4 ms·

> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the Am

> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification—though people (of course) argue whether or not it is still relevant. From my perspective, the 1st amendment had a similar justification, so if you really don't buy that _guns_ can keep the gov't in check in any kind of realistic way, clinging to "free speech" as something we absolutely need—for the exact same reason—rings hollow; it doesn't seem like a principled position to me to reject one and embrace the other.

loukrazy 10y ago
I definitely do not agree that the first and second amendment have similar functions. In practice it is the restriction on free speech that is a much more effective and pernicious way of controlling a population. If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria.
- erichocean 10y ago
  > If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria. Syria is a great example—for the exact opposite belief that a lack of guns is a terrible way to deal with a repressive regime, and will get you and your family killed. Syrians are NOT "heavily armed", not even close. Syria is ranked 110th out of all countries in terms of "number of guns per capita".[0] USA has 28.8x (!) as many guns per person as Syria. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...
hackuser 10y ago
>> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.
- tracker1 10y ago
  But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    "Well regulated"
    - bbradley406 10y ago
      Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    First, you must know that many people have may opinions on this; yours is not the only legitimate one. Welcome to democracy! Also, the militia act isn't the law, the Constitution is. The Constitution isn't scripture, written by gods and prophets for whom citizens should try to guess their superior, divine wisdom and intent. It's a political document, written by people as human as we are - well-meaning and flawed; earnest, careless, and horribly corrupt; etc. - just like current politicians. The wording is a compromise among those people, who certainly had many intents. (What is the "intent" of a law passed Congress? To find semi-ambiguous wording that can get a majority of votes.) Most fundamentally, the U.S. is a democracy (and if you care for the founders' intent, that's clearly a big one), not a secular theological state ruled by the will of dead philosopher-kings. Current U.S. citizens decide the law and what the words mean, majority rules.

loukrazy 10y ago

I definitely do not agree that the first and second amendment have similar functions. In practice it is the restriction on free speech that is a much more effective and pernicious way of controlling a population. If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria.

erichocean 10y ago
> If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria. Syria is a great example—for the exact opposite belief that a lack of guns is a terrible way to deal with a repressive regime, and will get you and your family killed. Syrians are NOT "heavily armed", not even close. Syria is ranked 110th out of all countries in terms of "number of guns per capita".[0] USA has 28.8x (!) as many guns per person as Syria. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...

hackuser 10y ago

>> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.

tracker1 10y ago
But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  "Well regulated"
  - bbradley406 10y ago
    Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.
- hackuser 10y ago
  First, you must know that many people have may opinions on this; yours is not the only legitimate one. Welcome to democracy! Also, the militia act isn't the law, the Constitution is. The Constitution isn't scripture, written by gods and prophets for whom citizens should try to guess their superior, divine wisdom and intent. It's a political document, written by people as human as we are - well-meaning and flawed; earnest, careless, and horribly corrupt; etc. - just like current politicians. The wording is a compromise among those people, who certainly had many intents. (What is the "intent" of a law passed Congress? To find semi-ambiguous wording that can get a majority of votes.) Most fundamentally, the U.S. is a democracy (and if you care for the founders' intent, that's clearly a big one), not a secular theological state ruled by the will of dead philosopher-kings. Current U.S. citizens decide the law and what the words mean, majority rules.