Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

Thanks for proving my point. And correct, no federal arms were used. Unless, they conscripted them, then issued them federal arms…

individual citizens, with arms they owned, put down the rebellion. Unless, these were unarmed militia’s…?

162

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

BS. The natural right to rebel without the physical means is moot. If you have no means, you have no right.

163

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
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. [/quote]

I agree, and that’s a different argument. And exactly what I’m pointing out. People claiming to be pro 2nd amendment aren’t. They are pro mental gymnastics to get to a point where they “support” it because they hear what they want to hear.

164

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

Thanks for proving my point. And correct, no federal arms were used. Unless, they conscripted them, then issued them federal arms…

individual citizens, with arms they owned, put down the rebellion. Unless, these were unarmed militia’s…? [/quote]

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?

165

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Thanks for proving my point. And correct, no federal arms were used. Unless, they conscripted them, then issued them federal arms…

individual citizens, with arms they owned, put down the rebellion. Unless, these were unarmed militia’s…? [/quote]

You keep drunk driving your argument and changing the subject. No one is saying - least of all me - that the Second Amendment wasn’t meant to make sure that state militia had arms in order to serve. Of course it did. That isn’t what we’ve been arguing about.

What you claimed was that the Second Amendment was meant to have these armed citizens “rival” the federal government, and that, of course, is nonsense, by way of our example: these armed citizens are subordinate to to the authority of the federal government and under constitutional force of law were compelled to participate in the suppression of rebellion.

A government that has the legal ability to do that isn’t one designed to contend with a “rival” power, it is one expressly endowed with “superior” power under the Constitution. Period.

Simply stated, your claim is too far our there. It is unsupported. You overstretched.

166

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?[/quote]

You mean like mad enough to avoid the draft and refuse to participate in the federalized militia? Then they get in trouble and get arrested and court-martialed, and enough citziens wind up participating anyway in obeyance of the law - you know, just like they did in the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, where there was draft evasion and protests. C’mon, read a history book.

If the “grievance was so popular” that the vast bulk of armed men refuse to fight on the side of the federal government, well, the effect would be no different with a standing army armed with “federal” weapons. Irrelevant.

167

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?[/quote]

You mean like mad enough to avoid the draft and refuse to participate in the federalized militia? Then they get in trouble and get arrested and court-martialed, and enough citziens wind up participating anyway in obeyance of the law - you know, just like they did in the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, where there was draft evasion and protests. C’mon, read a history book.

If the “grievance was so popular” that the vast bulk of armed men refuse to fight on the side of the federal government, well, the effect would be no different with a standing army armed with “federal” weapons. Irrelevant.[/quote]

Not true. Federal arms in a federal armory are different than ones in households legally bought and owned by an individual. And, if there is no difference, you should not object to all arms being privately owned.

168

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?[/quote]

You mean like mad enough to avoid the draft and refuse to participate in the federalized militia? Then they get in trouble and get arrested and court-martialed, and enough citziens wind up participating anyway in obeyance of the law - you know, just like they did in the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, where there was draft evasion and protests. C’mon, read a history book.

If the “grievance was so popular” that the vast bulk of armed men refuse to fight on the side of the federal government, well, the effect would be no different with a standing army armed with “federal” weapons. Irrelevant.[/quote]

Not true. Federal arms in a federal armory are different than ones in households legally bought and owned by an individual. And, if there is no difference, you should not object to all arms being privately owned.[/quote]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding concerning 18th century small arms and modern 21st century weapon systems. You absolutely cannot equivocate the two.

169

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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. [/quote]

No matter how many times you flail around, the simple fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly call for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government,” as you claimed it did, remains unchanged. That you have been debating the point with TB–no lightweight in these matters–is a function of the fact that this is a matter of your interpretation and not mere reading comprehension.

Again: the words aren’t there. You said they were there. That’s all.

170

[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]

Regardless of the above reference to the federal government superioirity; where not the main concerns of the colonies that ratified that the federal government would not create a tyranny like that of the British whom they had just defeated? Was not the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights a guarantee that the people/states could arm themselves as a form of protection against such a tyranny? Agreed there is no legal right in the Constitution and it would amount to treason, however was not the intent of most the colonies who ratified at the time to preserve their arms for this purpose: treason notwithstanding, when blood, fortunes and sacred honor are at stake? I don’t have the quote to hand but I think from memory Madison was too sick to attend the final day of the convention and had someone else read out his address which included words to the effect that the Constitution would work for a while then descend into tyranny as the people became too corrupt. In a post-Constitutional society where tyranny has taken hold the Constitution has already been destroyed by the state.

171

^^^^^ What SM said. I haven’t done any study on this in a very long time, but this is the way I remembered it generally. However technological advancements and their impact on the geo political world HAVE made this FAAAAAAR more complicated than it was then. To deny that is to simply call into question either one’s sense or honesty or both. [quote] the Constitution would work for a while then descend into tyranny as the people became too corrupt. In a post-Constitutional society where tyranny has taken hold the Constitution has already been destroyed by the state. [/quote] And like Sam Adams and many others he was a prophet (not literally) who understood that the nation would stand or fall on the moral character of her citizens. Here we are.

172

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?[/quote]

You mean like mad enough to avoid the draft and refuse to participate in the federalized militia? Then they get in trouble and get arrested and court-martialed, and enough citziens wind up participating anyway in obeyance of the law - you know, just like they did in the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, where there was draft evasion and protests. C’mon, read a history book.

