Purpose of 2nd Amendment

[benwynn]

Those are definitely things developed since the Bill of Rights was written so would be excluded based on the TeamD understanding of those rights.

I'd exclude them based on being dangerous and unusual, but not because they were invented after the Bill of Rights.

How about you? Would you exclude them for the TeamD reason, mine, some other, or would you say those are suitable militia weapons like battlefield .22's?

Let's go with dangerous and unusual.  Would you agree that both of those adjectives are entirely subjective?   That your application of those terms would differ from the application by someone else?  A schoolteacher at Robb Elementary School for example?

 

[Keith]

Those are definitely things developed since the Bill of Rights was written so would be excluded based on the TeamD understanding of those rights.

I'd exclude them based on being dangerous and unusual, but not because they were invented after the Bill of Rights.

How about you? Would you exclude them for the TeamD reason, mine, some other, or would you say those are suitable militia weapons like battlefield .22's?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-supreme-court-justice-e2-80-99s-solution-to-gun-violence-repeal-second-amendment/ar-AAXPhQV

"In a March 27, 2018, New York Times op-ed, Stevens praised the protesters and their call for stricter gun control laws. “But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,” he wrote, about a year before his death at 99. “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

 

[Steam Flyer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-supreme-court-justice-e2-80-99s-solution-to-gun-violence-repeal-second-amendment/ar-AAXPhQV

"In a March 27, 2018, New York Times op-ed, Stevens praised the protesters and their call for stricter gun control laws. “But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,” he wrote, about a year before his death at 99. “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

And they were right, a standing army is a huge threat to the nation. It's the actual embodiment of the Military-Industrial-Complex which has distorted and perverted the USA's basic principles.

Now, that is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned at all. They would be aghast at the idea that the DuPont family (then the major gunpowder-maker) would ally with village gunsmiths and ironmasters, and bribe the government into working for their benefit and the detriment of voters. They would say that the problem is not weapons but BRIBERY.

And they'd be correct. But the problem has taken root in such a way that if we could somehow re-instill a sense of ethics... shame, really... into our politicians such that they were no longer so easy to bribe, the M-I-C would still be holding the reins.

The Founding Fathers were afraid that an army commander would simply use a loyal standing army to make himself dictator... a new king. There are many many examples of this in history, so their fears were well founded. The best counter-force to this was not a law which could be easily circumvented (as we are seeing with election law) but the inherent character of the military men.

What made military despotism impossible in the new United States?

- DSK

 

[Keith]

This is all that matters.

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Long past time to drag Americans kicking and screaming out of the 18th century, or you can continue to watch your population decimated by firearms.

 

[Ishmael]

This is all that matters.

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Long past time to drag Americans kicking and screaming out of the 18th century, or you can continue to watch your population decimated by firearms.

With collateral damage in our country because of the sea of guns washing over the border. We have skin in this game too.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

What made military despotism impossible in the new United States?

- DSK

The lack of faction. Note that I do not say absence of faction…such was not the case. George Washington warned of it. Foxy News delivered it. We are watching it (and the ratings are fucking AWESOME!!!)

 

[Olsonist]

The lack of faction. Note that I do not say absence of faction…such was not the case. George Washington warned of it. Foxy News delivered it. We are watching it (and the ratings are fucking AWESOME!!!)

Yes, but the right wing has been growing steadily since Reagan kept the SoCons locked in the basement and opened the door every four years, tossed down some red meat and got their votes. Gingrich first figured how to farm them as a cash crop. Then Aimee Semple McPalin learned what entertained them. Finally, conservatives realized that governance was not the solution. Governance was the problem. What elk want is entertainment.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

22 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:
Those are definitely things developed since the Bill of Rights was written so would be excluded based on the TeamD understanding of those rights.

I'd exclude them based on being dangerous and unusual, but not because they were invented after the Bill of Rights.

How about you? Would you exclude them for the TeamD reason, mine, some other, or would you say those are suitable militia weapons like battlefield .22's?
Expand  Expand  

Let's go with dangerous and unusual.  Would you agree that both of those adjectives are entirely subjective?

Yes, I'd agree that those terms are subjective.

Would you agree that the Massachusetts Supreme Court went too far in saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern technology, even though the result was gungrabby?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Right up until there's a real coup instead of a nincomcoup.

Our republic has lasted about as long as they generally last. Next time the people wanting to overthrow the government might just succeed when they try to get some of the military on their side. They might not exercise such incredibly diligent trigger discipline when mobbing the capitol. Or maybe they were not so diligent and most were unarmed, which seems more likely and less intelligent.

 

[Keith]

Right up until there's a real coup instead of a nincomcoup.

