Bingo. I’ve likewise spent an inordinate amount of time playing whack-a-mole with gun-nutters who trot out this myth. It’s like they ignore the reality that what they think is the core rationale for the 2nd is in direct conflict with the only explicitly spelled out crime in the Constitution… taking up arms against the United States.
3 Likes
Total nonsense. It was never intended to give permission to take up arms against the Government.
Who gets to make the decision as to what constitutes a rogue government, the teabaggers?
Who gets to be the general in charge of this loose band of paranoid fanatics fighting what they consider a rogue government? Who gives the first order to fire?
In Tucson we love guns more than their victims.
Both Stephen and you seem pretty thoroughly convinced of your own correctness to the point that you aren’t bothering to understand the subtly of the arguments other people are presenting. I pretty much agree with both of you there is nothing in the 2A that supports the current logic of personal gun ownership, and have said nothing that would go against that. Okay? So that’s, “total nonsense” and contempt worthy? Don’t just flame for it’s own sake.
1 Like
There goes his street cred. But he can always double down on his “Obamacare is Worse than Slavery” theme to get it back.
I hate you for making me do this after I just sat down with a glass of wine. I wrote a real treatise on this a while back on the boards and I wish I could just access that rather than going through my files and books again.
Consider that the Constitution was drafted by the landed gentry and the barons of trade in the day.
On its face, does it make more sense that they wished to have access to an armed pool of citizens, rather than a hated standing army, to counter outside threats or that they wished to endow the common folk with the ability to overthrow the system of laws they carefully crafted, through insurrection? In fact, as the Constitution says, militias are to be used to “suppress insurrections,” not cause them
Shays Rebellion and Washington’s response to it make it clear that the avenue for redress is through courts and law not an individualist determination of tyranny and revolt.
Natural law, as understood by the framers at the time, provides whatever justification for rebellion against oppression necessary and would have been held distinct from the laws and procedures needed to govern the country.
Okay, that’s off the top of my head.
If I have to continue, I’ll have to review some things about the Militia Acts and get some supporting quotes and footnotes.
You really gonna make me do this?
4 Likes
It comes down to do we have the right to bear arms or don’t we? If, as Carson (along with the NRA) claims, types of arms should be limited, who becomes the arbiter? I’ve always wondered, to the NRA’s way of thinking, why can’t I have my own nuclear armed B-52 standing by at my local airport. Why can’t I bring a bazooka into Starbuck’s? Why can’t I plant claymores in my yard? The “right to bear arms” is bullshit, clung to by little dicked macho men.
2 Likes
I’m not at all upset with you or or the points you raise. In fact, I appreciate the excuse to shake some thoughts out of my brain even if I pretend to be annoyed by it.
With all due respect, that is not a subtle point of differentiation between our views. I would say that we are diametrically opposed on this issue.
1 Like
This is exactly the approach liberals should be taking to rein in the NRA. There are already limits on the 2nd amendment. Semiautomatic weapons should be off limits.
Was he ever really in the running? Seriously?
By me? No. By Republicans? No idea. All I know is whenever I think something is so stupid they could never believe it, guess what? They do.
So I never assume something is out of the realm of possibility for the GOTP.
Actually, it’s most likely a confusion on the definition of tyranny in this context. Denying the founders abhorred it and worked to avoid it, including their intentions with the 2A, is totally incorrect from what I know. A standing army being dangerous in those terms and the local militias right to arms being required to address it and all…
I’ve offered an op-ed pointing to a recent book (Waldman) on the 2A that supports the concept of tyranny I’m talking about, but I haven’t seen you produce anything to give an idea of what you are talking about other than your own words. Feel free to clue me in with some support, as requested.
EDIT: Didn’t see your other post; don’t bother with any support. Sorry to inconvenience you.
Yeah, you’re not arguing with me, just not understanding what I’m saying. You’ve got an argument that’s great and I basically agree with, but it doesn’t apply to what I’ve tried to say. Guess that’s my fault, and sorry to force you away from your alcohol. I’m not making you do anything, so don’t bother further. Cheers.
1 Like
And thus passes the electoral aspirations of Dr. Ben Carson within the GOP.
I reread all your posts again and went back to the Nocera article and I think I finally have sussed out the argument.
Standing army = tyranny-- 2nd Amendment was alternative to standing army-- therefore 2nd Amendment was meant as a counterbalance to tyranny.
Have I got it right now?
Ha, you can rest assured, none of these conceal and carry ninjas are launching any “rockets” in the bedroom. if they were they wouldn’t need the guns.
Except you started off saying:
“2A was intended to check tyranny, just not how the NRA fantasizes about it on the individual level.”
Which is simply not a tenable argument.
The 2nd amendment’s intent was to have a functional militia that could be called upon for national defense (and suppressing internal rebellions). Not so you can take up arms against the Government because you feel it has overreached and become ‘tyrannical’. I suppose you could squint and argue that defending against a foreign military threats or putting down domestic rebellions falls within that rubric, but that would be playing silly putty with how “defending against tyranny” is taken within the context of personal gun ownership within our borders and domestic threats of ‘tyranny’.
As Stephen rightly mentions, it has been proven wrong both in the courts, and on the ground from the Presidency of George Washington onward… Shays’ Rebellion (though that was before the adoption of the Constitution and greatly helped in pointing out the need for a stronger central gov. and the Constitution itself)… Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, etc.
3 Likes
Beat me to it. There was an earlier light “tank” named the M1, but it wasn’t a half-track.
Edit: Maybe he was referring to the M1 armored car (still not a half-track) though they never entered service.
Ben Carson has no expertise or training on the Constitution. He has no clue what he is talking about when he attacks the Second Amendment in this way. The Second Amendment is not limited to guns. It applies to all offensive and defensive weapons available at a given time that might be needed by a militia for use in the bedroom or elsewhere.