It’s called progress. We’re simply better people than they were, by an enormous margin.
And with all our hindsight not nearly good enough.
I can’t imagine what the der trihs of 2250 will say about your barbaric notions.
It really isn’t, since it was won via a clash of conventional armies. Irregulars didn’t win the war, conventional training made the difference.
Not sure you want to go there. The 2nd amendment consists of a factual claim followed by a mandate. Falsify the factual claim (something done with ease) and logic dictates that the mandate is void. Otherwise why have the preamble? So the 2nd amendment indeed was written with great precision by our founders: we need to clear out the conservative judicial activists and go back to original intent. At any rate, the National Guard is really the only well organized non-Federal militia, though I would be open to having well regulated private ones if hobbyists desired it.
To repeat, I’m saying the most NRA members in practice wouldn’t engage in hooliganism or attacks on the military, whether or not they have military or law enforcement experience. This 2nd amendment solution stuff is the province of blowhards, loons and traitors.
Hopefully I’ll be stupid, disgusting and evil by their standards. Because if I’m not that’ll mean our descendents haven’t improved.
Of course, the Der Trihs of 2250 will take the absolute measure of you without regard to the times and culture in which you lived and find you despicable. Don’t worry though, the Der Trihs of 2500 thinks that guy is an asshole too.
The american colonies had no standing army before the war. The irregulars became regulars. Contrast that with our situation where a large part of our irregulars are veterans or law enforcement.
The supreme court has read the prefatory clause separately from the operative clause. The operative clause does not rely on the prefatory clause being true. And how the heck do you prove the prefatory clause false anyways?
The folks who call for second amendment solutions are crackpots and I have only heard this sort of language after a black guy won the presidency. They feel that democracy MUST have failed for a black man (or any minority) to have won a presidential election. So I would add racists and partisans to that list of possible descriptors.
The people who consider the second amendment a bulwark against tyranny don’t strike me as blowhards, loons and traitors.
Well we don’t know if the Der Trihs of 2500 has any basis for that opinion.
Right, as irregulars and semi-regulars, they got their asses kicked all the way to Valley Forge. Only after becoming well-regulated did they become effective. And the lesson is …? :dubious:
Are you ever going to read the entire decision? Or anything else you can’t tell yourself says what you want it to?
And they’re your comrades in arms. Congratulations.
:dubious:
I think you need to read a little bit more about the revolutionary war.
Are you??
And some of the people on the gun control side are equally embarrassed of you.
I don’t stop supporting abortion rights simply because Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor and I don’t expect I will stop supporting gun rights just because there are some whackos that also support gun rights.
Not all of them, of course, but why not? Many of them believed in the supremacy of the white race and helped draft an organic law that protected the institution of slavery.
I missed it. What kinds of guns did the protesters take to the Texas state house to block the bill on abortion? Was it the same as the gays used to force the SCOTUS to overturn DOMA?
Nobody is saying that the democratic process or a nation of laws cannot function without guns. The argument is that guns provide a bulwark against tyranny. Whether you agree or not is up to you but too many gun grabbers pretend that the gun nut’s are arguing that our democracy would not function without guns.
“Tyranny” being defined as “a result of the democratic process that you dislike”, of course (see: “Second Amendment remedies”).
Any other definition is a laughable fantasy with horribly real consequences.
While the democratic process can result in tyrannies of the majority, the second amendment does not provide a very effective shield against a tyranny of the majority. The right to bear arms can only really be effective against tyrannies of the minority or something like despotism.
I don’t think we are in danger of despotism anytime soon but if you are going to argue against their arguments then you should at least try to understand their arguments.
So… the revolutionary war is not a qualifier then, right? Because your argument is shifting all over the map.
I’m not playing gotcha here. I’m saying that the bulwark against tyranny argument doesn’t bear scrutiny and never has. The arguments are that 1) irregulars can’t do squat against a regular army and 2) irregulars can and do act as thugs against minorities and those opposing the central government. You have not demonstrated any examples of irregulars playing a constructive role at all (though I know of one - there was a brief moment during the Revolutionary War where this occurred. But that’s not much of a bulwark really). 3) Let me be clear. After the civil war elections were held in the South and a few Northerners were elected. Armed white southerners overthrew such governments and made sure that blacks wouldn’t vote in relevant numbers for close to 100 years. Irregulars may fold in the face of an organized army, but they sure know how to bully. And when both sides are armed, you have Lebanon.
