Now they control both Houses, so they're gonna try, try again.

[Fervent]

Show me where Jefferson believed or advocated that the citizenry had or should have the right to use firearms to kill government employees at will any time we believe this experimental government is “going wrong”, as was your initial claim I responded to.

Again, this is a myth, a very pervasive myth, but a myth none the less.

The actual reason for the second amendment is two-fold.
The first was that there was an absolute and broad consensus among the founders and framers of the Constitution that a standing army during times of peace was a threat to liberty, was a danger to the governments. This grew out of the experience that these people had of watching country after country in Europe over the preceding 2,000 years have great military victories, and then when the army comes home when the war is over, the army takes over the country and boom – you’re suddenly living in a military dictatorship.

So they did two things: No. 1, in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, they said that Congress can appropriate or spend money for anything – except the army. And if Congress spends money and appropriates for the army, it may not be for more than two years, ever. And that’s why every two years, since the founding of the republic until today, Congress has to pass a military appropriations bill.

No. 2 was the alternative to a standing army during times of peace was basically to have citizen militias, who could be called up by the state governor or by the federal government, if necessary, and turned into an army to fight a war. That was the real intention of the Second Amendment, which is why it starts out talking about well-regulated militias.

This is where the concept and implementation of the national guard came from.
The National guards in all 50 states and the District of Columbia are the “well regulated militias” authorized by the second amendment.
And those national guard “militias”, made up of an armed populace, are the bulwark against a foreign invasion in times of peace that the second amendment was designed to provide for.

Contrary to your assertion, The second amendment, again, is not a license for an individual u.s citizen to kill individual u.s. government employees at will anytime an individual u.s. citizen believes the u.s. government has become too oppressive.

Have you never heard the quote "the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?" The standing army wasn't "a threat to the governments" but a threat to the people's right to self-govern. Which is why the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a state's right. The founders didn't desire revolution, but if they didn't believe in a people's right to overthrow their government based on violence they would have opposed the revolution. Some did abandon he principle, but not all as they maintained that ultimate sovereignty lays with the people and it is the people's right to defend that sovereignty. Jefferson in particular wrote about how the civil authorities need to have a sense of fear that their constituents would rise up against them should they fail to represent them, with tarrings and featherings and other violent means of revolution. Most of the founders, though not all, were suspicious of governmental authority and believed that the government that governs least governs best. Giving the federal/state governments exclusive right to violence does exactly the opposite, and the goal was to have multiple smaller groups that were perpetual threats to one another keeping each other in check so that no one gained too much power.

 

[parousia70]

Have you never heard the quote "the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?" The standing army wasn't "a threat to the governments" but a threat to the people's right to self-govern. Which is why the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a state's right. The founders didn't desire revolution, but if they didn't believe in a people's right to overthrow their government based on violence they would have opposed the revolution. Some did abandon he principle, but not all as they maintained that ultimate sovereignty lays with the people and it is the people's right to defend that sovereignty. Jefferson in particular wrote about how the civil authorities need to have a sense of fear that their constituents would rise up against them should they fail to represent them, with tarrings and featherings and other violent means of revolution. Most of the founders, though not all, were suspicious of governmental authority and believed that the government that governs least governs best.

So you would agree the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an individual US citizen to kill individual US government employees solely because they believe government has become tyrannical?

Or do you believe it does?

Giving the federal/state governments exclusive right to violence does exactly the opposite, and the goal was to have multiple smaller groups that were perpetual threats to one another keeping each other in check so that no one gained too much power.

So the goal was to have a country full of multiple small armed gangs competing with each other for territory, authority and power through violent skirmishes, spoils to the gang with the superior firepower, until their spoils are forcibly taken by the next gang to come along with bigger guns?

That was the founders’ goal for this republic?

Really?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

It's not the right of the militias to keep and bear Arms, it's the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The people keep and bear Arms, they bring those Arms and join the militias.

Then why do so many people seem to want to follow the the "keep and bear arms" part, but never the "well-regulated militia" part?

