5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
tmaly 6y ago
I recall there was a rebellion by the veterans of the war for independence. They were poorly supported and after we won independence from Britain they stirred up.

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.

tmaly 6y ago

I recall there was a rebellion by the veterans of the war for independence. They were poorly supported and after we won independence from Britain they stirred up.