards your political position and away from reality, albeit slightly less so than your earlier and definitely false claim.

There were several reasons for the second amendment as explained by the founders. What I claimed was the reasons and meaning that applied to the argument in this thread as the founders explained in the Federalist Papers.

What you claimed was horseshit, and flies in the face of historical fact:

...The private militia was intended to be a check on the government's standing army so as to prevent a military coup or as a remedy in case the government became oppressive. The militia is the private citizens as opposed to the Army which is the government military personnel.

...

This is simply wrong. There WAS no 'standing army'. A 'military coup' and a 'rebellion of the citizens' were, at the time, indistinguishable.

The militia was intended to be in the control of the government. As an alternative to a proper army.

The Federalist Papers most assuredly do NOT indicate that the militia were intended to protect citizens' freedom against the US government. They were intended to protect the revolution against the British Empire, and against any attempt by the free citizens to reverse the result of the revolution (a non-trivial threat at the time), or to establish a different government in opposition to the one the founders were seeking to impose.

The idea that all the people in the new USA were freedom loving champions of the federal republic whose only fear was Big Government is a totally counterfactual and insane modern revision of history that comes directly from the US right wing. Any similarity to actual events is purely coincidental.

The Federalist Papers show the very real and present fear that the founding fathers had that their successful revolution might be overturned - a move that would have been widely popular. Many people opposed the revolution from the outset, and many more discovered that life was less good for them under the USA than it had been as British Colonies, and were keen to go back (with various caveats). Despite various purges, a sizable minority of new Americans were keen to resolve the differences with the crown, and return to colonial status (ideally with somewhat greater autonomy).

A couple of hundred years of determined propaganda to erase those counterrevolutionary ideas was successful to the point that it never even occurs to you that the context of these documents is not one of a united and secure sovereign state with loyal and patriotic citizens. The reality is that many Americans in the late eighteenth century were of the opinion that the existence of their nation was an act of treason. Which of course, it WAS.

To believe otherwise would require the premise that the revolt of the American colonies was unlike any other revolution in the history of the world, and that the people who lead the revolution were noble, kind, and honourable in a way that none of their contemporaries were. That's horseshit. They were people like any others, and they had a revolution that was totally unremarkable amongst revolutions through history, other than the minor fact that it was one of the minority of such revolutions to be successful - a success that owed more to British priorities than to American exceptionalism. The USA was founded on the fact that the British were too busy fighting the French to bother with a revolution in some remote and unimportant colonies.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently the founder father's true intent in the 2nd amendment was well-disguised until 2008 (Heller vs DC).

 

[skepticalbip]

What you claimed was horseshit, and flies in the face of historical fact:

...The private militia was intended to be a check on the government's standing army so as to prevent a military coup or as a remedy in case the government became oppressive. The militia is the private citizens as opposed to the Army which is the government military personnel.

...

This is simply wrong. There WAS no 'standing army'. A 'military coup' and a 'rebellion of the citizens' were, at the time, indistinguishable.

The militia was intended to be in the control of the government. As an alternative to a proper army.

The central government was not in control of the organized militia, each state was in control of their state's organized militia. No government agency was in control of the citizens militia.

The Federalist Papers most assuredly do NOT indicate that the militia were intended to protect citizens' freedom against the US government.

I would suggest that you re-read the Federalist Papers. And maybe the writings of Thomas Jefferson too.

They were intended to protect the revolution against the British Empire, and against any attempt by the free citizens to reverse the result of the revolution (a non-trivial threat at the time), or to establish a different government in opposition to the one the founders were seeking to impose.

And yet they insisted that those groups should be guaranteed their right to be armed?

The idea that all the people in the new USA were freedom loving champions of the federal republic whose only fear was Big Government is a totally counterfactual and insane modern revision of history that comes directly from the US right wing. Any similarity to actual events is purely coincidental.

I see no claim that ALL citizens agreed, only that it was the position of the writers of the Constitution which they clearly express in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers show the very real and present fear that the founding fathers had that their successful revolution might be overturned - a move that would have been widely popular. Many people opposed the revolution from the outset, and many more discovered that life was less good for them under the USA than it had been as British Colonies, and were keen to go back (with various caveats). Despite various purges, a sizable minority of new Americans were keen to resolve the differences with the crown, and return to colonial status (ideally with somewhat greater autonomy).

And yet the founders insisted on the rights of even those who disagreed with their views to be armed. The primary goal of the founders was individual freedoms and so a limited government.