 

[Fervent]

So you would agree the second amendment does not guarantee the right of an individual US citizen to kill individual US government employees if they believe government has become tyrannical?

Or do you believe it does?



So the goal was to have a country full of multiple small armed gangs competing with each other for territory, authority and power through violent skirmishes, spoils to the victor?

Really?

The second amendment guarantees the potential of a US citizen to kill US government employees. The idea was that power would not be concentrated and that the mutual threat that the various factions posed to each other would prevent anyone from seizing more power. Jefferson believed that for a republic to operate effectively it must face violent revolution every 2nd generation(once every 20-40 years) so that those who write and enforce the laws do not become too comfortable and begin thinking they are rulers rather than representatives.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

More valid than burning down police precincts after pouring wet concrete on the doors to keep people from escaping the flames.

Maybe they're just rising up against oppressive government?

And no - I don't actually support doing that. But then again - that's the problem with the second amendment - it doesn't give a test for when government becomes "tyrannical". So you, the BLM supporter down the road and the antifa college kid all get to decide what a "tyrannical government" looks like, and my guess is you're probably not going to agree.

Then it just becomes a question of who shoots first.

 

[parousia70]

The second amendment guarantees the potential of a US citizen to kill US government employees.

So it’s a paper Tiger then?

Jefferson believed that for a republic to operate effectively it must face violent revolution every 2nd generation(once every 20-40 years) so that those who write and enforce the laws do not become too comfortable and begin thinking they are rulers rather than representatives.

Well, I guess history has proven him wrong on that point then hasn’t it?

 

[Fervent]

So it’s a paper Tiger then?



Well, I guess history has proven him wrong on that point then hasn’t it?

No, I'd say history proved him absolutely correct. What we have today is not actually a republic, except in name. The people cannot effectively keep their government in check because the people, by and large, cannot understand the legislation that is being passed. Universal suffrage has made it so that the ignorant dominate educated voters and those who make the biggest promises and subject themselves to lobbyists are running the government. We no longer have a governmetn that is of, by, and for the people but a political class that sees themselves as leaders not representatives. The republic has failed and its simply a matter of time before it fully collapses.

 

[Aldebaran]

I hope there are not people dumb enough out there to voluntarily give up all of their gun ownership and weapon ownership rights, despite the risks, or occasional tragedies, or occasional cost of some lives sometimes, that we might occasionally take sometimes in order to have them, etc...

You think everything will always be and always stay the same, etc, that the almighty government will always take care of you, always be able to, etc, and always will, etc, always see to your relatively stable world, and existence, and your every comfort and safety, etc...?

Just how naive and ignorant are you, etc...?

Has history taught you nothing, etc...?

Your own government will even enslave you if they can and are able to, etc, something our founding fathers in this country knew very, very well, etc...

I can only hope a lot of people are at least just as smart as them, etc...

Anyway...

God Bless!

They often get people to support gun bans when a big shooting happens. Now that 2 bills are going through Congress aimed at restricting gun ownership, I predict there will be a "convenient" mass shooting somewhere that will be used to stoke the flames against gun ownership. Then the lead democrats will stand up and say, "This is another example of why we need common sense gun laws".

 

[Fervent]

Just how naive and ignorant are you? Has history taught you nothing?

Your own government will never enslave you if they can and are able to.

Why are you so afraid??

Is this sarcasm? Because history is littered with the bodies of victims of government, in fact that was pretty much the story of the 20th century. This has to be sarcasm, right?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

They often get people to support gun bans when a big shooting happens. Now that 2 bills are going through Congress aimed at restricting gun ownership, I predict there will be a "convenient" mass shooting somewhere that will be used to stoke the flames against gun ownership. Then the lead democrats will stand up and say, "This is another example of why we need common sense gun laws".

Given that mass shootings occur every few weeks in the US, it's hardly surprising that they can point to a "convenient mass shooting somewhere".

