6 ms·

The fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge. I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. The

The fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge. I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. The Second Amendment is there, in part, to avoid the need for a standing military at all, because standing armies have a tendancy to be turned on the people. Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force. A bit better organization could have put that into effect in Minneapolis.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago
There is still the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military for domestic purposes.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  The PCA has an explicit exception for use in accordance with the Insurrection Act. FYI.
cryptonector 6y ago
> The fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge. I don't think there is any question about the constitutionality of the Act. I don't think there was any question about the constitutionality of the act in 1992 either. There might be a question about a particular application of it, however. > I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says Congress gets to deal with insurrection: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Well, the Insurrection Act, passed a mere 20 years after the Constitution was written, before the last founder President, does exactly what the bit of the Constitution I quoted says. There had been revolts within Washington's presidency, which he himself put down in the field (not from his residence or office). > Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force. There was no police in 1787, or in 1807 for that matter. There was also no standing army. The militia was all there was, and the militia was just armed citizens. Certainly, many believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to make feasible a revolt / tyranny difficult to impose, so in that sense you're right, but there was no police in 1807.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  But the militia was imagined as a different thing than a standing professional army
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    Indeed, but when did I say otherwise? You said the militia existed to overthrow a then-unimagined police, but clearly that's not the case (because there was no police).
    - jeffdavis 6y ago
      Self defense is the general principle, and one of the things it offers is independence from the police. A long time ago maybe that meant not having police at all, today it means that the police can be fired.
      - cryptonector 6y ago
        Armed revolt certainly can be good, though it can also be bad, and the victors will decide. For example, the Founders were traitors to the British, and all then-still-alive ones would have hung if the War had been lost. That means if you're going to have an armed revolt, you'll want to make sure you win. Even now we're far from what you have in mind. Civil war ideation is probably not productive at this time nor generally -- let it always be a remote possibility, possible, yes, but remote and unwanted. We're seeing a fair bit of legislative and social change right now, and we can expect more; there's no need to start killing people or threatening to or fantasizing about it.
        jeffdavis 6y ago
        Why do you think I want a violent revolt? If you can protect yourself, you can simply (along with fellow voters) abolish the police. Once they stop getting paychecks, they will go home peacefully. Without private gun ownership, abolishing the police would be too painful because you'd be at the mercy of the strongest criminals. Private gun ownership at least affords some protecting while you reform.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 6y ago
Just to be clear, you're advocating at best the Black Panther strategy? Or just straight up shooting at police?
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  No. Without the second amendment, you are dependent on police for safety -- so dependent that there is little you won't put up with. With the second amendment, you can simply fire the police without (as much) worry for your family's safety. It would still be bad, but at least you have an option. So it's not necessarily a violent confrontation. You just get a mayor in place that will stop paying them. A large group of people can often get a mayor to do something if they have a specific proposal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- billme 6y ago
  Disbanding the existing police force is possible without conflict, though it would require the local government taking action, having a plan, etc.
  - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    One possible solution is to deputize local law abiding citizens temporarily. And rehire officers that undergo stricter training.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    May I suggest a template: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ruc-will-cease-to-exist-as-new-structures-replace-it-1.215921 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ruc-will-cease-to-exist-as-n... The "replacement" of the RUC with the PSNI was achieved without interruption or total turnover of personnel, but managed to change the ethos and image enough to bring peace enough to Northern Ireland. At the same time, the troops with a record of shooting civilians were withdrawn from the streets. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a success.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
xxpor 6y ago
>the founders' intent, though Are you sure about that? I feel like the Whiskey Rebellion does away with that idea.
- billme 6y ago
  Agree, Whiskey Rebellion at the very least made clear George Washington’s position on the matter; he personally attended to the assault on the rebels.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago

There is still the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military for domestic purposes.

cryptonector 6y ago
The PCA has an explicit exception for use in accordance with the Insurrection Act. FYI.

cryptonector 6y ago

> The fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge. I don't think there is any question about the constitutionality of the Act. I don't think there was any question about the constitutionality of the act in 1992 either. There might be a question about a particular application of it, however. > I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says Congress gets to deal with insurrection: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Well, the Insurrection Act, passed a mere 20 years after the Constitution was written, before the last founder President, does exactly what the bit of the Constitution I quoted says. There had been revolts within Washington's presidency, which he himself put down in the field (not from his residence or office). > Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force. There was no police in 1787, or in 1807 for that matter. There was also no standing army. The militia was all there was, and the militia was just armed citizens. Certainly, many believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to make feasible a revolt / tyranny difficult to impose, so in that sense you're right, but there was no police in 1807.

jeffdavis 6y ago
But the militia was imagined as a different thing than a standing professional army
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Indeed, but when did I say otherwise? You said the militia existed to overthrow a then-unimagined police, but clearly that's not the case (because there was no police).
  - jeffdavis 6y ago
    Self defense is the general principle, and one of the things it offers is independence from the police. A long time ago maybe that meant not having police at all, today it means that the police can be fired.
    - cryptonector 6y ago
      Armed revolt certainly can be good, though it can also be bad, and the victors will decide. For example, the Founders were traitors to the British, and all then-still-alive ones would have hung if the War had been lost. That means if you're going to have an armed revolt, you'll want to make sure you win. Even now we're far from what you have in mind. Civil war ideation is probably not productive at this time nor generally -- let it always be a remote possibility, possible, yes, but remote and unwanted. We're seeing a fair bit of legislative and social change right now, and we can expect more; there's no need to start killing people or threatening to or fantasizing about it.
      - jeffdavis 6y ago
        Why do you think I want a violent revolt? If you can protect yourself, you can simply (along with fellow voters) abolish the police. Once they stop getting paychecks, they will go home peacefully. Without private gun ownership, abolishing the police would be too painful because you'd be at the mercy of the strongest criminals. Private gun ownership at least affords some protecting while you reform.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 6y ago

Just to be clear, you're advocating at best the Black Panther strategy? Or just straight up shooting at police?

jeffdavis 6y ago
No. Without the second amendment, you are dependent on police for safety -- so dependent that there is little you won't put up with. With the second amendment, you can simply fire the police without (as much) worry for your family's safety. It would still be bad, but at least you have an option. So it's not necessarily a violent confrontation. You just get a mayor in place that will stop paying them. A large group of people can often get a mayor to do something if they have a specific proposal.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
billme 6y ago
Disbanding the existing police force is possible without conflict, though it would require the local government taking action, having a plan, etc.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  One possible solution is to deputize local law abiding citizens temporarily. And rehire officers that undergo stricter training.
- pjc50 6y ago
  May I suggest a template: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ruc-will-cease-to-exist-as-new-structures-replace-it-1.215921 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ruc-will-cease-to-exist-as-n... The "replacement" of the RUC with the PSNI was achieved without interruption or total turnover of personnel, but managed to change the ethos and image enough to bring peace enough to Northern Ireland. At the same time, the troops with a record of shooting civilians were withdrawn from the streets. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a success.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago

xxpor 6y ago

>the founders' intent, though Are you sure about that? I feel like the Whiskey Rebellion does away with that idea.

billme 6y ago
Agree, Whiskey Rebellion at the very least made clear George Washington’s position on the matter; he personally attended to the assault on the rebels.