A couple of hundred years of determined propaganda to erase those counterrevolutionary ideas was successful to the point that it never even occurs to you that the context of these documents is not one of a united and secure sovereign state with loyal and patriotic citizens. The reality is that many Americans in the late eighteenth century were of the opinion that the existence of their nation was an act of treason. Which of course, it WAS.

I am not saying that nut cases (both right and left) don't make asinine arguments. I am saying that if anyone wants to pontificate on the mindset of the founders then they should first read what they said their goals and reasoning was.

The Constitution provides a method of eliminating the rights guaranteed in 2nd Amendment. But the constitutional way would require repealing the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Assertions that it doesn't say what the founders said it says is the wrong way.

 

[bilby]

The central government was not in control of the organized militia, each state was in control of their state's organized militia. No government agency was in control of the citizens militia.

The Federalist Papers most assuredly do NOT indicate that the militia were intended to protect citizens' freedom against the US government.

I would suggest that you re-read the Federalist Papers. And maybe the writings of Thomas Jefferson too.

They were intended to protect the revolution against the British Empire, and against any attempt by the free citizens to reverse the result of the revolution (a non-trivial threat at the time), or to establish a different government in opposition to the one the founders were seeking to impose.

And yet they insisted that those groups should be guaranteed their right to be armed?

The idea that all the people in the new USA were freedom loving champions of the federal republic whose only fear was Big Government is a totally counterfactual and insane modern revision of history that comes directly from the US right wing. Any similarity to actual events is purely coincidental.

I see no claim that ALL citizens agreed, only that it was the position of the writers of the Constitution which they clearly express in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers show the very real and present fear that the founding fathers had that their successful revolution might be overturned - a move that would have been widely popular. Many people opposed the revolution from the outset, and many more discovered that life was less good for them under the USA than it had been as British Colonies, and were keen to go back (with various caveats). Despite various purges, a sizable minority of new Americans were keen to resolve the differences with the crown, and return to colonial status (ideally with somewhat greater autonomy).

And yet the founders insisted on the rights of even those who disagreed with their views to be armed. The primary goal of the founders was individual freedoms and so a limited government.

A couple of hundred years of determined propaganda to erase those counterrevolutionary ideas was successful to the point that it never even occurs to you that the context of these documents is not one of a united and secure sovereign state with loyal and patriotic citizens. The reality is that many Americans in the late eighteenth century were of the opinion that the existence of their nation was an act of treason. Which of course, it WAS.

I am not saying that nut cases (both right and left) don't make asinine arguments. I am saying that if anyone wants to pontificate on the mindset of the founders then they should first read what they said their goals and reasoning was.

And if anyone wants to pontificate on the role of militias and standing armies in the late eighteenth century, they should read some military history.

To be honest, the "mindset of the founders" is not something that should have ANY influence on what we do today. They lived in a completely different world. One where personal arms were muzzle loading long guns and pistols with very low effective ranges and very low rates of fire; And where a nation could consider, as a reasonable option, having no standing army at all. They also lived in a time when the success of their revolt was far from assured in the long term, and there was a very real threat that the British might re-take the American colonies.

They sure as shit didn't imagine that the Bill of Rights might be used as some kind of 'holy writ', perfect and immutable - they expected that the constitution would change a LOT over time, becasue they were not stupid enough to think that times were unchanging.

And they certainly didn't intend their rules to apply to the question of whether people could carry self loading rifles with large capacity magazines without having any responsibility to submit to military discipline if called upon to serve.

The second amendment provides that citizens have the right to own guns in order to ensure that they are suitably equipped and trained if called upon to serve their nation. It assumes a responsibility for those who own guns to turn up at well regulated training sessions, and to obey the regulations imposed by the state militias. In short, in today's USA, it gives every citizen the right to bear arms as a part of the National Guard for his state. All further interpretation is revisionist nonsense.

But nobody cares what it says, or even what it means. It's a political toy, and you would be better off ditching it altogether. But you can't, because your nation is dominated by morons who fervently believe that 'ancient wisdom written long ago' is a route to knowledge.

Grow up, America. Make your own rules, based on what you actually want for your nation, instead of trying to read the minds of dead people.

 

[skepticalbip]

The central government was not in control of the organized militia, each state was in control of their state's organized militia. No government agency was in control of the citizens militia.

I would suggest that you re-read the Federalist Papers. And maybe the writings of Thomas Jefferson too.

And yet they insisted that those groups should be guaranteed their right to be armed?