 

[parousia70]

No, I'd say history proved him absolutely correct. What we have today is not actually a republic, except in name. The people cannot effectively keep their government in check because the people, by and large, cannot understand the legislation that is being passed. Universal suffrage has made it so that the ignorant dominate educated voters and those who make the biggest promises and subject themselves to lobbyists are running the government. We no longer have a governmetn that is of, by, and for the people but a political class that sees themselves as leaders not representatives. The republic has failed and its simply a matter of time before it fully collapses.

I guess I have a higher opinion of the general population and their ability to critically discern the contents of legislation than you do.

The continuing success of our republic is self evident, in spite of the very real challenges it faces, some of which you brought up (lobbyists, power hungry politicians, etc...) but you and clearly I differ on the solution.

Unlike you, I don’t believe all is lost.
Unlike you I believe a return to and a reaffirmation of small d democracy is the solution.
Unlike you, I do not believe an embracing of feudalism to be the savior of our republic.

I have faith in the people.
Our republic has not failed, evidenced in no small part by your ability to opine anonymously, with impunity, on the internet, that it has.

But we’re getting a bit far afield of the 2nd amendment...

 

[Aldebaran]

Given that mass shootings occur every few weeks in the US, it's hardly surprising that they can point to a "convenient mass shooting somewhere".

Gang members in Chicago that are offing each other wearing the wrong shoes doesn't qualify. It takes something like a teenager walking into a school with a politically incorrect gun and shooting students. But since schools aren't open anyway, there would have to be a different scenario set up. But they're pretty creative. They'll come up with something.

 

[Fervent]

I guess I have a higher opinion of the general population and their ability to critically discern the contents of legislation than you do.

The continuing success of our republic is self evident, in spite of the very real challenges it faces, some of which you brought up (lobbyists, power hungry politicians, etc...) but you and clearly I differ on the solution.

Unlike you, I don’t believe all is lost.
Unlike you I believe a return to and a reaffirmation of small d democracy is the solution.
Unlike you, I do not believe an embracing of feudalism to be the savior of our republic.

I have faith in the people.
Our republic has not failed, evidenced in no small part by your ability to opine anonymously, with impunity, on the internet, that it has.

But we’re getting a bit far afield of the 2nd amendment...

We're in the declining stages, and it's not a matter of the publics ability to critically discern but that legistlation is now packed to the gills to the point that no one has time to read it(1200+ page legislation) and written in a dense legalese in which certain phrases are so divorced from their normal meanings that it is unintelligible to all but a select few. The common man has neither the time nor the knowledge to navigate what bills say anymore, and if they have no access to what's in the bill they cannot decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree and it ultimately comes down to selecting someone from the political caste. All of the illnesses that brought down Rome are present in our republic and it's simply a matter of time before the illusion of electoral choice is no longer the easiest way to placate the masses. I do not believe feudalism is the solution, though we appear to be headed to a modern feudalist state with things like "the great reset" and other political ambitions that are starting to come to the forefront.

 

[parousia70]

Gang members in Chicago that are offing each other wearing the wrong shoes doesn't qualify. It takes something like a teenager walking into a school with a politically incorrect gun and shooting students. But since schools aren't open anyway, there would have to be a different scenario set up. But they're pretty creative. They'll come up with something.

They?
Are you thinly disguising some sort of claim about a liberal cabal orchestrating and carrying out a mass murder in order to garner sympathetic public opinion supporting hun control? if so, I’ll propose a conservative cabal orchestrating a mass shooting to drive gun and ammo sales/and prices up as just as likely, if not more so.
The only money in gun control is in scaring gun enthusiasts into buying more guns and ammo by threatening that govt is going to come take their guns.

And when deciding which of two potentialities is the most likely one, everyone knows it’s going to be the one that stands to gain the group behind it the most money.

 

[Aldebaran]

They?
Are you thinly disguising some sort of claim about a liberal cabal orchestrating and carrying out a mass murder in order to garner sympathetic public opinion supporting hun control? if so, I’ll propose a conservative cabal orchestrating a mass shooting to drive gun and ammo sales/and prices up as just as likely, if not more so.
The only money in gun control is in scaring gun enthusiasts into buying more guns and ammo by threatening that govt is going to come take their guns.