If the “grievance was so popular” that the vast bulk of armed men refuse to fight on the side of the federal government, well, the effect would be no different with a standing army armed with “federal” weapons. Irrelevant.[/quote]

Not true. Federal arms in a federal armory are different than ones in households legally bought and owned by an individual. And, if there is no difference, you should not object to all arms being privately owned.[/quote]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding concerning 18th century small arms and modern 21st century weapon systems. You absolutely cannot equivocate the two.
[/quote]

Irrelevant to the point. New technology doesn’t change intent. Nor does it change what’s written.

Additionally, I’ve pointed out multiple times on this thread and gotten no response. The founding fathers intended warships and artillery to be privately owned. And a couple dozen 30 pound cannons are far more formidable than an MP5.

173

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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. [/quote]

No matter how many times you flail around, the simple fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly call for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government,” as you claimed it did, remains unchanged. That you have been debating the point with TB–no lightweight in these matters–is a function of the fact that this is a matter of your interpretation and not mere reading comprehension.

Again: the words aren’t there. You said they were there. That’s all.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m losing respect for you on this one. I was not quoting the text with what I wrote nor did I claim to. But that is most certainly what it says in plain English.

But keep on talking about banning assault weapons when you don’t even know what they are.

And I’m glad TB stepped in. It was a refreshing change.

But keep on claiming victory there Fido.

174

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Regardless of the above reference to the federal government superioirity; where not the main concerns of the colonies that ratified that the federal government would not create a tyranny like that of the British whom they had just defeated?[/quote]

A concern? Of course. The main one? Not exactly, there were lots. And you ignore the history. The states first enacted the Articles of Confederation. Once it was determined that the Articles weren’t adequate, then there was the idea and push for the Constitution, and the point of the Constitution was to strengthen the federal government.

Strengtening the federal government is not the same as creating a blank check for a federal tyranny - but the impetus behind the Constitution was to improve the power of the national government. Every concern has to be viewed in that context, and it is ludicrous to suggest that in the spirit of making a stronger federal government, the Constitution wanted to make sure it was crippled by the threat of a “rival” populace.

In part, but not in whole.

I’ll set aside the incongruence of ackowledging that “the people” are doomed to corruption and therefore they need absolute right to be armed - that makes no sense - but in any event, if “tyranny” has taken hold (truly), the Constitution is irrelevant, because now…now…the people have the natural right of revolution.

I’m glad you, too, have invoked Madison, who is famous for saying:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Federalist 51.

Look, the Founders gave the people control over the government - but primarily with ballots, not bullets.

175

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But that is most certainly what it says in plain English.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. If the Second Amendment was there to insure that the people “rivaled” the federal government, followed to its logical conclusion, that means if the federal government has a missile, then the Second Amendment guarantees and entitles a private citizen (or group of private citizens) to ownership of a missile in order to give effect to the Second Amendment’s “mission” to keep the people “rivaling” the federal government.

That’s hogwash. That is not and never has been the mission of the Second Amendment. You made it up out of whole cloth. Just concede the point.

176

One other quick point that often gets glossed over - the Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, did not apply to the states at its ratification. When the test says “the right shall not be infringed”, it meant that it shall not be infringed upon by the federal government.

States were not constrained by the Second Amendment. The states in most cases permitted and even required ownership of “arms”, but there were regulations on ownership and carrying in the colonial states, too.

For purposes of understanding the original meaning of the Second Amendment, this history can’t be overlooked.

177

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was not quoting the text with what I wrote nor did I claim to.
[/quote]

[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]

[Emphasis mine]

178

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< I’ll set aside the incongruence of acknowledging that “the people” are doomed to corruption and therefore they need absolute right to be armed >>>[/quote]Well, that’s a good point too. LOL1 Though I don’t think it negates the principle out of hand that the founders were still smarting from British soldiers quartering themselves in private homes by force.

179

[quote]pushharder wrote:

But that still does not change original intent.[/quote]

Didn’t see this till now. The “original intent” of the Second Amendment did not restrict states from regulating gun ownership and carrying, which they did. The “original intent” of the Second Amendment was not to override the states’ prerogative in reglating arms as they saw fit, so, no, the Second Amendment does not and never has meant to insure the right of every American citizen to own whatever arm they wanted, not from the standpoint of “original intent”.

Explained a different way - if directly after the Second Amendment went into effect, a state enacted a law outlawing ownership of all firearms, the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution [u]did not prohibit this law as unconstituional[/u]. Period. As a matter of “original intent” of the Second Amendment.

180

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But keep on talking about banning assault weapons when you don’t even know what they are.
[/quote]

“Assault weapons” is a legal term. “What they are” is a function of how they’re defined in specific legislation.

As I said very clearly and simply in the beginning of this discussion, I’m not exactly itching to start debating the specific parameters of hypothetical legislation the existential legitimacy of which you do not accept. What exactly would be the point of this? It would be like you and I launching into a nuanced Trinitarian v. Unitarian debate when I don’t accept Jesus as anything more than a man in the first place.

Broadly, as I said before, James Holmes and other esteemed members of our “well-regulated militia” wouldn’t have access to as many of their preferred firearms as they have since 2004. Tragic, I know.