Educating a tyrant on the purpose of 2A

[jdel77]

Um, it's not at all what you were saying.

I clearly said to view the writing of the US Constitution within the contemporary context (timeframe and events) in which it was written.
In other words, think of what was going on in the late 1780's in order to understand what it means.

Dude, I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[Ben Waylin]

Um, it's not at all what you were saying.

 

[Bad Brain]

why would citizens forming Government seek to curtail the extent of their own influence

Because the founding fathers understood the tensions between liberty, tyranny, government and the people.

 

[Bad Brain]

Nope. I disagree.
I believe it was written so the Government could call up armed citizens (militias) for help and support in the event of a Revolutionary uprising, usually in the form of Left Wing radicalism, or foreign invasion.

You realize the US was founded due to a revolutionary uprising, correct?

 

[Ben Waylin]

You realize the US was founded due to a revolutionary uprising, correct?

Started by the Masons..

?

 

[Floyd Eye]

I'm pro gun. We had guns in the house growing up as Dad culled feral animals for the NZ Government.
I think anyone who is mentally fit and able to should be able to carry a knife, gun, sword, whatever.
The issue is how easy it is to either buy a handgun with or without a license, or to get a license to get a gun.
My understanding is that any guns which aren't handguns ie: machine guns, shotguns must be registered and the penalties aren't fun if you don't.



Agree, it's legislative constraint against Government overreach on the liberty of its' citizens. But again, why would citizens forming Government seek to curtail the extent of their own influence? While they're of sound mind and body of course the point is moot, but it's damn well worth having in case citizens form a radical Left Wing faction seeking Revolution, which is exactly what happened in France.
Further, if they'd had a citizen led militia which they could rely on then they could've had far more muscle in those urban centres where the sans culottes were freely murdering anyone supporting a more conservative form of administration.
The new USA Government did have the best interests of the citizens in mind, as they were the founding fathers who signed.
Those who refused to sign, or left clearly didn't have the interests of the new government in mind, and knew that if militant opposition formed then there would be huge show of strength of capable, trained and armed citizens ready to defend their government against Revolution.




Nope. I disagree.
I believe it was written so the Government could call up armed citizens (militias) for help and support in the event of a Revolutionary uprising, usually in the form of Left Wing radicalism, or foreign invasion.




The 1st half spells out how important the support of citizens is to the Government, as the Government comprises citizens. The 2nd half spells out that it is unconstitutional to strip citizens of their rights to arm themselves in order to assist the Government. Their Government.

Like I said, you should read some regular old American History. The government was not writing a bill of rights for itself dude. It was FOR THE PEOPLE. You can disagree all you want, but there is literally shit tons of correspondence from the guys who wrote the bill of rights and the constitution stating what the 2A was for. The government was literally set up to avoid tyranny in government. Your opinion, based on god knows what, is not relevant.

 

[rsm]

I'm pro gun. We had guns in the house growing up as Dad culled feral animals for the NZ Government.
I think anyone who is mentally fit and able to should be able to carry a knife, gun, sword, whatever.
The issue is how easy it is to either buy a handgun with or without a license, or to get a license to get a gun.
My understanding is that any guns which aren't handguns ie: machine guns, shotguns must be registered and the penalties aren't fun if you don't.



Agree, it's legislative constraint against Government overreach on the liberty of its' citizens. But again, why would citizens forming Government seek to curtail the extent of their own influence? While they're of sound mind and body of course the point is moot, but it's damn well worth having in case citizens form a radical Left Wing faction seeking Revolution, which is exactly what happened in France.
Further, if they'd had a citizen led militia which they could rely on then they could've had far more muscle in those urban centres where the sans culottes were freely murdering anyone supporting a more conservative form of administration.
The new USA Government did have the best interests of the citizens in mind, as they were the founding fathers who signed.
Those who refused to sign, or left clearly didn't have the interests of the new government in mind, and knew that if militant opposition formed then there would be huge show of strength of capable, trained and armed citizens ready to defend their government against Revolution.




Nope. I disagree.
I believe it was written so the Government could call up armed citizens (militias) for help and support in the event of a Revolutionary uprising, usually in the form of Left Wing radicalism, or foreign invasion.




The 1st half spells out how important the support of citizens is to the Government, as the Government comprises citizens. The 2nd half spells out that it is unconstitutional to strip citizens of their rights to arm themselves in order to assist the Government. Their Government.

Prior to infringements in 1934, the NFA, one could own any weapon including full-auto, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, suppressors, etc.

The tyrants used the prohibition-era gangsters and bank robbers to make NFA sound like a "reasonable" response to "rampant" crime. The ruling parasites will use any opportunity to reduce / restrict our Constitutional rights, especially 2A, which is why the authors of the Constitution made it clear on 2A: "shall not be infringed".

I agree that the militia (which is every able bodied male citizen who is well-regulated = skilled in use and care of weapons, as our Founders understood it.) were to defend our country from enemies foreign or domestic. The minutemen of Lexington and Concord come to mind. That same militia was also a force to counter and deal with the government should it ever become tyrannical itself, which the Founders also foresaw as inevitable outcome:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

[rsm]

Started by the Masons..

?

actually it was rich white men who wanted to enrich themselves further by being in control of it, instead of beholden to the British Empire.

 

[Bad Brain]

actually it was rich white men who wanted to enrich themselves further by being in control of it, instead of beholden to the British Empire.

And the difference is?

 

[Bad Brain]

we’d probably be better off if they had just stuck with the articles of confederation.

 

[rsm]

And the difference is?

that didn't require being a Mason, but apparently that helped you be part of the club

 

[rsm]

we’d probably be better off if they had just stuck with the articles of confederation.

Absolutely. One thing the Acts missed was the ability to coordinate and drive consensus among the states, IIRC. The states had much more distributed autonomy that put wealthier more populous states at an advantage (e.g., Virginia vs Rhode Island), but it was a much better system being decentralized it would be more difficult for tyrants to usurp power.

Originally the Constitution provided States rights, however, as the Federalists grew in power and gained control of the Federal government vs their own State governments, there was a concerted effort to strip States of their rights, most notably visible in the actions of the tyrant Lincoln. IIRC, the Constitution was an agreement among the states to cede some of their power to the Federal government, by agreeing to the Constitution they did not relinquish their right to secede. In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession, both of which tyrant Lincoln paved the way; the Supreme Court gave Lincoln's actions a rubber stamp after the fact.

 

[Ben Waylin]

actually it was rich white men who wanted to enrich themselves further by being in control of it, instead of beholden to the British Empire.

The Masons.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

I clearly said to view the writing of the US Constitution within the contemporary context (timeframe and events) in which it was written.
In other words, think of what was going on in the late 1780's in order to understand what it means.

Dude, I can't make it any clearer than that.

There is a super strange miscommunication going on here that I can’t figure out

The quotes RSM added pretty much perfectly align with my sentiments but I feel like they were used against my sentiments.

 

[Ben Waylin]

There is a super strange miscommunication going in here that I can’t figure out.

It's called "trolling".

 

[311boogieman]

 

[Ben Waylin]

 

[Dan Gleesak]

It's called "trolling".

I think there has been surprisingly little trolling in this thread so far

 

[Ben Waylin]

I think there has been surprisingly little trolling in this thread so far

If you can't identify it, how do you know ?

 

[Bad Brain]

I think there has been surprisingly little trolling in this thread so far

If you can't identify it, how do you know ?

Jinx