View Single Post
  #30  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:51 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
And I might add that the Poles and East Germans disposed of their communist overlords without firing a shot. Armed revolutions aren't that common any more, governments are toppled more by massive protests and/or more simply at the ballot box.
No, the communist puppet governments in eastern Europe couldn't survive without their Soviet overlords. Massive protests didn't work as well at Tiananmen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Or ignored as outdated.
When was the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11
Congress could, it's just that commerce raiding is obsolete militarily and the USA agreed with other maritime nations to stop doing so in order to prevent high seas piracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
1- Correct. Well regulated means organized and under control of an authority. Gun nuts have their own meaning which they think is true because it gets repeated.
This link, (admittedly pro-gun) gives several quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary over the years, demonstrating the archaic use of the phrase "well regulated". So no, it doesn't mean "under control of an authority"- which incidentally the term "disciplined" was used for at the time of the 2nd and contemporary writings like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I've read them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
So? It doesn’t refer to “the right of that militia to keep and bear arms”. It goes on and on about a well-regulated militia for a while, but for some reason then switches to mentioning the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not how I would’ve written it, but that’s how it got written.
And regarding documents contemporary with the 2nd Amendment: the word "militia" is invariably used in a context that makes it clear the writer is talking about the populace at large. They never, ever say "a militia"; it's always "the militia" i.e., a plural noun, as constructed from the Latin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
From former Chief Justice Warren Burger:
Quote:
The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.
I'm of the opinion that you cannot assert an individual right to bear arms unless you completely ignore the first half of the second amendment.
Funny, years before that the Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5 said
Quote:
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Doesn't sound like a bunch of rednecks to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Just like all those other rights are collective and predicated on being in some special group, right? Only if you are in the press, say, do you get a special protected right to speech, or if you are in a religious organization do you get a protected right of freedom of religion. Yeah, it all makes sense!

No, it doesn't. It never has. It's ridiculous to look at what the authors actually wrote and make the conclusion you are making except, as you already noted, you don't care what the authors wrote on the subject as it doesn't conform to your conclusion. And you have to match your already pre-determined conclusion with the facts or what fun is it all?
The Embarrassing Second Amendment pointed out how differently the 2nd has been treated from all other articles of the Bill Of Rights, and how problematic this is for progressives who want to promote human rights but at the same time be in favor of gun control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
The Senate has adopted rules whereby a Senator can invoke a filibuster without actually having to stand at the podium and read the unabridged dictionary for hours and hours.

Can't we adopt a rule by which the individual citizen can invoke a revolution against the government and if the government can't get 3/5 of the populace to overrule it, they have to disband or something, without doing the gun thing?

I mean, it isn't like a basement supply of AK-47s is going to enable the local activist to resist the firepower available to the federal government. Now if the 2nd amendment were to be interpreted as giving me as an individual the right to amass an arsenal of tactical nukes, well maybe. Throw in some positioning satellites for good measure. But as far as I know, the 2nd amendment is not interpreted in that fashion, so there are already limits on what I'm allowed to own, firepower-wise, yes?
Why, why, why, why, WHY do some people insist that a pro-gun interpretation of the Second Amendment would mean that any tiny band of yahoos can rebel against the government? They can try, certainly, but they'll be heavily outvoted by lots of other people with guns; just for starters, those volunteers from the posse comitatus and the militia that form our civil police forces and National Guard. That was the whole point: an armed population would be democracy in its rawest form, in situations where civil law and voting had failed. From 1861 to 1865 a very large group of people decided to rebel against the US government; they only failed because an even larger group of people chose (or at least, acquiesced) to fight against them.

As for the argument that the civilian population is inadequately armed to resist a tyranny, gun proponents agree: by a series of legal sophistries it has became all but impossible to legally acquire select-fire rifles. Many gun proponents want the 1934 NFA scrapped.