The idea that all the people in the new USA were freedom loving champions of the federal republic whose only fear was Big Government is a totally counterfactual and insane modern revision of history that comes directly from the US right wing. Any similarity to actual events is purely coincidental.

I see no claim that ALL citizens agreed, only that it was the position of the writers of the Constitution which they clearly express in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers show the very real and present fear that the founding fathers had that their successful revolution might be overturned - a move that would have been widely popular. Many people opposed the revolution from the outset, and many more discovered that life was less good for them under the USA than it had been as British Colonies, and were keen to go back (with various caveats). Despite various purges, a sizable minority of new Americans were keen to resolve the differences with the crown, and return to colonial status (ideally with somewhat greater autonomy).

And yet the founders insisted on the rights of even those who disagreed with their views to be armed. The primary goal of the founders was individual freedoms and so a limited government.

A couple of hundred years of determined propaganda to erase those counterrevolutionary ideas was successful to the point that it never even occurs to you that the context of these documents is not one of a united and secure sovereign state with loyal and patriotic citizens. The reality is that many Americans in the late eighteenth century were of the opinion that the existence of their nation was an act of treason. Which of course, it WAS.

I am not saying that nut cases (both right and left) don't make asinine arguments. I am saying that if anyone wants to pontificate on the mindset of the founders then they should first read what they said their goals and reasoning was.

And if anyone wants to pontificate on the role of militias and standing armies in the late eighteenth century, they should read some military history.

To be honest, the "mindset of the founders" is not something that should have ANY influence on what we do today. They lived in a completely different world. One where personal arms were muzzle loading long guns and pistols with very low effective ranges and very low rates of fire; And where a nation could consider, as a reasonable option, having no standing army at all. They also lived in a time when the success of their revolt was far from assured in the long term, and there was a very real threat that the British might re-take the American colonies.

They sure as shit didn't imagine that the Bill of Rights might be used as some kind of 'holy writ', perfect and immutable - they expected that the constitution would change a LOT over time, becasue they were not stupid enough to think that times were unchanging.

Of course they didn't. That is the reason they provided for a constitutional method of amending the Constitution. And it has been amended several times.

And they certainly didn't intend their rules to apply to the question of whether people could carry self loading rifles with large capacity magazines without having any responsibility to submit to military discipline if called upon to serve.

The second amendment provides that citizens have the right to own guns in order to ensure that they are suitably equipped and trained if called upon to serve their nation. It assumes a responsibility for those who own guns to turn up at well regulated training sessions, and to obey the regulations imposed by the state militias. In short, in today's USA, it gives every citizen the right to bear arms as a part of the National Guard for his state. All further interpretation is revisionist nonsense.

But nobody cares what it says, or even what it means. It's a political toy, and you would be better off ditching it altogether. But you can't, because your nation is dominated by morons who fervently believe that 'ancient wisdom written long ago' is a route to knowledge.

Grow up, America. Make your own rules, based on what you actually want for your nation, instead of trying to read the minds of dead people.

Although some think it is fine to grant the government the power to arbitrarily make laws without constitutional limitations they are only thinking of laws that they personally want enacted. They don't consider the problems of allowing the government powers not limited by constitutional restraints would create for themselves if that government is voted into office by a political party that they strongly oppose.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Apparently the founder father's true intent in the 2nd amendment was well-disguised until 2008 (Heller vs DC).

And then only in the tortured illogic of just one Justice. If Scalia had been alive back in the day, he would have never gone beyond clerk (if not shoeshine boy). And if he ever even attempted to make the argument he made in Heller, the entire body would have ordered him tarred and feathered.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently the founder father's true intent in the 2nd amendment was well-disguised until 2008 (Heller vs DC).

And then only in the tortured illogic of just one Justice. If Scalia had been alive back in the day, he would have never gone beyond clerk (if not shoeshine boy). And if he ever even attempted to make the argument he made in Heller, the entire body would have ordered him tarred and feathered.

Warren E. Burger, a conservative Republican appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Richard Nixon, wrote in 1990 following his retirement:

"The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a 'right of the people to keep and bear arms.' However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen...People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment...We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the 'right' guaranteed; in short, it was declared 'necessary' in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state."

And in 1991 Burger stated:

"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment...that a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the peoples' rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word 'fraud' — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

In a 1992 opinion piece, six former American attorneys general wrote:

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime.

 

[Elixir]

Strange to say the right is afraid. Weird even.

