A question about The Second Amendment

[Stanyon]

Quoting this so it can't be self-user-deleted later. Lol.

Why would I delete such a excellent post?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not musically inclined in the slightest, not to mention Banjo pickin' requires some of the highest level of dexterity of any string instrument. I have bear paws for hands, strong but no agility.

I a lover of music, but no real musical talent of my own either.

Why would that ever happen? Foreign invaders I guess? Guerilla tactics my boy. Use the home field advantage. Same strat the Vietnamese used against the U.S. and it worked well against us.

I thought that was the entire point of this. That hunters would lead the rise up against the invasion of a foreign military.

They worked well in Viet Nam as much for the fact that we did not have a full commitment as they did out of any value of the tactics themselves. Our government was given the authority to raise a standing army out of acknowledgement of the limitations of guerilla tactics in winning a war. Guerilla tactics have a value, but modern warfare is an entirely different playing field today than it was 230 years ago.

They defend America, its people, and the Constitution. Anyone that goes against these are the enemy, foreign or domestic.

That was the point. I thought you were saying they got to pick and choose who they defended or how they were deployed.

Well yeah the anti-gun crowd is in rebellion. You are possibly witnessing the beginning of a second civil war.

I would say they are in opposition. Hardly a rebellion.

It already has, mostly a cold war at the moment, with little sports of violence here and there.

The extremes always choose violence, but that does not constitute a rebellion of a whole group of people.

Suare, but they are also poor. Old money doesn't contribute to the soldier population. Old money produces liberals.

But your claim was that the military was made up of the dirt poor and that is no longer true today. They are there, but the military wants intelligent soldiers that can think and still follow orders.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your numbers are close. 83% of the military are poor to middle class. 17% are come from rich backgrounds, these are most likely officers, intelligence, communications etc and not grunt soldiers though.



That's easy. Its middle class to upper class college students from suburban areas.

While acknowledging that my evidence for the demographics of the anti-gun crowd is largely anecdotal, we are in agreement. The bulk of both the military and the anti-gun crowd appear to be out of the middle class. This does not fit with what you previously stated. Your claim would be more accurate historically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think to understand the founders words here in the constitution, we must know what they said elsewhere when they talked about arms and malitia.

Heres a list of quotes. Gun Quotes From Our Founding Fathers – 2nd Amendment

Basically in a nutshell, the founding fathers are saying that this malitia IS the CIVILIANS of the country. The purpose of the arms was incase the government got out of control.

Whatever the US Constitution means by "militia," Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."

If the entire US populace is "the militia," then Congress has the power to provide for your arming - i.e. decide what sorts of guns you have - and to provide for your disciplining - i.e. decide how you can use those weapons and punish you if you disobey.

 

[Nakosis]

Thanks. I missed that.

.

Also change the color for a darker blue. I won't use that blue any more.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, the first clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, announces the reason for the second clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Without the first clause the second clause has no reason for existing. It's like saying to your child, "Because you've been good you get an ice cream cone." No being good, no ice cream cone.

.

You seem to think that is the only reason. This is where you are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just after I posted in this thread remembered I'd be getting tons of alerts and online I really just don't care anymore because so few people are interested in actually having a discussion about it. If you mention certain "trigger words," you're one of them, you either support gun bans entirely or are aiding and abetting in gun violence directly somehow, I've been a bourgeois puppet for not supporting everyone be armed. I've been a fascist Commie for not supporting everyone be armed. It does extent in real life, but at least in real life conversation is more organized and you most people will let you finish when you request they allow you to do so, so even knee-jerky reactions are easier to calm over in real life. Some people will claim I want to get rid of guns and I hate guns, but I'm utterly unashamed of the fact learning to shot was something I learned to do very early in life. Most people in those rural settings, boys and girls alike, do learn to shoot at a young age. Anymore teaching the kids to shoot with a rifle doesn't actually serve any pragmatic function overall in society like it used to, it's just tradition. And I love rubbing it in the faces of people who try to put everything in a box either-or, this-and-that. I don't hate or love guns, but whether I or do or not really just depends on who you ask.

I find I am often in the same situation. I am not extreme enough for either side and I have opinions that fit all over the place.

I grew up in a household full of guns, but respect for them was taught at an early age. That they were tools with an interesting history, design, construction or even an artistic value was taught, but they were not venerated as idols either.

There are some that see the problems we are having as the price of freedom. Certainly it is selfish, but I am not even sure it reflects freedom.

 

[Curious George]

Whatever the US Constitution means by "militia," Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."

If the entire US populace is "the militia," then Congress has the power to provide for your arming - i.e. decide what sorts of guns you have - and to provide for your disciplining - i.e. decide how you can use those weapons and punish you if you disobey.

As long as that doesn't infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

They can choose what guns with which they arm the people, that doesn't mean they can also choose what guns the people cannot have to arm themselves.

And yes they may call forth people and discipline them as that relates to the militia. When you don't serve when your draft number is called, what happens? Why?

 

[Curious George]

There are some that see the problems we are having as the price of freedom. Certainly it is selfish, but I am not even sure it reflects freedom.

Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why?

I assume they consider that rights have prices. That certainly seems reasonable. They do require defending to be maintained. But where does the cost end I wonder?

