Because silly memes are fun...

Not at all but that is a funny meme. Part of being an armed populace to counter an armed government is the military and exmilitary members having their own private firearms.

---

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This is from Article I of the US Constitution, that thing that you so cherish.


Now, if you want to consider the fact that because the 2nd amendment says the right bear arms does not describe any specific arms, the ability of Congress to make laws that would determine what type of arms can and cannot be held or manufactured is a pretty easy thing to understand. And as I have stated in a previous post on this very page, even Scalia agrees with those of us that may "not be so bright" in your mind...

 

The Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY excludes certain rights from government oversight. That's why it exists, to keep the federal government out of speech, the press, religion, to protect the people from certain infringing legal practices and to prevent the government from becoming more powerful than the people. If you told the Founders that the Constitution allowed the federal government to tell them they could purchase a Brown Bess but not a Ferguson theyd think you insane. These people owned their own cannons for crying out loud, and then wrote a very specific document with tons of corresponding documents saying that this was to be beyond the control of the government they were establishing because the government itself was the largest threat to freedom in existence. The spirit of their work is unequivocally toward restraining the government, not the People.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes there is precedent to regulate the sale and movement of firearms just like there is precedent to regulate the use of free speech. Here's the kicker the spirit or the purpose of the constitutional right isn't to be altered while regulating the use of a constitutional right.


For example there is precedent to regulate speech in the manor of protecting others from harm through the use of speech by another party. I can't slander you and claim free speech because the purpose of the 1st amendment is to protect a free press and dissenting views among other things but it's not for protecting speech used in a manor to damage other parties directly or insight violence. The Klan can hold rally's and use free speech as a dissenting view on many different topics but they can't hold rallies and call for violence or make threats because the purpose of the amendment does not allow it.


Now what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It has nothing to do with collectors hobby shooting hunting and so on, it is specifically written to empower an armed populace to counter an armed government. Therefore the purpose of the amendment can not be altered by regulation to obstruct the balance of power between the populace and government.


Now we can argue if that has already been done. If that should be changed, or Is the concept outdated and so on. But limiting ammo, the type of firearms, the capacity of firearms or worse banning many of the above completely violates the purpose of the amendment.


I'm open to regulations that do not violate the purpose of the amendment. Regulations like the current ffl3 license required to own specific firearms are acceptable albeit some of the conditions are unreasonable but compromises right?

Thank you Eric.


I'm all for compromise as well, the whole concept of the nation is based on compromise. And that's why I think so many on the left are honestly not looking to repeal the 2nd.


Now, as you note, the 2nd was created not for gun fanatics to collect guns, but rather to protect against foreign and domestic threats.


I read a brief history of "shay's rebellion" over the weekend. Shay's rebellion was one of the reasons for the 2nd. I'd be interested to know if you are familiar with shay's rebellion and it's impact on our constitution...

---

So, a posse?


You said I'm in the militia, but now you're saying there's no militia until a need arises. I guess we're all reserves ready to be called up.


I'm still wondering about how exactly "well regulated" fits in with this. Without some sort of central control, what's to prevent mayhem when different regions have different views about an actual threat, be it foreign or domestic.

The fact is that the concept of the 2nd is dead, at least in the manner in which the founders imagined it. There was no standing army back then, now that there is, the idea of a militia is over.

---

Thank you Eric.


I'm all for compromise as well, the whole concept of the nation is based on compromise. And that's why I think so many on the left are honestly not looking to repeal the 2nd.


Now, as you note, the 2nd was created not for gun fanatics to collect guns, but rather to protect against foreign and domestic threats.


I read a brief history of "shay's rebellion" over the weekend. Shay's rebellion was one of the reasons for the 2nd. I'd be interested to know if you are familiar with shay's rebellion and it's impact on our constitution...

 

I'm familiar with the whiskey rebellion, and the fact that Washington didn't want a nation where every couple of years someone was marching the capital to change regimes. No one wants that, and yet Washington and the founders still found it important to keep the balance of an armed populace to an armed government. The idea or the concept of the 2nd Amendment is not dead or outdated, in fact I'd argue it's more alive now than it was even 50 years ago. 

 

You can regulate all you want so long as you don't alter the purpose of the right. And the purpose of the right is clear, an armed populace to counter an armed government. So we probably already have to many regulations on firearms, the solution isn't more of them, that would only further erode the concept of a counter balance of power.

---

Because silly memes are fun...

 

 

I think the point has always been that, while they'll typically be outclassed in terms of skill, the populace would significantly outnumber anything the government could muster.

 

Besides, many of the people would also skilled. They're not all rednecks and gang members. 

---

I'm familiar with the whiskey rebellion, and the fact that Washington didn't want a nation where every couple of years someone was marching the capital to change regimes. No one wants that, and yet Washington and the founders still found it important to keep the balance of an armed populace to an armed government. The idea or the concept of the 2nd Amendment is not dead or outdated, in fact I'd argue it's more alive now than it was even 50 years ago.


You can regulate all you want so long as you don't alter the purpose of the right. And the purpose of the right is clear, an armed populace to counter an armed government. So we probably already have to many regulations on firearms, the solution isn't more of them, that would only further erode the concept of a counter balance of power.

Well, this is interesting... so from your perspective you see the 2nd more as a collective right, in so much as it's main intention is to protect against federal tyranny. Would you say that is correct?


I see the 2nd I terms of individual rights to protect one's home, family, and person from criminals...


