(02-23-2022, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-23-2022, 09:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Why did the forefathers see a standing army as a threat, Mikey?
Because it might interfere with or even overthrow the civilian government. Because it might make itself out to be above or beyond civilian authority. Lots of reasons.
That's why the forefathers made sure the entire military has to be reauthorized every two years by Congress. That's one of the original articles. Makes it much harder for the military to become corrupt in those ways. If the forefathers thought that people having personal weapons was part of that balancing act, they would have mentioned it somewhere in the originally ratified document, not in the amendments.
You're so close. Recognizing that a standing army could be used by either a dictator or junta to overthrow a civilian government, it stands to reason that arming the populace... (finish this sentence)
(02-24-2022, 08:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (02-23-2022, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Because it might interfere with or even overthrow the civilian government. Because it might make itself out to be above or beyond civilian authority. Lots of reasons.
That's why the forefathers made sure the entire military has to be reauthorized every two years by Congress. That's one of the original articles. Makes it much harder for the military to become corrupt in those ways. If the forefathers thought that people having personal weapons was part of that balancing act, they would have mentioned it somewhere in the originally ratified document, not in the amendments.
You're so close. Recognizing that a standing army could be used by either a dictator or junta to overthrow a civilian government, it stands to reason that arming the populace... (finish this sentence)
Arming the populace would make a person considering military dictatorship think twice, but, that wasn't the thought process at the time.
The populace was left armed so that standing armies would be less necessary in the future. That's what the clauses say. They don't say or imply that civilians could or should resist their government, nor do they say they should have the same hardware the military has.
(02-24-2022, 03:36 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Man, you can wiggle.
I'm making a very narrow point. You thought I was making a big point. Your counterargument missed. Sorry?
No, dummy. You are now trying to make a narrow point, because it's become obvious that the impetus for creating the second amendment was to protect the people from the government. You just don't want to admit it.
(02-24-2022, 07:45 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]No, dummy. You are now trying to make a narrow point, because it's become obvious that the impetus for creating the second amendment was to protect the people from the government. You just don't want to admit it.
Go back to post #10. I bolded what I was arguing against.
(02-23-2022, 10:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2022, 02:03 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]The right isn't defined because it was meant to give the people the ability to rise up and overthrow the government if needed. It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. Now there are mass destruction weapons that weren't thought of then but the government should be afraid of the people. The people should not be afraid of the government.
Completely false. The state constitutions that the 2nd amendment was cribbed from say "For defense of self and of the State."
I agree with the second amendment, but not at all with this recent and innovative interpretation. Absolutely no one in 1789 was trying to plant seeds of another American revolution.
They were trying to ensure that there would be a broad base of defense for the form of government they had just settled on at the cost of many of their friends' lives.
Look, Mikey. You're leaving out a huge part of this. The framers of the constitution were specifically trying to safeguard the people FROM THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT. They wanted people to be able to compete with a standing army so it could not be used to take away their freedom as it has been done SO many times in the past. Ergo, even though it's clear that the militias were to defend their states from foreign enemies, you are being willfully obtuse as to why there was an emphasis on the 2nd amendment in the first place. Let's recap using a simple dialogue:
Quote:Yo! Fellow countrymen... we won our freedom. We need a way to defend ourselves from outside invaders.
Great idea, pal, but let's not use a standing army. It's been used in the past to take freedom from the people, and we want to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
Good point. How about we use a well-armed militia to defend our state.
That sounds great. Oh, when we do make a standing army, let's put congress in charge, just in case.
Which part are you leaving out, Mikey?
(Hint: it's underlined).
(02-24-2022, 08:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (02-23-2022, 10:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Completely false. The state constitutions that the 2nd amendment was cribbed from say "For defense of self and of the State."
I agree with the second amendment, but not at all with this recent and innovative interpretation. Absolutely no one in 1789 was trying to plant seeds of another American revolution.
They were trying to ensure that there would be a broad base of defense for the form of government they had just settled on at the cost of many of their friends' lives.
Look, Mikey. You're leaving out a huge part of this. The framers of the constitution were specifically trying to safeguard the people FROM THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT. They wanted people to be able to compete with a standing army so it could not be used to take away their freedom as it has been done SO many times in the past. Ergo, even though it's clear that the militias were to defend their states from foreign enemies, you are being willfully obtuse as to why there was an emphasis on the 2nd amendment in the first place. Let's recap using a simple dialogue:
Quote:Yo! Fellow countrymen... we won our freedom. We need a way to defend ourselves from outside invaders.
Great idea, pal, but let's not use a standing army. It's been used in the past to take freedom from the people, and we want to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
Good point. How about we use a well-armed militia to defend our state.
