Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
you go shoot the pilot’s wife and children at their house.
[/quote]

If this thread is about the founders’ intents, it should be noted that this wasn’t one of them.[/quote]

You probably need to go read up on the American revolution a bit more if you don’t think the Colonist fought dirty as hell.[/quote]

Fighting dirty/using guerrilla tactics and killing kids are not synonymous. If there were a revolution, I and millions of Americans would not support it, regardless of its merits, if this were one of its methods.

122

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.

[/quote]

Exactly which text do you refer to when you aver that the Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.” Not the Constitution, that’s for damn sure.

And again, it says right there in the text that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Should Brandenburg v. Ohio be overturned in your view, or should it not?[/quote]

You ever read the amendment? Or what the people who wrote it said about it. Again, these were people fighting wars on private armament. It is people like you doing somersaults with words and distractions that make it complicated to make it mean what you want it to or think it should.[/quote]

Let’s step back here:

You said: “the second amendment [was written] to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.” [Emphasis mine]

I said: prove this.

And then you didn’t, because you couldn’t, because it isn’t true.
[/quote]

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Citizen military able to resist the government is necessary to freedom. yeah…

The practice of the government after ratification would also do it.[/quote]

The Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

I missed that last part in the text of the Amendment.[/quote]

You’ll apparently need to refer to a dictionary.
[/quote]

There is no dictionary that will make the nonsense you averred any more truthful or meaningful than it is, which is not at all.

123

[quote]smh23 wrote:

There is no dictionary that will make the nonsense you averred any more truthful or meaningful than it is, which is not at all.[/quote]

Okay. tell me what the amendment says.

124

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

There is no dictionary that will make the nonsense you averred any more truthful or meaningful than it is, which is not at all.[/quote]

Okay. tell me what the amendment says.[/quote]

It says nothing about “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

Or has my copy of the Bill of Rights been abridged? This is not an arena in which interpretation and speculation are valid. Words exist in the text of the Bill of Rights, or they don’t. In this case, they don’t. If I told you that the Fifth Amendment explicitly protected my right to eat lettuce, I’d have to produce those explicit words in order to be vindicated, no?

You went after me with a grandstanding, this-isn’t-open-for-debate claim on absolute interpretive authority of the Bill of Rights–a claim disputed, it’s been noted, by Antonin Scalia–and then you made the factually inaccurate claim that the text of the Second Amendment explicitly mentions “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.” Case closed.

125

[quote]smh23 wrote:

The Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

I missed that last part in the text of the Amendment.[/quote]

Yes, this bit - The Second Amendment calls for "a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government - is a stretch. There is no historical basis to make that claim. The Founding Father didn’t want anything “rivalling” the power of the federal government - that was the entire point of replacing the Articles with the Constitution.

If this were true - that the Second Amendment exists to insure that a citizen military could “rival” the power of the federal government - the federal government would be powerless to put down Insurrections and Rebellions, which it most certainly has the authority to do under the Constitution.

128

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

If this were true - that the Second Amendment exists to insure that a citizen military could “rival” the power of the federal government - the federal government would be powerless to put down Insurrections and Rebellions, which it most certainly has the authority to do under the Constitution.[/quote]

Now there’s the “stretch.” That wouldn’t make the federal government “powerless” at all.

If I give you the Minnesota Vikings and I get the Chicago Bears and we both have 11 men each on offense and defense how does that make the Vikings “powerless” to win the game?[/quote]

All analogies limp…

Another, equally valid NFL analogy would be if Bart Scott seized just as much power over New York Jets coaching decisions as Rex Ryan, without Ryan relinquishing any of his own authority. How well would that work out?

Actually, any change would be welcome at Metlife Stadium.

But anyway, it’s a falsehood to claim that the Second Amendment explicitly (or even implicitly) calls for this kind of equity. It’s a simple matter of reading words.

130

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
you go shoot the pilot’s wife and children at their house.
[/quote]

If this thread is about the founders’ intents, it should be noted that this wasn’t one of them.[/quote]

You probably need to go read up on the American revolution a bit more if you don’t think the Colonist fought dirty as hell.[/quote]

Fighting dirty/using guerrilla tactics and killing kids are not synonymous. If there were a revolution, I and millions of Americans would not support it, regardless of its merits, if this were one of its methods.[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Depends on the tyranny that one would be fighting.

I would go look up OLD (pre WWI – they’ve been scrubbed since then) British histories of the USA revolutionary war.

Start with, I don’t know, Judge Lynch (from where “Lynch Mob” arguably came from), and look at his antics of burning down the houses of Loyalists with said Loyalists inside, including women and children.

131

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:Don’t ever succumb to the predestination bullshit that Tirib puked out a couple of posts up.
It’s a loser’s, not a realist’s, mentality.
http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040
[/quote]I didn’t say a thing about predestination but what I said IS a realists mentality. If you think you will withstand an A-10 Warthog with it’s avenger cannons and maverick missiles with even the very best military grade small arms in the world, you need to be looked after lest you harm yourself.
[/quote]

You said, not in exactly these words, that an armed citizen’s revolt was predestined to failure. >>>[/quote]No I did not say that. I have absolutely NO IDEA with this kind of specificity what is predestined or not until it happens just like anybody else. How you could possibly have derived this from I said is a linguistic mystery. In any case I am hereby denying any such claim which means I should never have to hear about it again. [quote]pushharder wrote:

As to the rest of your post, again you have much to learn. For example, the Taliban is presently resisting vigorously against A-10 Warthogs with its Avenger cannons and Maverick missiles while at the same time possessing on the order of ~.009% of the weapons possessed by North Americans.