Furthermore, yes, lots of ex-military own guns. Lots don’t. But their gun ownership is tangential to liberty: their training arguably is not.
The 2nd amendment makes such a claim. It’s empirically false.
Damuri: I know we’re not in Great Debates. But your bulwark argument is superficial and doesn’t bear scrutiny. I don’t have a problem with gun hobbyists. I do have a problem with those with delusions of grandeur.
Huh?
Was al Qaeda in Iraq irregular?
So can the regular army. Just ask the north koreans.
I was always under the impression we won the revoloutionary war at least in part by using geurilla tactics, with irregulars. You’re telling me that those geurilla tactics and irregulars were actually irrelevant?
What about Syria?
Didn’t we just have something like Lebanon, it was called the Civil War?
And aren’t you saying that an armed citizenry can overthrow their government?
Also, now that the VRA has been partially gutted, the disenfranchisement might just start up again.
I think you are confusing anecdotal and empirical.
I think you’re stating an opinion. I don’t subscribe to the defense of tyranny school of thought because I believe it will not be necessary. I don’t know if it could be effective, but haven’t we seen effective use of irregulars throughout history? Didn’t we just pull our collective assesw out of a war where irregulars were giving us a lot of trouble?
Can I hijack this thread to ask a serious question? (I’d try GQ but it would probably end up here anyway.)
For my home defense, I need a rocket launcher, two grenade launchers and a flame thrower. (I’d also like a M242 Bushmaster, but I’m waiting for the price to come down.) Yet AFAICT, none of these arms are even legal in this so-called Land of the Free unless they’ve been deactivated. :smack: What good would they be then?
The Fascists are coming, and they’re well armed. We Citizens won’t stand a chance, unless we’re better armed.
I’m sure to some of the pansy liberals here, the arms I need will seem like overkill. But the Fascists’ troops are better armed than this. When they come for me it will be in armored cars or even by helicopter. They’ll be wearing body armor so, even though I practice with targets everyday, it’s unlikely I’ll be able to take many of them out before they get me, given the puny weapons the liberals let me own.
The Second Amendment ensures I have the God-given Right “to keep and bear arms.” It doesn’t say “bear small-caliber arms with a small magazine;” it doesn’t say “arms that some liberal not even born in this Country thinks you’re entitled too.” It says “keep and bear arms.” Period.
Yes, I know the Fore-Fathers didn’t know about rocket launchers, but they didn’t know about revolvers either! In fact, most of the “arms” in those days were muzzle-loaded muskets. Anyone who thinks I’m not entitled to a rocket launcher, probably thinks I’m allowed only muskets or other 18th century arms.
(Because of the dangers from foreign Communists, Islamists, and Social Democrats, as well as from our own government’s terrorists and Fascists, some of us want to pool our resources and buy chemical and nuclear weapons as well, but I’ll save those questions for a follow-up.)
Here’s a serious response: in what conceivable situation would your using those weapons on your own do you any good? Just you- no rebel army, no band of partisans, not even the neighborhood watch. If you’re lucky you’ll take out a couple of humvees and one APC; then what? If the excrement has hit the air circulator to that extent, you’re up the creek anyway.
Most people wouldn’t bother to own such things, except maybe as expensive toys, even if they were legal. For all practical intents and purposes, the question of what weapons people can lawfully own hinges on the possession of explosives; since virtually all heavy military ordinance uses either explosive warheads or charges of propellant large enough to be considered explosive devices in their own right.
Pro-gun as I am, I could see a case for requiring owners of such weapons to be regulated under something like a land equivalent of a letter of marque, with the federal government heavily overseeing platoon-level arms; I believe that would be consistent with Article One Section Ten of the Constitution.
One citizen with a decent rifle can make a difference. A million citizens with decent rifles can can overthrow a tyranny. I don’t think we will see tyranny in our lifetime or even in our children’s lifetime but if it does, it won’t last long.
If you are fighting a one man war against the government then you aren’t fighting tyranny, you are a criminal.
Yes but the prefatory clause of the second amendment might give states the right to possess these items with or without the consent of the federal government.
Of course, ask JFK or MLK.
Now imagine that that they were Hitler or the leader of North Korea.
How long would they have lasted in a nation with an armed citizenry?