Guns, Guns Guns

isaac_newton wrote:what puzzles me is that somehow the first bit of 2A seems to be passed over, as if of no significance...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

Well, it is a reason for the main body of the 2nd amendment. Which means if it is a false assumption, the main body still holds. BTW, the phrase "well-regulated militia" appears in the Federalist Papers where the meaning is obviously related to expertise and has nothing to do with permission.

isaac_newton wrote:what puzzles me is that somehow the first bit of 2A seems to be passed over, as if of no significance...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Well, it is a reason for the main body of the 2nd amendment. Which means if it is a false assumption, the main body still holds. BTW, the phrase "well-regulated militia" appears in the Federalist Papers where the meaning is obviously related to expertise and has nothing to do with permission.

I'm fairly sure that the Founding Fathers intended that the 2A should primarily be interpreted in its whole and the individual parts secondarily, ie you have the right to bear arms but it is better if you also are a member of a militia so you better can help keep the free state secure together with others.

As it is now, the very first sentence of the 2A is almost never talked about which Isaac and many many others have pointed out, everyone just goes for "the right to bear arms" which in my opinion is a perversion of the original intent given my reasoning above.

The interesting thing about the 2A is that it doesn't actually forbid the regulation of the sales of arms but one could argue that the logical conclusion of the right means people must also be allowed to buy guns which is currently the prevailing interpretation as I understand it.

In light of the many comments over the years about how the second amendment was there to enable patriotic good old boys to change a government that they disagreed with; it's interesting that someone has just been locked up for 7 years for taking a weapon to the 6 January insurrection. He apparently was even a member of a militia.

Daryl wrote:In light of the many comments over the years about how the second amendment was there to enable patriotic good old boys to change a government that they disagreed with; it's interesting that someone has just been locked up for 7 years for taking a weapon to the 6 January insurrection. He apparently was even a member of a militia.

It's all about context. The 2A exists so the populace can rid themselves of an oppressive government, not interfere in a democratic election process.

Joat42 wrote:It's all about context. The 2A exists so the populace can rid themselves of an oppressive government, not interfere in a democratic election process.

And yet, the people who are most vocal about this are the same people who, at this point in time, are also most interested in installing an oppressive christo-fascist dictatorship.

As the old maxim states "Treason never prospers, because if they win, they rewrite history to become freedom fighters".
I really can't see the difference between the examples. How do you define a governmentas being oppressive? If you decide it is, then try to overthrow it, that is interfering in a democratic process.

Joat42 wrote:

Daryl wrote:In light of the many comments over the years about how the second amendment was there to enable patriotic good old boys to change a government that they disagreed with; it's interesting that someone has just been locked up for 7 years for taking a weapon to the 6 January insurrection. He apparently was even a member of a militia.

It's all about context. The 2A exists so the populace can rid themselves of an oppressive government, not interfere in a democratic election process.

Daryl wrote:As the old maxim states "Treason never prospers, because if they win, they rewrite history to become freedom fighters".
I really can't see the difference between the examples. How do you define a governmentas being oppressive? If you decide it is, then try to overthrow it, that is interfering in a democratic process.

If you disregard the context, sure, but we are talking about a minority who tried changing the outcome of an open election - that is not "overthrowing an oppressive government". Rewriting history after the fact isn't "overthrowing an oppressive government" either, it's just trying to justify the actions after the fact.

Context matters and if you disregard it to make some kind of argument that action A is the same as action B it only means that the argument can't stand on it's own.

With 307 pages to date, everything that could be postulated and discussed has been.
My difficulty is that I live in a country that has much in common with the US. An English speaking democracy, proud military traditions, individually wealthy compared to nearly all others, free press, mostly populated by those who have migrated here and their decendants, a history with rugged pioneers in remote areas, and much similar.
There are differences that puzzle me and others in the free world. The US's abhorrence of anything that has a tint of socialism, lack of universal health and welfare nets, high level of religious belief, and others. However your gun laws, and the belief of some of your population that violently overthrowing a democratically elected government is an ethical thing to consider and possibly do, are the most strange differences.
We call it sedition, treason and insurrection, and regard the concept as an abomination.

Now looks like the postulated reason behind the 2nd amendment has been proven to be a toothless tiger. The FBI attacker called for an uprising to overturn the FBI and subsequently the government, yet nobody came before he was gunned down.

Daryl wrote:With 307 pages to date, everything that could be postulated and discussed has been.
My difficulty is that I live in a country that has much in common with the US. An English speaking democracy, proud military traditions, individually wealthy compared to nearly all others, free press, mostly populated by those who have migrated here and their descendents, a history with rugged pioneers in remote areas, and much similar.
There are differences that puzzle me and others in the free world. The US's abhorrence of anything that has a tint of socialism, lack of universal health and welfare nets, high level of religious belief, and others. However your gun laws, and the belief of some of your population that violently overthrowing a democratically elected government is an ethical thing to consider and possibly do, are the most strange differences.
We call it sedition, treason and insurrection, and regard the concept as an abomination.

The first things you mentioned has to do with a combination of things, dating back to the red scares after both great wars and the relentless drives by big business to keep the fear generated by that alive. So any program that can be labeled socialism usually dies a quick death. Bear in mind also that Democrats have only controlled the House of Representatives for 8 years of the last 30.

As for the second point, bear in mind that we were born out of an insurrection. Our national myth enshrines King George III as boogyman. And there can be no question but what the founders has a profound distaste for tyranny. Alexander Hamilton penned that the state militias could be a bulwark against a tyrannical big government. This also is enshrined in the myth.

The founders didn't intend the constitution as a suicide pact, however. Washington himself led an army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion --- the only president in history to lead troops in battle during his term of office.

Don

-