[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
So the fact that they wanted citizens armed and virtually no federal arms is irrelevant? really? seems like it’s proof that they didn’t want the fed to have overwhelming force.
Read my post above. It isn’t contradictory. It is a check and balance.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, it makes it a balance. They can still put down unpopular rebellions.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t, and your best evidence of that is the Supremacy Clause. In matters of force, the federal government was not designed to be “balanced” against armed citizens. That is ludicrous.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, it makes it a balance. They can still put down unpopular rebellions.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t, and your best evidence of that is the Supremacy Clause. In matters of force, the federal government was not designed to be “balanced” against armed citizens. That is ludicrous. [/quote]
You need to read more history. That is exactly what they wanted.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Read my post above. It isn’t contradictory. It is a check and balance.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. That’s absurd. Where in the Constitution does our framework of government provide that an “armed citizenry” serves as a check on the federal government?
The federal government enjoys the constitutional prerogative to put down any Insurrection or Rebellion - any. If you’re right, the federal government would not have that broad power under the Constitution because ithe federal government would just have to fend for itself against a “rival” armed citizenry and wouldn’t be constitutionally “right” or “wrong” to put down any of them. But that ain’t what the Constitution says.
It’s nonsense. What federal government could operate knowing it had a “rival” who could intimidate it any point at the point of a gun?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You need to read more history. That is exactly what they wanted.[/quote]
Nope, and don’t pull the “you don’t know history line”.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You need to read more history. That is exactly what they wanted.[/quote]
Ok, so was Washington right or wrong to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of “armed citizens”? Do tell.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Read my post above. It isn’t contradictory. It is a check and balance.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. That’s absurd. Where in the Constitution does our framework of government provide that an “armed citizenry” serves as a check on the federal government?
The federal government enjoys the constitutional prerogative to put down any Insurrection or Rebellion - any. If you’re right, the federal government would not have that broad power under the Constitution because ithe federal government would just have to fend for itself against a “rival” armed citizenry and wouldn’t be constitutionally “right” or “wrong” to put down any of them. But that ain’t what the Constitution says.
It’s nonsense. What federal government could operate knowing it had a “rival” who could intimidate it any point at the point of a gun? [/quote]
Try the DOI. And to answer your question, a really fucking weary one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You need to read more history. That is exactly what they wanted.[/quote]
Ok, so was Washington right or wrong to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of “armed citizens”? Do tell.[/quote]
You mean the one where a militia was used to stop armed rebellion?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Try the DOI. And to answer your question, a really fucking weary one.[/quote]
Nope, the DOI is talking about the right of revolution, not constitutional rights. If you are (legitimately) invoking the right of revolution, the Constitution is moot. The DOI isn’t the Constitution, and it is dealing with a different set of rights.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You mean the one where a militia was used to stop armed rebellion?[/quote]
Yup - right or wrong?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You need to read more history. That is exactly what they wanted.[/quote]
Ok, so was Washington right or wrong to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of “armed citizens”? Do tell.[/quote]
You mean the one where a militia was used to stop armed rebellion?[/quote]
Sorry, I mean to say STATE militia.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sorry, I mean to say STATE militia.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter how you state it - you’re dodging the question.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Try the DOI. And to answer your question, a really fucking weary one.[/quote]
Nope, the DOI is talking about the right of revolution, not constitutional rights. If you are (legitimately) invoking the right of revolution, the Constitution is moot. The DOI isn’t the Constitution, and it is dealing with a different set of rights.[/quote]
Arms are the means of revolution. The constitution grantees the means. That doesn’t make it moot unless the people make it so. But the means to make it so is guaranteed by the same document. It isn’t a contradiction at all.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You mean the one where a militia was used to stop armed rebellion?[/quote]
Yup - right or wrong?[/quote]
Yes, it was right that individuals had the ability to form a militia and stand up for what they believed. In this case, backing the US government.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You mean the one where a militia was used to stop armed rebellion?[/quote]
Yup - right or wrong?[/quote]
Yes, it was right that individuals had the ability to form a militia and stand up for what they believed. In this case, backing the US government. [/quote]
You don’t find it ironic that in you example it was armed citizens that put down the rebellion?
No federal arms were used.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Arms are the means of revolution. The constitution grantees the means. That doesn’t make it moot unless the people make it so. But the means to make it so is guaranteed by the same document. It isn’t a contradiction at all.[/quote]
False. The Constitution becomes moot if you have (rightfully) declared revolution because revolution is based on a violation of natural rights, not constitutional rights. The Constituion doesn’t guarantee you the “means” to make revolution because the Constitution doesn’t “permit” you to revolt in the first place - you have that right independent of the Constitution.
If we repealed the Second Amendment tomorrow, we wouldn’t suddenly have our “means” of revolting taken away. Good Lord.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Arms are the means of revolution. The constitution grantees the means. That doesn’t make it moot unless the people make it so. But the means to make it so is guaranteed by the same document. It isn’t a contradiction at all.[/quote]
False. The Constitution becomes moot if you have (rightfully) declared revolution because revolution is based on a violation of natural rights, not constitutional rights. The Constituion doesn’t guarantee you the “means” to make revolution because the Constitution doesn’t “permit” you to revolt in the first place - you have that right independent of the Constitution.
If we repealed the Second Amendment tomorrow, we wouldn’t suddenly have our “means” of revolting taken away. Good Lord.[/quote]
Constitutional rights were intended to reaffirm natural rights.
So, how does an unarmed rebellion work? do tell.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You don’t find it ironic that in you example it was armed citizens that put down the rebellion?
No federal arms were used.[/quote]
False - it was a federalized militia force instigated under the Militia Act of 1792, which actually authorized the president to conscript members of local militias. Conscript. And disobedient militiamen who defied authority could be court-martialed under the law.
Yeah, history. About that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Constitutional rights were intended to reaffirm natural rights.[/quote]
Irrelevant to the point. Once you’ve (rightfully) invoked revolution, it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. And more besides, the Constituion does not protect your right to “rebel” - what is your point?
Not well. But another non-sequitur. That doesn’t have anything to do with the point.
It seems like Boomers sitting on the bottom of the oceans with ballistic missiles and MIRVed warheads change things a bit from the old militia times. I’m not sure how armed parity is possible now without giving every household a Boomer, regardless of who is right on the “original intent” arguments.