4 ms·

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one e

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.

pc86 11y ago
The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom. I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.
- jonathankoren 11y ago
  No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization original). It's prima facie absurd to think that the very document that defines treason as "levying war against [the United States]" and talks about using "Militia to [...] suppress Insurrections" would also codify insurrection as a good thing.
  - hga 11y ago
    You're conflating the Constitution created by the Federalists, which defined the latter two items, and the different document known as the Bill of Rights which was the price of the Anti-Federalists to accept to that Constitution. And the very same Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights also defined the militia in law, and basically that same definition holds to this day in 10 U.S. Code § 311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311, modulo modern interpretation that holds "men" equals men and women, folding in the National Guard, etc. Note also that the Founders were hardly of a single mind on the subject, with, say, Jefferson being the most noted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (see e.g. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation) http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l... ), but he had plenty of company. We've always had seriously ornery factions in the nation....
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    A Militia is armed people. Because Militias were a good thing for the people, a right to bear arms shall not be abolished. But anyways, the reasoning is just reasoning. The right is pretty clearly spelled out and stands on its own.
    - krapp 11y ago
      A Militia is not necessarily "any group of people with guns and a grudge against the government."
      - EdHominem 11y ago
        No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.) It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.
        jonathankoren 11y ago
        Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchase a weapon?[1] The state. The main point that differed a "militia" from an "army" was that it was a part time affair, and not a standing army. The threat antifederalists cared about was a standing federal army imposing its will on the state government. It was never about random dudes getting upset at the government. Although there was plenty of that too. (The Whiskey and Shay's rebellions come to mind.) It's just that the founding fathers would send the militia in to arrest them. To romanticize the colonial and early state militias as rugged individualists ready to stand up to The Man is simply ahistorical. [0] http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Mil... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
  - pc86 11y ago
    I mean you can throw your hands up and say "No" all you want while quoting different documents (as others have pointed out, BOR v. Constitution) but it doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Well, there was also the whole 'suppression of slave revolts' thing too.
falsestprophet 11y ago
I accept the premise that many people elected to Congress act in their own interests before their constituents. But I think long before violently overthrowing the government, people would first try electing different people.
- hga 11y ago
  Indeed; you'll note that while those of us who compose the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are still buying guns and ammo at record levels, we're not using them for such, we're still trying the "electing different people" approach. And that's why so many of us are at this point willing to try using such a blunt instrument as Donald Trump....
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
krapp 11y ago
I feel like armchair revolutionary nonsense like this should be considered equivalent to Godwin's Law. Once you begin concern trolling and intimating the need for "second amendment solutions" in a political thread[0], you've declared your own intellectual bankruptcy. [0]outside forums where such things are on topic, I guess.

pc86 11y ago

The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom. I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.

jonathankoren 11y ago
No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization original). It's prima facie absurd to think that the very document that defines treason as "levying war against [the United States]" and talks about using "Militia to [...] suppress Insurrections" would also codify insurrection as a good thing.
- hga 11y ago
  You're conflating the Constitution created by the Federalists, which defined the latter two items, and the different document known as the Bill of Rights which was the price of the Anti-Federalists to accept to that Constitution. And the very same Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights also defined the militia in law, and basically that same definition holds to this day in 10 U.S. Code § 311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311, modulo modern interpretation that holds "men" equals men and women, folding in the National Guard, etc. Note also that the Founders were hardly of a single mind on the subject, with, say, Jefferson being the most noted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (see e.g. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation) http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l... ), but he had plenty of company. We've always had seriously ornery factions in the nation....
- EdHominem 11y ago
  A Militia is armed people. Because Militias were a good thing for the people, a right to bear arms shall not be abolished. But anyways, the reasoning is just reasoning. The right is pretty clearly spelled out and stands on its own.
  - krapp 11y ago
    A Militia is not necessarily "any group of people with guns and a grudge against the government."
    - EdHominem 11y ago
      No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.) It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.
      - jonathankoren 11y ago
        Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchase a weapon?[1] The state. The main point that differed a "militia" from an "army" was that it was a part time affair, and not a standing army. The threat antifederalists cared about was a standing federal army imposing its will on the state government. It was never about random dudes getting upset at the government. Although there was plenty of that too. (The Whiskey and Shay's rebellions come to mind.) It's just that the founding fathers would send the militia in to arrest them. To romanticize the colonial and early state militias as rugged individualists ready to stand up to The Man is simply ahistorical. [0] http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Mil... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
- pc86 11y ago
  I mean you can throw your hands up and say "No" all you want while quoting different documents (as others have pointed out, BOR v. Constitution) but it doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Well, there was also the whole 'suppression of slave revolts' thing too.

falsestprophet 11y ago

I accept the premise that many people elected to Congress act in their own interests before their constituents. But I think long before violently overthrowing the government, people would first try electing different people.

hga 11y ago
Indeed; you'll note that while those of us who compose the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are still buying guns and ammo at record levels, we're not using them for such, we're still trying the "electing different people" approach. And that's why so many of us are at this point willing to try using such a blunt instrument as Donald Trump....

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

krapp 11y ago

I feel like armchair revolutionary nonsense like this should be considered equivalent to Godwin's Law. Once you begin concern trolling and intimating the need for "second amendment solutions" in a political thread[0], you've declared your own intellectual bankruptcy. [0]outside forums where such things are on topic, I guess.