Really? Are you talking about "the right" that is shivering in their boots over a couple thousand shoeless migrants that are a thousand miles from our border? "The right" who are quivering at the thought that their granddaughter might hook up with a Mexican or a black dude and water down their superior bloodline? "The right" that responds so robotically to all of Cheato's fearmongering? Nah, they ain't a'feered a nuthin! Thass jus' WEIRD!

 

[Derec]

The Black Panthers decided they would no longer take racist abuse from racist cops. And armed themselves.

BS. They were a revolutionary Maoist group and armed themselves for that reason. They also ambushed and murdered cops, robbed banks etc.

Ronald Reagan lead the charge to end open carry in California and initiate California's strong gun laws. Pea brained conservatives moan and groan about People's Republic of California gun laws and blame that on the liberals, forgetting who it was who started California's crack down on guns.

Which has absolutely zero to do with why the BPs were arming themselves.

And when the issue of banning assault rifles came up in Congress, it was Ronald Reagan who spent weeks calling reluctant GOP congressmen to vote for that. Telling the US, one could be a good Republican and vote for a ban on assault rifles.

The only radio station in the US to be bombed off the air by the KKK. Twice. Not by the Black Panthers. Enough said.

Nobody is claiming that there are no violent right-wing groups. But whenever left-wing political violence is mentioned, people on here downplay it or pretend it is not what it is.
For example the ambush of police officers in Oakland in 1968 by Eldridge Cleaver and others.

 

[Opoponax]

BS. They were a revolutionary Maoist group and armed themselves for that reason. They also ambushed and murdered cops, robbed banks etc.


Which has absolutely zero to do with why the BPs were arming themselves.

And when the issue of banning assault rifles came up in Congress, it was Ronald Reagan who spent weeks calling reluctant GOP congressmen to vote for that. Telling the US, one could be a good Republican and vote for a ban on assault rifles.

The only radio station in the US to be bombed off the air by the KKK. Twice. Not by the Black Panthers. Enough said.

Nobody is claiming that there are no violent right-wing groups. But whenever left-wing political violence is mentioned, people on here downplay it or pretend it is not what it is.
For example the ambush of police officers in Oakland in 1968 by Eldridge Cleaver and others.

So the past 3 decades that right wing domestic terrorism in the U.S. has been so prevalent is no big because of left wing terrorism because of things that happened 50 years ago?

Man, I sure do wish Nixon would do something about OPEC shutting off the oil.

 

[Jarhyn]

BS. They were a revolutionary Maoist group and armed themselves for that reason. They also ambushed and murdered cops, robbed banks etc.


Which has absolutely zero to do with why the BPs were arming themselves.

And when the issue of banning assault rifles came up in Congress, it was Ronald Reagan who spent weeks calling reluctant GOP congressmen to vote for that. Telling the US, one could be a good Republican and vote for a ban on assault rifles.

The only radio station in the US to be bombed off the air by the KKK. Twice. Not by the Black Panthers. Enough said.

Nobody is claiming that there are no violent right-wing groups. But whenever left-wing political violence is mentioned, people on here downplay it or pretend it is not what it is.
For example the ambush of police officers in Oakland in 1968 by Eldridge Cleaver and others.

So the past 3 decades that right wing domestic terrorism in the U.S. has been so prevalent is no big because of left wing terrorism because of things that happened 50 years ago?

Man, I sure do wish Nixon would do something about OPEC shutting off the oil.

Apparently, yeah. Then, it has been the general case that right wing terrorists aren't called "terrorists" by the media. Like these 111% terrorists threatening attacks if Abrams wins her election, where for whatever reason the media won't just CALL them terrorists.

 

[Elixir]

So the past 3 decades that right wing domestic terrorism in the U.S. has been so prevalent is no big because of left wing terrorism because of things that happened 50 years ago?

Man, I sure do wish Nixon would do something about OPEC shutting off the oil.

Apparently, yeah. Then, it has been the general case that right wing terrorists aren't called "terrorists" by the media. Like these 111% terrorists threatening attacks if Abrams wins her election, where for whatever reason the media won't just CALL them terrorists.

Don't want to piss off the fucking terrorists, y'know. They prefer to be called The Guardians of Blood and Soil.
How would you like it if you were a dedicated Guardian of Blood and Soil going about your sacred business of eliminating The Others, and people started calling you a terrorist? I bet you'd be very butthurt and angry. They're only demanding a little respect for the good work they've been doing:

Look at their accomplishments from just the last year or two!