demagogue on 7/8/2022 at 07:08
The 2nd Amendment was about (1) state defense forces and the National Guard, which should be comparable with other militaries, so should include machine guns, but it's not really all that contested; and (2) armed posses for things like capturing fugitive slaves and defending white settlements from native Americans, etc, which has long outlived its purpose with the 13th Amendment and Indian Citizenship law, etc.
But it seems unconstitutional or incompatible with the rest of the constitution in spirit anyway, definitely now if not to begin with, since it doesn't fit with the values the constitution is supposed to support. It assumes there are domestic enemies that are military matters outside the jurisdiction of police and that the national military doesn't have the capacity to deal with, which is currently wrong on all three accounts. And I think anybody that thinks it's still on board with that has an abhorrent worldview that itself seems pretty anti-American.
About the only use of it along those lines I could imagine is if the country were literally invaded and occupied, that amendment would legitimate citizen groups going all Wolverine against the occupying force. It's not really a viable threat right now, and if it ever becomes so, we can cross that bridge when we get there.
Pyrian on 7/8/2022 at 07:54
Quote Posted by Tocky
It does point out the fault in the founding fathers interpretation of the second amendment.
The founding fathers 100% intended the second amendment to protect the rights of States to arm their militias. It had literally eff-all to do with any sort of individual right at the time.
Starker on 7/8/2022 at 08:10
Quote Posted by mxleader
Maybe they didn't envision the AK but they did envision having to deal with tyrannical governments. You have to remember that the modern US government is not by the people for the people but bought by the corporation for the corporation.
You're assuming, though, that the armed citizens would fight against the tyrannical government and not line up in support of it. Or take up arms if they don't like the legitimate election results or want to start a civil war because the country is being "stolen" by a nebulous "them".
mxleader on 7/8/2022 at 15:03
Quote Posted by Starker
You're assuming, though, that the armed citizens would fight against the tyrannical government and not line up in support of it. Or take up arms if they don't like the legitimate election results or want to start a civil war because the country is being "stolen" by a nebulous "them".
I think there's already a Trump thread in CommChat but, that being said, you are talking about a very small portion of the population. What keeps people or governments in check is the fear of the unknown. Nobody really knows who will do what and what the outcome would be. It's similar to the Cold War with mutually assured destruction. I fully support having a government to keep things from descending into chaos and total anarchy but prefer to keep that government at arms length if you get my meaning.
Tocky on 7/8/2022 at 17:19
Indeed. No government should over reach into peoples sex lives and pregnancies.
mxleader on 8/8/2022 at 02:44
Quote Posted by Tocky
Indeed. No government should over reach into peoples sex lives and pregnancies.
The two most unwinnable arguments in the US are guns and abortion. One of my professors banned the subject for research papers, before it was fashionable to ban everything, because they are unwinnable arguments that are over researched in college. I did the next best thing by researching WMD usage by the US because mutually assured destruction is awesome, which is what happens politically when you play around with abortion and gun rights.
Nicker on 8/8/2022 at 05:41
Quote:
...before it was fashionable to ban everything...
:rolleyes:
Starker on 8/8/2022 at 20:14
Quote Posted by mxleader
I think there's already a Trump thread in CommChat but, that being said, you are talking about a very small portion of the population. What keeps people or governments in check is the fear of the unknown. Nobody really knows who will do what and what the outcome would be. It's similar to the Cold War with mutually assured destruction. I fully support having a government to keep things from descending into chaos and total anarchy but prefer to keep that government at arms length if you get my meaning.
At least in the case of the US, I haven't seen much of it. Nobody took up arms when the US started to put its citizens in camps in WW2, for example. On the contrary, a lot of people enthusiastically supported it.
And in the most famous example where people have taken up arms against the US government, it was for less than wholesome reasons and ended up disastrous for both sides. Other than that, there are mostly only individual acts of terror, whether it's assassinating a government official, which the case of Shinzo Abe shows you could do even under the most restrictive and draconian gun control, or blowing up a federal building, for which you need no guns at all.
All in all, I would argue that this kind of threat of violence is not really very effective either. Tyrannical governments have overwhelming force on their side, the kind that doesn't back down or isn't intimidated easily. In the case of Black Panthers, for example, the government simply went and murdered the shit out of them, as happened with Fred Hampton.
In fact, outside of right wing fantasies like the Turner Diaries, it's very hard to envision a scenario where the US government would seriously have to fear being overthrown by its citizens by force. It would at minimum take either a civil war, which would really just be parts of the state fighting against itself, or a revolution backed by several powerful nations, like it happened in the American Revolutionary War.
Nicker on 9/8/2022 at 01:34
Quote:
it's very hard to envision a scenario where the US government would seriously have to fear being overthrown by its citizens by force.
Ooooo! I know!!
A cabal of evil men stacks the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, the DOJ etc. etc. Then they send a mob of armed peasants to murder the Vice President and other key officials during the certification of the Presidential Election. When order breaks down the ex-president declares martial law and the purges begin.
Outraged by this treason, citizens rise up against the Tyrant...
Tocky on 9/8/2022 at 02:45
Too far fetched. No president would be that much of a narcissist. After all, in over 200 years they have all accepted loss with grace and followed the example of love of country over self as Washington did. We are smart enough to not fall for such obvious manipulation as well.
I really do miss thinking that way.