That sounds great. Oh, when we do make a standing army, let's put congress in charge, just in case.
Which part are you leaving out, Mikey?
(Hint: it's underlined).
Right. They forbid a standing army and let people keep their guns.
Both were done to protect the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But they also knew that we would occasionally have a temporarily authorized standing army. They knew those guys would get even better weapons than the militia. If they wanted to say "oh and whenever we do authorize a standing army, the citizens shall be able to buy all the same hardware that the standing army gets," they would have said it.
So, let me see if I get this straight... we want the citizens to defend us from a better, more technologically equipped foreign army with muskets?
(02-24-2022, 09:59 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]So, let me see if I get this straight... we want the citizens to defend us from a better, more technologically equipped foreign army with muskets?
Not at all. I don't think it's tied to the technology level of the 1700s. As the Roberts Court laid out in DC v Heller, it's tied to practicality and commonality of use for self defense.
(02-24-2022, 10:40 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Self-defense from what?
Common criminals, pirates, and natives. There are no pirates anymore and the remaining natives are peaceful, but we still have criminals to worry about.
I've tried to be clear what I'm arguing in favor of. What are you arguing in favor of? Should Elon Musk be allowed to own and operate a personal fleet of A-10s? That's what it sounds like to me.
(02-24-2022, 08:02 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2022, 01:29 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]You just literally quoted my exact reasoning for why gun rights were given.
Defense of self and the state. It doesn't say anything about defending the federal government, it says the state. Who would be attacking the state? It would be another state or the federal government. The state and the people were very closely related. The people had direct control over their state and could vote them out or deal with it internally. The state then picked the federal representatives. It was all limited federal government then and they wanted to ensure that nothing happened and wouldn't have to fight for freedom again.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
States picked senators. They never picked representatives. The people always picked representatives.
The picked the representatives of the state and then they picked a representative in the federal government. Yes they are called senators but that loses the fact that they are supposed to represent the state. Everything was designed for the people and the state to have all the power. Now DC has all the power.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
(02-24-2022, 11:29 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2022, 08:02 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]States picked senators. They never picked representatives. The people always picked representatives.
The picked the representatives of the state and then they picked a representative in the federal government. Yes they are called senators but that loses the fact that they are supposed to represent the state. Everything was designed for the people and the state to have all the power. Now DC has all the power.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
The House of Representatives that first met in New York City and today meets in Washington DC was always selected by the people, never by the states.
(02-24-2022, 11:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2022, 10:40 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Self-defense from what?
Common criminals, pirates, and natives. There are no pirates anymore and the remaining natives are peaceful, but we still have criminals to worry about.
I've tried to be clear what I'm arguing in favor of. What are you arguing in favor of? Should Elon Musk be allowed to own and operate a personal fleet of A-10s? That's what it sounds like to me.
You are so squirmy.
You have admitted the founders wanted to use militias for defense of the state against foreign aggressors, but when pressed, you pivot and say they are supposed to only use basic firearms for that defense (even though it defeats the purpose). You have admitted that the founders didn't want standing armies because their top priority was freedom for the people, but when pressed, you pivot and say that the founders wouldn't want people taking up arms against an oppressive state (even though it defeats the purpose). Like always, you start with your argument and build around it instead of following the facts.
(02-25-2022, 08:40 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2022, 11:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Common criminals, pirates, and natives. There are no pirates anymore and the remaining natives are peaceful, but we still have criminals to worry about.
I've tried to be clear what I'm arguing in favor of. What are you arguing in favor of? Should Elon Musk be allowed to own and operate a personal fleet of A-10s? That's what it sounds like to me.
You are so squirmy.
You have admitted the founders wanted to use militias for defense of the state against foreign aggressors, but when pressed, you pivot and say they are supposed to only use basic firearms for that defense (even though it defeats the purpose). You have admitted that the founders didn't want standing armies because their top priority was freedom for the people, but when pressed, you pivot and say that the founders wouldn't want people taking up arms against an oppressive state (even though it defeats the purpose). Like always, you start with your argument and build around it instead of following the facts.
The militias were to be the first line of defense. In case of attack by a full foreign army or navy, the militia would resist initially, but a standing army would be called up before things got too far.
This is academic in any case. The legal status of the less than 1000 paid professional soldiers during the first two years of Washington's first term as President was ambiguous, but Congress has formally authorized a professional standing army continuously since 1791.
Do you realize that Bill Gates could buy a couple of fully loaded Ohio Class submarines, along with crews, and have tens of billions of dollars to spare? Should he be allowed to do this if he wants to?