The secessionist states chose to leave the country. They formed their own government including a constitution. I am not aware of any plans that they had to take over the Federal govt. in the North in the opposition of tyranny. They put up a fight, but I’m not sure it could be said that they planned to take over in order to restore slavery. Therefore, the 2nd amendment really does not apply. (In my opinion) You might feel differently.
I think the BP started out with noble intentions. It was only after their membership turned to criminal activities and such that their “opposition to tyranny” fell off the tracks.
A similar situation occurred in the town of Athens, TN 1946. The locals also felt that they were being oppressed by the local law enforcement conducting political corruption and voter intimidation. They rose up after law enforcement stole ballot boxes in order to fix the election. Long and short, they overthrew tyranny (locally) through the use of force. they established a new political order through the political process once the tyranny had been removed. LINK
I agree completely. See my link above for when resistance is/was appropriate however. There is and has been a time and a place and it wasn’t that long ago.
Here was my modest proposal from the other thread:
I don’t give anything up that I own, and in the end, I get a nationally accepted concealed carry permit. (win-win) Background checks are strengthened and mandatory training is applied.
The government is not omnipotent, and cannot simply legislate its way to a perfect society. Doing something is not automatically better than doing nothing - the Twenty-First Amendment should be a reminder of that.
And what premises does this incident support? That the 2nd Amendment implicitly approves of local insurrections? Surely it does not explicitly approve of them, so some interpretative dance is required, no? And it seems somewhat weakened by the Federal response to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. Happily, another example of insurrection without fatality. An admirable outcome, to be sure.
It has often been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Are you making the case that it is, in fact, just that? That the Founding Fuckups deliberately installed a self-destruct sequence? Was it their intention that unanimous agreement was the only basis of government ? That if any subgroup or local population should choose, the 2nd Amendment guarantees their right to armed insurrection?
What, they were not businessmen and farmers, but wild-eyed revolutionaries to make Tom Paine blush, American Trotskyists in pursuit of a state based upon permanent revolution? Rather a difficult environment to conduct business in. Uncertainty in the markets, that sort of thing. Bad for job creators.
I trust you will not take it as disrespectful if I offer the view that such an interpretation is imaginative.
What does it support? That the locals who had arms were able to overthrow their local government gone bad. Nobody faced any charges for their actions taking back the ballot boxes so it appears at that time, their actions were supported and justified.
I just stated what I thought “well regulated” meant. You made up the rest all by yourself.
Just a second, there, hoss. You offered the cite, and it said what it said. I quoted what it said, and you said you agreed with my interpretation.
Me:
Unless I am much mistaken, and you are invited to correct, this quote offers the proposition that the 2nd Amendment was framed and intended to offer legitimacy to a citizen rebellion against a tyrannical government. But the question arises about the legitimacy of such rebellion, since the actual meaning of “tyrannical” is open to interpretation.
Exactly how big of a mess do you see yourself in that will require 11 or more rounds without reloading?
Stay the hell out of those places or learn how to shoot.
And exactly why does a “hunting” rifle need a flash suppressor? Grenade launcher? Talking about not know how to shoot - if you need a grenade to bring down the deer, you’d better plan on buying groceries on the way home. Or hire a “guide” who does know how to shoot and will tell everyone you want to impress that YOU made the kill.
I agree that 2nd Amendment was framed and intended to offer legitimacy, or at least the means to a citizen rebellion against a tyrannical government. Furthermore, I also agree that the legitimacy of such rebellion is open to interpretation, as I discussed with the Athens War contrasted against the Black Panthers.
Suicide pact? No. A final check should everything go to shit at local, state or god forbid the federal level? Sure.
That’s your cue to begin the discussion that a buch of backwoods yokels could never stand up to the might of the Federal govt. tyrannical or otherwise.
I reply that not all members of the armed forces would fire against their own citizens, blah blah blah.
To hide the muzzle flash from you. Unless you’re going to ban night hunting altogether, not screwing up your night vision is a good thing.
Besides which, banning flash suppressors does not stop people from getting the benefit of flash suppressors - it just means you have finer tolerances in the amount of powder in each round, so that it finishes burning around the same time the bullet leaves the barrel.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a rifle that can’t fire a rifle grenade. It’s not like the grenades themselves aren’t heavily restricted, or are ever used by criminals, so you’d be banning the capability to fire some rifle grenades for absolutely no benefit.
Because the problem we are trying to solve isn’t guns. It’s crazy bastards with guns. To we solve the DUI problem by regulating car sales? A guy who has had 10 DUIs with a revoked license can still buy a car.
Making me attend a safety class before I buy my next gun will do absolutely nothing to prevent the next lunatic from stealing his mom’s gun (after she attended a safety class) from shooting up a school. It’s not the gun that should be the focus.
An extraordinary interpretation. One that i think may call for a bit more substance than you have offered. Quite a bit, actually. Is this fanciful notion popular among those often referred to as “pro gun”?
I had no such intention. And if words are to be put in my mouth, I’d prefer they were mine own, if its all the same to you.
Not that I owe you anything, nor am I interested in changing your mind, but you’ve never read such an interpretation here before in your 12 years as a guest? That the 2nd is a check against governmental tyranny?
Why do you need anything? Need does not require justification.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting. You guys are big on invoking the “militia” clause, so since you’re familiar with it perhaps you can show me the “hunting” clause.
The “grenade launcher” in question is not this, it’s this. Oh, they want you to think that it’s the former, but it’s the latter, something that both renders a rifle useless for firing ammunition out of it and is long-since functionally obsolete except for the purposes of display.
A flash hider is not a “flash suppressor”. It is a practical impossibility to hide the muzzle flash of a rifle. What it does is direct the flash away from the shooter’s eyes, not hide it from everybody else.
I suppose if you tell lies enough they become true, and this hardly makes a dent in the neverending disinformation campaign, but what the hell, I’m awake and I had nothing better to do than tilt at windmills.
“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” said Obama.
[/QUOTE]
Ok. So we have to have a solution to where Lanza couldn’t have gotten a hold of those weapons. He stole them from his Mom. His Mom would have passed a background check, could have taken training, could have registered the guns, could have paid a $200 NFA tax on the guns and Lanza would still have stolen the damn things. So these “reasonable solutions” must be a complete ban of all so called assault weapons and high capacity magazines with no grandfather clause.
Didn’t the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald specifically say that the government cannot ban a particular class of firearms that are commonly owned by the public?
“Reasonable solutions” are equal to gun bans, and that’s why I cringe when I hear the words.
