The "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment is nonsense

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

Actually, to retrieve their own powder supplies from an area already held by the rebels, who generally were in favor of remaining loyal British subjects once this taxation foolishness was over with.

The British army was as effective as the later Union Army in wholesale freeing of slaves, btw. Any who escaped to their lines would not be returned, and any of their children born in British-held areas were free.

Hahahaha. What the heck are you talking about? The British Army = the Union Army??? British slaves were freed from British owners by the British Army?

Your “effective” British Army was run out of the colonies at the point of a gun and bayonet. The British army had made several failed attempts to disarm the British colonists. The CONFISCATION efforts intended for Lexington and Concord resulted in gunfire and the British Army being driven back to Boston, and eventually back to England.

The repeated attempts by the British government to confiscate “arms” from the British colonists, at the whim of the British government, weighed heavily on the minds of those who voted for the Bill Of Rights, which included the right of individuals to bear arms.

[ElvisL1ves]

@doorhinge

Hahahaha. What the heck are you talking about? The British Army = the Union Army??? British slaves were freed from British owners by the British Army?

History is a fascinating subject, if you’re open to it. Did you know about Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, for instance? Or the Philipsburg Proclamation? Apparently not. Then you also don’t know that many slaves freed by their success in gaining British lines moved to Nova Scotia, and then on to found Sierra Leone, a few of George Washington’s own slaves included.

Your “effective” British Army was run out of the colonies at the point of a gun and bayonet.

The discussion was about those weapons guaranteeing freedom and democracy rather than mob rule. The deeper you look, the softer the lines become, hmm?

The CONFISCATION efforts

When did the rebels gain ownership of the King’s powder?

The repeated attempts by the British government to confiscate “arms” from the British colonists, at the whim of the British government, weighed heavily on the minds of those who voted for the Bill Of Rights, which included the right of individuals to bear arms.

The Constitution also gives the government authority and means to suppress insurrections, as you might know if you’d read it. IOW meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[ElvisL1ves]

Whatthehell, let’s go to the source material about what the convention delegates had in mind. Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress …

None of which suggests allowing the common rabble to *threaten *it with insurrection. No, the purpose of the militia explicitly includes *suppressing *insurrection. Claims to the contrary are, let’s be charitable, result-based.

[Lumpy]

@ElvisL1ves

Whatthehell, let’s go to the source material about what the convention delegates had in mind. Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress …

None of which suggests allowing the common rabble to *threaten *it with insurrection. No, the purpose of the militia explicitly includes *suppressing *insurrection. Claims to the contrary are, let’s be charitable, result-based.

Which if you read the Antifederalist papers you’ll discover was plenty controversial at the time. The federal government was to have a standing army and would have authority over the militia? Plenty of people complained bitterly that that was practically begging for a federal dictatorship. The Second Amendment was largely to counter Article I, Section 8: that notwithstanding the provisions of A1S8, the fed was on no pretext to disarm the citizenry. In other words, the Federal government was not to use its militia authority to issue a single permanent order- “stand down forever”- to the citizenry.

[ElvisL1ves]

There were worries that the federal government would have the means as well as the will to abolish slavery, yes. Calling that a “federal dictatorship” is a bit much, especially when you’re invoking the preservation of freedom as a pretext.

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

History is a fascinating subject, if you’re open to it. Did you know about Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, for instance? Or the Philipsburg Proclamation? Apparently not. Then you also don’t know that many slaves freed by their success in gaining British lines moved to Nova Scotia, and then on to found Sierra Leone, a few of George Washington’s own slaves included.

Are you tired of discussing the 2nd Amendment or have you run out of arguments? Slavery? Union Army? Lord Diddlesworth(sp?)?

The 2nd is an individual right just like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill Of Rights. The SCOTUS has decided that the 2nd is an individual right. The voters remove politicians who decide otherwise.

[ElvisL1ves]

@doorhinge

Are you tired of discussing the 2nd Amendment or have you run out of arguments? Slavery? Union Army? Lord Diddlesworth(sp?)?

Perhaps a re-read of the OP would be in order for you. Or at least its title.

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

Perhaps a re-read of the OP would be in order for you. Or at least its title.

The title of the thread is -

“The “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment is nonsense”

I’m a bit confused about your side trip to -

“Did you know about Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, for instance? Or the Philipsburg Proclamation? Apparently not.”

On the other hand, the 2nd is still considered an individual right. An individual right of self-defense.

[adaher]

Without which all other rights are meaningless.

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

…When did the rebels gain ownership of the King’s powder?

When did the King take control of the British colonist’s powder? Are you assuming that all powder and shot belonged to the King? There was no mention in Lt. Col. Smith’s order that the stores/powder belonged to the King.

*Orders from General Thomas Gage
to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot

Boston, April 18, 1775
Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot,

Sir,

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless.

You will observe by the Draught that it will be necessary to secure the two Bridges as soon as possible, you will therefore Order a party of the best Marchers, to go on with expedition for the purpose.

A small party of Horseback is ordered out to stop all advice of your March getting to Concord before you, and a small number of Artillery go out in Chaises to wait for you on the road, with Sledge Hammers, Spikes, &c.

You will open your business and return with the Troops, as soon as possible, with I must leave to your own Judgment and Discretion. I

I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant
Thos. Gage.*

Paul Revere Heritage Project

[Lumpy]

@doorhinge

Are you tired of discussing the 2nd Amendment or have you run out of arguments? Slavery? Union Army? Lord Diddlesworth(sp?)?