Our republic has lasted about as long as they generally last. Next time the people wanting to overthrow the government might just succeed when they try to get some of the military on their side. They might not exercise such incredibly diligent trigger discipline when mobbing the capitol. Or maybe they were not so diligent and most were unarmed, which seems more likely and less intelligent.

This is all that matters.

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Long past time to drag Americans kicking and screaming out of the 18th century, or you can continue to watch your population decimated by firearms.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Right up until there's a real coup instead of a nincomcoup.

Our republic has lasted about as long as they generally last. Next time the people wanting to overthrow the government might just succeed when they try to get some of the military on their side. .....

Careful with the threats.

They had some of the military on their side on Jan 6th 2020, and in the planning of it. Remember General Flynn?

- DSK

 

[hasher]

This is all that matters.

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Long past time to drag Americans kicking and screaming out of the 18th century, or you can continue to watch your population decimated by firearms.

We did have that General who was elected back in the 50's.  The economy grew and the rich paid 90 percent of their income.  He warned us of the military-industrial complex.  He had nothing but scorn for tricky dick.  

Raygun didn't want to work.  He believed in the bust of himself that he had in his living room.

Kissing the feet of the gun fanatics gives you  a place in the gubberment.

Fuck them.

 

[Blue Crab]

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Today that is a very real threat. Stevens was mistaken.

 

[Steam Flyer]

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Today that is a very real threat. Stevens was mistaken.

Yep. General Flynn would love to use his fellow fascists (including his brother) in the Army to claim a throne for himself

- DSK

 

[Blue Crab]

Yep. General Flynn would love to use his fellow fascists (including his brother) in the Army to claim a throne for himself.

And that's the one obvious connection we know about. We also know that TFG made some high-level, last minute, personnel changes at the Pentagon and elsewhere. I see no reason for that other than to obstruct the transition at worst or help facilitate the post insurrection realignment at best.

Just in my personal circle, the vets, ret. officers and enlisted alike, are all in for TFG. It's a different look at the way we think about oaths and flags. The guys have the same level of belief that we do, just at the other end of the scale. And, they have the guns. A couple are meal teamers but most are in good shape, trained, and no strangers to use of force.

 

[Keith]

"Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote."

Long past time to drag Americans kicking and screaming out of the 18th century, or you can continue to watch your population decimated by firearms.

 

[Steam Flyer]

And that's the one obvious connection we know about. We also know that TFG made some high-level, last minute, personnel changes at the Pentagon and elsewhere. I see no reason for that other than to obstruct the transition at worst or help facilitate the post insurrection realignment at best.

Just in my personal circle, the vets, ret. officers and enlisted alike, are all in for TFG. It's a different look at the way we think about oaths and flags. The guys have the same level of belief that we do, just at the other end of the scale. And, they have the guns. A couple are meal teamers but most are in good shape, trained, and no strangers to use of force.

How many of them do you think would be on board with rounding up black people and probable Democrats and herding them into gas chambers?

How many of them do you think would be on board for a years long struggle watching their buddies get killed and any chance of actual home life destroyed? For the sake of an obvious white-supremacist fascist dictatorship?

Of course, in the glory of the moment, everybody thinks their side is going to win quickly and almost bloodlessly... and that blood shed by the other team. IMHO the USA's 2nd Civil War is likely to be a mix of Spain's Civil War, the Irish Troubles, and Ukraine... with a result looking a lot like Syria.

- DSK

 

[Blue Crab]

How many of them do you think would be on board with rounding up black people and probable Democrats and herding them into gas chambers?

How many of them do you think would be on board for a years long struggle watching their buddies get killed and any chance of actual home life destroyed? For the sake of an obvious white-supremacist fascist dictatorship?

Of course, in the glory of the moment, everybody thinks their side is going to win quickly and almost bloodlessly... and that blood shed by the other team. IMHO the USA's 2nd Civil War is likely to be a mix of Spain's Civil War, the Irish Troubles, and Ukraine... with a result looking a lot like Syria.

- DSK

I would disagree. I can see the takeover being almost bloodless. And fast.

 

[Steam Flyer]

I would disagree. I can see the takeover being almost bloodless. And fast.

It won't be.

Putin thought the same thing about taking over the Ukraine.

Those guys in law enforcement who are known white supremacists and mega-Trumpers are already on a list, guaranteed. The day shooting starts for real, many/most will be taken out. Some by their own "brethren in blue" who know the score. I would bet a lot that the same is true for many of the active-duty military officers of the same stripe. Of course, there are also whole companies of skinheads in the US military.

But you really didn't answer my question.

- DSK

 

[d'ranger]

Some people think that liberals don't own guns. And know how to use them. FWIW I have found a lot more Republicans who have given up on the party than the other way around. In fact I don't know anyone who in the last few years decided to jump on the trumpwagon.