 

[Curious George]

I assume they consider that rights have prices. That certainly seems reasonable. They do require defending to be maintained. But where does the cost end I wonder?

Why are you not even sure it reflects freedom?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why are you not even sure it reflects freedom?

Is the question really about arms or about protecting the lives of the citizens? Are arms the only means of protection? Is possession and use of weapons all positive? There are lots of questions that make me doubt this is the only means to protection and that unnecessary loss of life is just the cost of that protection. Is it freedom for all that we all must risk death so that some can exercise a right that others choose not to? I don't know. You tell me.

I don't have time to get into this right now. I have work to do, but if I have time later. I'll get back to you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And nor should a second test, third test, ect happen. A first test should not even happen.

Driving is too dangerous and poses too great a public health risk for this to happen.

 

[Enoch07]

That hunters would lead the rise up against the invasion of a foreign military.

You're jumping to conclusion there.

I said they'd be more accurate and reliable with a weapon in their hand.

Guerilla tactics have a value, but modern warfare is an entirely different playing field today than it was 230 years ago.

You completley ignored Afghanistan then eh? Also other counties miltaries are not as advanced as the U.S.. So they don't have the same advantages as the U.S.

That was the point. I thought you were saying they got to pick and choose who they defended or how they were deployed.

Ultimately they do as sentient human beings.

I would say they are in opposition. Hardly a rebellion.

Sure thing comrade.

Notes on The Party, Reform, Revolution and the Myth of Spontaneity in Rosa Luxemburg - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Political Revolution 101 - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Reform & Revolution

From Debs to the DSA? Rescuing America’s Revolutionary Tradition

Pinellas DSA Political Revolution Launch

The extremes always choose violence, but that does not constitute a rebellion of a whole group of people.

Nah but a mission statement does.

But your claim was that the military was made up of the dirt poor and that is no longer true today.

It is made up of the poor and working class, mostly. You even said so yourself.

They are there, but the military wants intelligent soldiers that can think and still follow orders.

So you think poor people are stupid and insubordinate?

Not surprising, the mask has been slipping for years.

 

[Enoch07]

The bulk of both the military and the anti-gun crowd appear to be out of the middle class. This does not fit with what you previously stated. Your claim would be more accurate historically.

No,like I said before the majority of the military is poor and working class. Dunno why you think that doesn't fit with what I said previously.

 

[Skwim]

You seem to think that is the only reason. This is where you are wrong.

So, what other reason is given in the amendment?

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I said, don't try to **** down my back and try to tell me it's raining.

Then don't **** on me and go on about this and that dumb statement to attempt to prove a dumb point. The stuff you mentioned, I assume you think I grew up with the internet, cell phones, and learned socializing through a screen. More dumb assumptions as I was pretty of the last of those who didn't have cell phones in high school and we could take off with no convenient way of getting a hold of us. And we still had "naughty magazines" and Polaroid cameras.
It was a dumb assumption you made all around, any way you look at it on any level.

I don't want to give you grief or say you wasted your life.

You pretty much did.

Did you not have anything better to do or have friends to hang with?

Even after it's been demonstrated you were wrong, you still go on about me ****ting on you and you're a stickler. What have I done with the last 14 years of my life? I've had my work adored and admired by audiences. Not of a "super star" size or income, but performing for a few hundred or several thousand, in a small art gallery in Indiana or large one in the middle of NYC, my name has been a busy bee by looking at the playbill and seeing me with set work and stage management, tech work with lights and sound, directing and organizing back stage efforts, and there I still am on stage. And I did while being in another play (though not nearly as involved), going to school (college, as I graduated high school early), going to work, bowling league, and just arriving here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I hope not, but the way the violence is escalating it wouldn't surprise me. I see no end of it in sight. Especially when the liberals in the liberal forums here just doubled down and called the majority of Trump supporters racist. This is one of the causes Trump won in 2016.

I've heard that before. Nothing came of it. And it is looking like this time again it will be Trump supporters and those of the Right warning and worried about violence as a result of the election. But I am utterly unworried and unconcerned.

 

[Curious George]

Is the question really about arms or about protecting the lives of the citizens? Are arms the only means of protection? Is possession and use of weapons all positive? There are lots of questions that make me doubt this is the only means to protection and that unnecessary loss of life is just the cost of that protection. Is it freedom for all that we all must risk death so that some can exercise a right that others choose not to? I don't know. You tell me.

I don't have time to get into this right now. I have work to do, but if I have time later. I'll get back to you.

Of course, you can get back to me later.

You asked if arms are the only means of protection. No, there are many other ways to protect oneself. Guns are however an efficient and effective tool toward this end. So we must ask ourselves if the government ought to be able to restrict access to that tool, especially when restricting access to that tool is specifically outside of the government's authority.

If you feel that it should be within the government's authority, then we are talking about a constitutional amendment. If you believe the government should be able to restrict access to those tools even though doing so is outside of their authority then you are discussing disregarding the constitution.

Either way we are discussing freedoms.

 

[Curious George]

So, what other reason is given in the amendment?

.

Are you suggesting that absent specific reasoning, no reasoning exists?

Surely you can employ better logic than that.