You don’t know your history, Tirib. You’ve spent too much time in the lap of Calvin and too little studying guerrilla warfare throughout the centuries. I suspect you really don’t even understand the American Revolution and the Second Amendment.[/quote] I didn’t say “resist” I said, I said “repel”. I can resist a freight train, but I’m really doubting I can repel it’s advance. I also said if our military was engaged in earnest. The taliban is only still standing because we’re not willing to do what is REALLY necessary to defeat them. Not even saying we should, but we’re not. I was NOT attacking you btw. Like I say, I just perused the thread and only stuff here and thee. I am BETTING that if a comparable revolution to ours were to happen today (just bear with me me would ya please?) and the same men were a the helm only in this century they would have different views on SOME stuff. Like foreign engagements for instance (no hijack please). Also, as much I support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, the idea of privately owned missile, artillery and tank systems in my neighborhood is a bit disconcerting.

133

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Now there’s the “stretch.” That wouldn’t make the federal government “powerless” at all.

If I give you the Minnesota Vikings and I get the Chicago Bears and we both have 11 men each on offense and defense how does that make the Vikings “powerless” to win the game?[/quote]

Well, no - the Constitution vests the federal government with the authority to put down Insurrections and Rebellions. A separate constitutional provision that undermines this authority by expressly making sure the federal government enjoys no supremacy in force over the armed citizens renders the first provision toothless, and as a matter of constitutional authority, yes, powerless. The federal government would have no inherent power to prevail, which it is supposed to have under law.

And, no, pedantics don’t really help. Technically, the “federal government” could amount to one man with a rusty knife and the “armed citizenry” could amount to a hundred men armed with AR-15s and grenades and you’d say “Aha! Well, the federal government guy isn’t actually powerless, now is he?”. Well, that isn’t a useful way of looking at it.

134

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

The Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

I missed that last part in the text of the Amendment.[/quote]

Yes, this bit - The Second Amendment calls for "a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government - is a stretch. There is no historical basis to make that claim. The Founding Father didn’t want anything “rivalling” the power of the federal government - that was the entire point of replacing the Articles with the Constitution.

If this were true - that the Second Amendment exists to insure that a citizen military could “rival” the power of the federal government - the federal government would be powerless to put down Insurrections and Rebellions, which it most certainly has the authority to do under the Constitution.[/quote]

Wrong. Most of the founding fathers wanted an armed citizenry AND no standing military. So, not only did the citizens rival the governmental power, they were its only power.

135

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Also, as much I support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, the idea of privately owned missile, artillery and tank systems in my neighborhood is a bit disconcerting.
[/quote]

Too expensive to be privately owned.

I would expect corporations to own them. In fact, they do currently. Not a few corporations have private anti-aircraft missles to protect key facilities, tanks, etc.

136

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

There is no dictionary that will make the nonsense you averred any more truthful or meaningful than it is, which is not at all.[/quote]

Okay. tell me what the amendment says.[/quote]

It says nothing about “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

Or has my copy of the Bill of Rights been abridged? This is not an arena in which interpretation and speculation are valid. Words exist in the text of the Bill of Rights, or they don’t. In this case, they don’t. If I told you that the Fifth Amendment explicitly protected my right to eat lettuce, I’d have to produce those explicit words in order to be vindicated, no?

You went after me with a grandstanding, this-isn’t-open-for-debate claim on absolute interpretive authority of the Bill of Rights–a claim disputed, it’s been noted, by Antonin Scalia–and then you made the factually inaccurate claim that the text of the Second Amendment explicitly mentions “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.” Case closed.[/quote]

I do not have the time to teach you English.

Militia capable of defending the individual from the tyranny of the state. It is right there. The second amendment is the right to rebellion. It is the right of self (individual) defense from state aggression.

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:

“Rival” may be the wrong word. “Thwart” would definitely be one included in original intent.

The Founders worried far more about tyrannical governments than they did rebellious citizenry. Far, far, far more.[/quote]

Is that a fact? Then what explains Shays Rebellion, the reaction to Shays Rebellion (hint: it was used by some Founders as a reason to argue for the Constitution) and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the reaction to it?

I keep mentioning these, and you keep ducking them.

The Founders were not “far, far, far” more worried about tyrranical governments - they were concerned about rebellious citizens as well, and that was one of the reasons for introducing the Constitution to replace the Articles.

138

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Now there’s the “stretch.” That wouldn’t make the federal government “powerless” at all.

If I give you the Minnesota Vikings and I get the Chicago Bears and we both have 11 men each on offense and defense how does that make the Vikings “powerless” to win the game?[/quote]

Well, no - the Constitution vests the federal government with the authority to put down Insurrections and Rebellions. A separate constitutional provision that undermines this authority by expressly making sure the federal government enjoys no supremacy in force over the armed citizens renders the first provision toothless, and as a matter of constitutional authority, yes, powerless. The federal government would have no inherent power to prevail, which it is supposed to have under law.

And, no, pedantics don’t really help. Technically, the “federal government” could amount to one man with a rusty knife and the “armed citizenry” could amount to a hundred men armed with AR-15s and grenades and you’d say “Aha! Well, the federal government guy isn’t actually powerless, now is he?”. Well, that isn’t a useful way of looking at it.[/quote]

No, it makes it a balance. They can still put down unpopular rebellions.

139

There are private armies these days lol

140

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Wrong. Most of the founding fathers wanted an armed citizenry AND no standing military. So, not only did the citizens rival the governmental power, they were its only power.[/quote]

Non-sequitur. Not wanting a standing army is not the same thing as wanting an armed citizenry that could “rival” the power of the federal government. If this were true, the Constitution wouldn’t include the Rebellion clause. Rebellions were something the Constitution authorized the federal government to put down, and it is absurd to read other parts of the Constitution to thwart the federal government’s ability to do so.

The presumption is the federal government has superior force, not “rival” - to view it otherwise is to negate the Rebellion clause.