And when deciding which of two potentialities is the most likely one, everyone knows it’s going to be the one that stands to gain the group behind it the most money.

The gun stores are already emptied of guns and ammo because of what went on during 2020, and I guarantee you it wasn't conservatives who were calling for police to be defunded. It's also not conservatives who are pushing for more gun restrictions and just passed 2 major bills in congress. So your theory that it's conservatives doing this to push up gun sales is flawed. The manufacturers can't keep up with the orders as it is.

 

[parousia70]

We're in the declining stages, and it's not a matter of the publics ability to critically discern but that legistlation is now packed to the gills to the point that no one has time to read it(1200+ page legislation) and written in a dense legalese in which certain phrases are so divorced from their normal meanings that it is unintelligible to all but a select few. The common man has neither the time nor the knowledge to navigate what bills say anymore, and if they have no access to what's in the bill they cannot decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree and it ultimately comes down to selecting someone from the political caste. All of the illnesses that brought down Rome are present in our republic and it's simply a matter of time before the illusion of electoral choice is no longer the easiest way to placate the masses. I do not believe feudalism is the solution, though we appear to be headed to a modern feudalist state with things like "the great reset" and other political ambitions that are starting to come to the forefront.

::Yawn::

Based on “all the illnesses of Rome”, We’ve been in what you call declining stages since the Lincoln presidency, if not before...

Maybe the American experiment will come to an end in my lifetime and maybe it will last another 150 years or more. I’d say of the two, the latter is far more likely)

Nations rise and fall, that will never change.

But, I’m not going to fret about the “soon coming arrival” something that’s been present and Unfolding for 150 years...
You can wring your hands in retreat and defeat all you want, I’m going to remain active and involved in my government, because it belongs to me, and teach my kids to do the same, because it belongs to them.

 

[Sketcher]

Then why do so many people seem to want to follow the the "keep and bear arms" part, but never the "well-regulated militia" part?

Some of these militias are organizations that people don't want to join. We'll need them all if SHTF but not everyone believes in everything that they believe in officially or unofficially, nor should they. Meanwhile, self-defense is a natural right, which means that keeping and bearing ample weaponry for that purpose also is a natural right.

 

[parousia70]

The gun stores are already emptied of guns and ammo because of what went on during 2020, and I guarantee you it wasn't conservatives who were calling for police to be defunded.

Right. calling for defunding is too “feminine”....Conservatives would rather just beat cops to a bloody pulp with the flag poles and fire extinguishers.

And make no mistake it is absolutely in the best interest of gun manufacturers to not be able to keep up with orders. It’s their golden goose.
You’d be a fool to think otherwise.

 

[parousia70]

Some of these militias are organizations that people don't want to join. We'll need them all if SHTF but not everyone believes in everything that they believe in officially or unofficially, nor should they. Meanwhile, self-defense is a natural right, which means that keeping and bearing ample weaponry for that purpose also is a natural right.

There is no better deterrant to a home invasion, rape, assault, or murder than a nuke in the home.

Victim and property crime would be non existent if everyone was armed with nuclear weapons.

the first time someone vaporized a city because a thug broke in and attacked his wife would be all it would take.
Crime would be eliminated overnight.

 

[Fervent]

::Yawn::

Based on “all the illnesses of Rome”, We’ve been in what you call declining stages since the Lincoln presidency, if not before...

Maybe the American experiment will come to an end in my lifetime and maybe it will last another 150 years or more. I’d say of the two, the latter is far more likely)

Nations rise and fall, that will never change.

But, I’m not going to fret about the “soon coming arrival” something that’s been present and Unfolding for 150 years...
You can wring your hands in retreat and defeat all you want, I’m going to remain active and involved in my government, because it belongs to me, and teach my kids to do the same, because it belongs to them.

Yes, the civil war was the start of it since it was the death of states rights. It was accelerated by the new deal and the great society. Don't forget, Rome took 5 centuries to fall and it's only by looking at hindsight that its trajectory can be clearly seen.