An argument can be made for the merits of both out points.


However, would not common sense and the reality of our standing military make your position impossible. Arms no longer are a viable means of protecting against a tyrannical US government.


Imagine if Dr. King decided he and Malcolm X would organize all African Americans and supporters of civil rights to pick up their arms to fight against segregation. It would be a blood bath.


In the 18th century, when arms of the government and the arms of the people were the same, the collective concept of the 2nd as the founders would perceive them, would be valid.


But as the standing army has held, and as the technology of professional warfare had exponentially advanced, this collective concept no longer has any true meaning.


While I appreciate your ideology, I just don't find the logic in it anymore. In fact, dr. King's approach to revolution and changing the course of a tyrannical government is the only modern way of creating effective change.


That's my view on it...

---

Well, this is interesting... so from your perspective you see the 2nd more as a collective right, in so much as it's main intention is to protect against federal tyranny. Would you say that is correct?


I see the 2nd I terms of individual rights to protect one's home, family, and person from criminals...


An argument can be made for the merits of both out points.


However, would not common sense and the reality of our standing military make your position impossible. Arms no longer are a viable means of protecting against a tyrannical US government.


Imagine if Dr. King decided he and Malcolm X would organize all African Americans and supporters of civil rights to pick up their arms to fight against segregation. It would be a blood bath.


In the 18th century, when arms of the government and the arms of the people were the same, the collective concept of the 2nd as the founders would perceive them, would be valid.


But as the standing army has held, and as the technology of professional warfare had exponentially advanced, this collective concept no longer has any true meaning.


While I appreciate your ideology, I just don't find the logic in it anymore. In fact, dr. King's approach to revolution and changing the course of a tyrannical government is the only modern way of creating effective change.


That's my view on it...

 

It's both an individual right and a collective right. The framers built into our founding document the empowerment of arming the public so that as whole if the time ever arose they would not be held hostage to a tyrannical government. As for the application of the 2nd Amendment in modern days the left will argue that no civilian resistance would ever match any modern military and that's a valid argument. However it's the core founding principle of a balanced populace and government that has held back the natural progression towards an all powerful state here longer than any where else in modern history. 

 

If the day ever arose that civilians found themselves in the need of defending themselves from the state, the state would eventually use the next level of force, modern weapons of such. And the civilian casualties would be horrendous, however the use of modern weapons against it's own population would lead to the regime changes that inspire any form of resistance to begin with. It always leads to a change of power when a government turns on it's people. 

 

The ideology that somehow we would be better served to limit our ability more to the state denies the reality that we need to be a counter balance to the state. I don't ever see a scenario where there will be any sore of physical uprising again.

 

I know my Mothers family wished they had the same rights in Columbia as we do here, when their government and the Catholic Church persecuted the Protestant movement in the 50's and executed 12 of my Grandfathers 16 siblings I bet he would've like the ability to defend his family. We have a very unique right to be armed here, that's not something we should take for granted, many other families in many other parts of the world are helpless to their states. 

---

So is this move by trump a deal breaker for any libertarian or conservative? I'm honestly curious

I don't think anyone is heading over to Hillary over this. Only one candidate wants everyone to have no guns so she can go full totalitarian. Trump is still vastly preferable.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I think the point has always been that, while they'll typically be outclassed in terms of skill, the populace would significantly outnumber anything the government could muster.

 

Besides, many of the people would also skilled. They're not all rednecks and gang members. 

 

I just find it laughable that some people actually think that any military branch we possess would turn it's back on it's own people and their first sense of duty. Which is to serve and protect their people, in favor of a corrupted and tyrannical Government. 

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The bolded text is irrelevant and a red herring. Regardless, many more weren't. A relative of mine was murdered, but the perpetrator plea bargained to manslaughter and was out in 7 years. Cut her up and stuffed her in a closet. If you think his debt was paid and he should be able to purchase a gun upon release we will probably find no common ground.

 

Should someone with a clinical diagnosis of mental illness be able to own a gun?

With the way they hand out clinical diagnosis' today, I am gonna go with a firm yes.  You would take away about 20% of the population if you said everyone with a depression/anxiety/ etc diagnosis can't have weapons. I would be much more willing to ban drugs that cause 'homicidal ideation' in people. https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drug..._violence/ If your gonna ban something at least get the thing that is actually causing the problem (i.e. making the people unstable).

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I just find it laughable that some people actually think that any military branch we possess would turn it's back on it's own people and their first sense of duty. Which is to serve and protect their people, in favor of a corrupted and tyrannical Government. 

You laugh, but if you look at that retirement ceremony thread, its pretty clear they already are.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I just find it laughable that some people actually think that any military branch we possess would turn it's back on it's own people and their first sense of duty. Which is to serve and protect their people, in favor of a corrupted and tyrannical Government. 

This. There are a few knuckleheads, but a great majority are very patriotic. Sure, there would be a very small contingent blindly supporting a tyrannical government. A large veteran populace would far outnumber that small contingent and that fact that the military complex is heavily dependent on civilian contractors would be the nail in the coffin.

---

You laugh, but if you look at that retirement ceremony thread, its pretty clear they already are.

That was a blown up situation from a long standing personal issue between that individual and the commander. There are always outliers in all situations that shouldn't be considered a reflection of the populace.

---

Oh, hey, we weren't we talking about this?

 

Good thing we're ready to strip people of their rights over this...

 

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/mar...meet-quota

 

Yeah, we should all trust the feds.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato