6 ms·

Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of the p

by geggam 7y ago

Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of the people

philwelch 7y ago
The Founders also raised an army to put down a tax revolt in Appalachia—though to their credit they ultimately resolved the dispute through negotiation rather than bloodshed.
- geggam 7y ago
  Of course, ultimately politics is controlled violence
rayiner 7y ago
Of course that’s the reason. Different people use different euphemisms, for the same reason we do now. (“Defend against tyranny.”) But we’re talking about an amendment the founders wrote shortly after they took up arms to overthrow their government. It’s clear what they were talking about: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-history-lesson-times-ted-cruz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-hist... > Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. That was Noah Webster, dictionary guy. He’s clear that the second amendment embodies a personal right to bear arms (so the citizens aren’t disarmed, like in Europe) so they can overthrow the government.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Note, the point is not to overthrow the government in any real sense, but rather to make it incredibly costly and perhaps outright infeasible for the government to actively use state-organized violence against its own people, as dictatorships everywhere are wont to do. Combine an armed populace with a strong tradition of being loyal to the Constitution and its principles first and foremost, even in the context of a standing army or similar, and it's especially clear what the 2nd Amendment was supposed to achieve.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    The federal government is light-years ahead of whatever private citizens can get their hands on; 71% of americans are overweight or obese; 30% of americans have some kind of chronic pain. If a shooting war broke out between the federal government and private citizens, the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them like they were made of thin air. I think that the best way to exercise the second amendment is to organize militias at the state level, but even then, there still isnt enough cash for proper defenses against the federal government.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      > ...the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them... Even assuming that they could do this (which is plausibly quite wrong, as defense tactics can be very effective), what's the incentive? The people who serve in the National Guard are citizens themselves (who have sworn to uphold the Constitution) and every bit of effective defense makes it that much easier for them to defect while keeping plausible deniability. By contrast, if you've confiscated all the guns away (or bought them back) that dynamic just can't happen, at least not nearly as easily. The presence of an armed citizenry does make for a huge difference in this scenario. No doubt about it.
      - pm90 7y ago
        Their incentive would be a manufactured one, painting the citizenry as part of some conspiracy/extreme party etc. Just look at how many Republican news outlets continuously portray the other side as extreme and crazy and dangerous. Just having possession of armed weapons makes absolutely no difference to a modern, well equipped American military force. We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being monitored or cut off. The arms may make it hard for the occupying force as there will be more shootouts but retributions will keep most of the populace under control. The dynamic of Armed militias being a deterrent to a military occupation made sense in the 18th century but don’t make much sense today.

by geggam 7y ago

Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of the people

philwelch 7y ago

The Founders also raised an army to put down a tax revolt in Appalachia—though to their credit they ultimately resolved the dispute through negotiation rather than bloodshed.

geggam 7y ago
Of course, ultimately politics is controlled violence

rayiner 7y ago

Of course that’s the reason. Different people use different euphemisms, for the same reason we do now. (“Defend against tyranny.”) But we’re talking about an amendment the founders wrote shortly after they took up arms to overthrow their government. It’s clear what they were talking about: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-history-lesson-times-ted-cruz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-hist... > Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. That was Noah Webster, dictionary guy. He’s clear that the second amendment embodies a personal right to bear arms (so the citizens aren’t disarmed, like in Europe) so they can overthrow the government.

zozbot234 7y ago
Note, the point is not to overthrow the government in any real sense, but rather to make it incredibly costly and perhaps outright infeasible for the government to actively use state-organized violence against its own people, as dictatorships everywhere are wont to do. Combine an armed populace with a strong tradition of being loyal to the Constitution and its principles first and foremost, even in the context of a standing army or similar, and it's especially clear what the 2nd Amendment was supposed to achieve.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  The federal government is light-years ahead of whatever private citizens can get their hands on; 71% of americans are overweight or obese; 30% of americans have some kind of chronic pain. If a shooting war broke out between the federal government and private citizens, the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them like they were made of thin air. I think that the best way to exercise the second amendment is to organize militias at the state level, but even then, there still isnt enough cash for proper defenses against the federal government.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > ...the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them... Even assuming that they could do this (which is plausibly quite wrong, as defense tactics can be very effective), what's the incentive? The people who serve in the National Guard are citizens themselves (who have sworn to uphold the Constitution) and every bit of effective defense makes it that much easier for them to defect while keeping plausible deniability. By contrast, if you've confiscated all the guns away (or bought them back) that dynamic just can't happen, at least not nearly as easily. The presence of an armed citizenry does make for a huge difference in this scenario. No doubt about it.
    - pm90 7y ago
      Their incentive would be a manufactured one, painting the citizenry as part of some conspiracy/extreme party etc. Just look at how many Republican news outlets continuously portray the other side as extreme and crazy and dangerous. Just having possession of armed weapons makes absolutely no difference to a modern, well equipped American military force. We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being monitored or cut off. The arms may make it hard for the occupying force as there will be more shootouts but retributions will keep most of the populace under control. The dynamic of Armed militias being a deterrent to a military occupation made sense in the 18th century but don’t make much sense today.