I believe that he’s trying to dredge up the slur that claims the state militias’ primary function was preventing slave revolts, and that the “insurrection” mentioned in Article One Section Eight was meant to refer to slave revolts. IOW, that the whole theory of an armed populace was promulgated by slave owners. And that the British were comparable to the Union Army of the Civil War because they freed slaves of rebel masters.

So, in ElvisL1ves’s doctrine, the British were the champions of freedom and the colonists were the tyrants. :smack: He and BrainGlutton have been preaching this for a number of years now- that only thugs and bullies want guns. :rolleyes:

[doorhinge]

@Lumpy

I believe that he’s trying to dredge up the slur that claims the state militias’ primary function was preventing slave revolts, and that the “insurrection” mentioned in Article One Section Eight was meant to refer to slave revolts. IOW, that the whole theory of an armed populace was promulgated by slave owners. And that the British were comparable to the Union Army of the Civil War because they freed slaves of rebel masters.

So, in ElvisL1ves’s doctrine, the British were the champions of freedom and the colonists were the tyrants. :smack: He and BrainGlutton have been preaching this for a number of years now- that only thugs and bullies want guns. :rolleyes:

As I remember, the British Army/Empire was eventually kicked out of most of their colonies. Sometimes by force, sometimes by ballot. Either way, they had to go back to their island where they continue to debase the Irish.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Lumpy

I believe that he’s trying to dredge up the slur that claims the state militias’ primary function was preventing slave revolts

You’re not getting it. The Constitution does indeed say that militias are to put down insurrections - it’s right there in the text: I even quoted it for you. The thread topic, since you seem not to get that either, is that the notion that militias are there to be insurrectors *themselves *is nonsense. And that’s what the Constitution itself says. Don’t like it? Amend it.

So, in ElvisL1ves’s doctrine, the British were the champions of freedom and the colonists were the tyrants. :smack: He and BrainGlutton have been preaching this for a number of years now- that only thugs and bullies want guns. :rolleyes:

And yet that’s what the evidence shows was the case, isn’t it?

[Lumpy]

@ElvisL1ves

You’re not getting it. The Constitution does indeed say that militias are to put down insurrections - it’s right there in the text: I even quoted it for you.

No it doesn’t. What it says it that one of the powers of the Federal government is to assume control of the militias in three circumstances: to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. That doesn’t speak to why militias existed in the first place.

Of course one of the militia’s duties would be to help enforce the civil police power of the government, especially in an age when the police consisted of county sheriffs, town constables and their deputies. The militia was how the state guaranteed that any outlaw couldn’t recruit a band of brigands and set himself up as a bandit chieftain; that anyone who tried would face a coordinated response from the people defending themselves. An armed populace is democracy in its rawest form.

Don’t like it? Amend it.

We did; the Second Amendment.

[andros]

@Lumpy

No it doesn’t. What it says it that one of the powers of the Federal government is to assume control of the militias in three circumstances: to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. That doesn’t speak to why militias existed in the first place.

Lumpy, if I’m reading you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the citizens’ militia has an inherent purpose all its own, and that those three purposes enumerated in the Constitution are merely…useful by-products of their initial existence?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Lumpy

Of course one of the militia’s duties would be to help enforce the civil police power of the government, especially in an age when the police consisted of county sheriffs, town constables and their deputies. The militia was how the state guaranteed that any outlaw couldn’t recruit a band of brigands and set himself up as a bandit chieftain; that anyone who tried would face a coordinated response from the people defending themselves. An armed populace is democracy in its rawest form.

IOW, suppressing insurrections - and that is still the case even when that band of brigands tells each other that they’re fighting for freedom against the tyranny of a government gone rogue, and are attempting to defend democracy. Still, to a neutral outside observer like yourself, they can still appear to be mere bands of brigands, pissed off at something they lost the argument about, and resorting to their bangsticks for comfort. Such as the tax-angered American rebels, for instance, who got their butts kicked all the way to Valley Forge until they were formed into a disciplined military force.

We did; the Second Amendment.

Pity, then, that it says fuck-all about a right to insurrection, but only clearly amplifies the need for the government to have militias (well-regulated ones at that, not bands of brigands) to *suppress *them. The ability of the gun-rights zealots to find that the amendment means exactly the opposite of what it says is amazing.

Here’s another thing: The delegates also included a way, right in the Constitution itself, for Us the People to chuck the whole thing and start over if we were all that unhappy with how it was working. No need for an armed revolt and all that needless bloodshed, just summon a new convention.

[adaher]

A Constitution is just a scrap of paper without the ultimate resort to force that backs it up. And it goes both ways. If citizens rebel against a lawful government, then that’s an insurrection that should be put down. If a government rebels against its own Constitution, then the people are the agents of the law and the government the insurrectionist.

[ElvisL1ves]

Who, in your philosophy of the Constitution, determines when that has occurred? A bunch of sore losers with guns?

[Buck_Godot]

@adaher

A Constitution is just a scrap of paper without the ultimate resort to force that backs it up. And it goes both ways. If citizens rebel against a lawful government, then that’s an insurrection that should be put down. If a government rebels against its own Constitution, then the people are the agents of the law and the government the insurrectionist.

But if the government rebels against the constitution then the 2nd amendment isn’t going to offer much protection.

[adaher]

@ElvisL1ves

Who, in your philosophy of the Constitution, determines when that has occurred? A bunch of sore losers with guns?

Depends on how big the bunch is and if the military believes in the government enough to shoot at their own people.

It’s one thing when you’re up against a bunch of crazy survivalists. another entirely when you’re facing a general insurrection because the government itself claimed powers it is not entitled to.