6 ms·

Yeesh, sort of the exact opposite of a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

romanoderoma 6y ago
It's so ourageous isn't it? a thousand years before the 2nd amendment was conceived, peasant had other preoccupations than bearing expensive, heavy, difficult to handle arms. What were they thinking? Did they not love freedom? It's so incredible that they did not copy the US Constitution, even though the first Constitution in the human history /, the Magna Charts, was written 4 centuries later than the Annales Bertiniani, in 1215.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  Seriously guys, 2nd amendment was written in 1791, the Annales Bertiniani are from 840. The idea that the 2nd amendment protects the peasants is also wrong and it's one of the reasons people laugh at USA, when the 2nd amendment was approved, Grand Duchy of Tuscany had already abolished death penalty. 2nd amendment was introduced to permit people to shoot tax collectors (i.e. the British)
  - krapp 6y ago
    >2nd amendment was introduced to permit people to shoot tax collectors (i.e. the British) The 2nd Amendment was introduced because the states were afraid a standing national army would give too much power to the Federal government, so the plan was to have individual states field their own militias instead. Also because the principles of the right to self defense were established in British common law at the time - but that has more to do with keeping cougars and vandals away than any abstract fears of tyranny. You're right that it didn't really protect "peasants" - it mostly protected the interests of rich landowners. Which is, ironically, what Ben Franklin was actually arguing against with his often repeated (and misinterpreted) quote about those who trade a little liberty for safety deserving neither.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      > quote about those who trade a little liberty for safety deserving neither He said stuff like that left and right. He was very much in favor of sticking to one's ideological guns even when personally inconvenient. He was arguing in favor of the federal government retaining the authority to tax in the instance everyone quotes.
kebman 6y ago
It's one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was written; to avoid tyrannical rule, and to allow the "peasants" (regular people) to revolt if a tyrant ever took power.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  You don't need the right to bear arms to revolt to tyrants. There is no similar right in any other part of the World, in every other part of the World there have been revolts, sometimes much larger than US has ever witnessed. Many countries have also revolted against USA, that more often than not has been the tryrant.
  - prepend 6y ago
    It’s not a requirement, but it certainly helps.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      it depends on who gets the arms. there is no "the people" as a single entity and interests when there is a revolt. if everybody is armed, the supporters of the tyrant are going to be armed as well. But with better equipment.
      - prepend 6y ago
        That would be true if it was just civilians fighting, but the military is usually on the side of the tyrant. It’s mathematically better, I think that armed populace has a higher chance of revolt vs armed loyalist populace + armed military than unarmed populace vs unarmed loyalist + armed military. And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger than the pro-tyrannical populace since if the tyrant has the support of the people then are they really a tyrant.
        romanoderoma 6y ago
        > It’s mathematically better, I think that armed populace has a higher chance of revolt US is the only country in the western World who only made one real revolution. And it was to not pay taxes, not against a true tyrant. > And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger The only thing that will be larger is the anti everybody else populace (tribalism, to give it a name). USA had one major civil war and they keep killing each other like nowhere else in the World (like ten times more than the west average). It's mathematically provable.

It's so ourageous isn't it? a thousand years before the 2nd amendment was conceived, peasant had other preoccupations than bearing expensive, heavy, difficult to handle arms. What were they thinking? Did they not love freedom? It's so incredible that they did not copy the US Constitution, even though the first Constitution in the human history /, the Magna Charts, was written 4 centuries later than the Annales Bertiniani, in 1215.

romanoderoma 6y ago
Seriously guys, 2nd amendment was written in 1791, the Annales Bertiniani are from 840. The idea that the 2nd amendment protects the peasants is also wrong and it's one of the reasons people laugh at USA, when the 2nd amendment was approved, Grand Duchy of Tuscany had already abolished death penalty. 2nd amendment was introduced to permit people to shoot tax collectors (i.e. the British)
- krapp 6y ago
  >2nd amendment was introduced to permit people to shoot tax collectors (i.e. the British) The 2nd Amendment was introduced because the states were afraid a standing national army would give too much power to the Federal government, so the plan was to have individual states field their own militias instead. Also because the principles of the right to self defense were established in British common law at the time - but that has more to do with keeping cougars and vandals away than any abstract fears of tyranny. You're right that it didn't really protect "peasants" - it mostly protected the interests of rich landowners. Which is, ironically, what Ben Franklin was actually arguing against with his often repeated (and misinterpreted) quote about those who trade a little liberty for safety deserving neither.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    > quote about those who trade a little liberty for safety deserving neither He said stuff like that left and right. He was very much in favor of sticking to one's ideological guns even when personally inconvenient. He was arguing in favor of the federal government retaining the authority to tax in the instance everyone quotes.

kebman 6y ago

It's one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was written; to avoid tyrannical rule, and to allow the "peasants" (regular people) to revolt if a tyrant ever took power.

romanoderoma 6y ago
You don't need the right to bear arms to revolt to tyrants. There is no similar right in any other part of the World, in every other part of the World there have been revolts, sometimes much larger than US has ever witnessed. Many countries have also revolted against USA, that more often than not has been the tryrant.
- prepend 6y ago
  It’s not a requirement, but it certainly helps.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    it depends on who gets the arms. there is no "the people" as a single entity and interests when there is a revolt. if everybody is armed, the supporters of the tyrant are going to be armed as well. But with better equipment.
    - prepend 6y ago
      That would be true if it was just civilians fighting, but the military is usually on the side of the tyrant. It’s mathematically better, I think that armed populace has a higher chance of revolt vs armed loyalist populace + armed military than unarmed populace vs unarmed loyalist + armed military. And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger than the pro-tyrannical populace since if the tyrant has the support of the people then are they really a tyrant.
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        > It’s mathematically better, I think that armed populace has a higher chance of revolt US is the only country in the western World who only made one real revolution. And it was to not pay taxes, not against a true tyrant. > And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger The only thing that will be larger is the anti everybody else populace (tribalism, to give it a name). USA had one major civil war and they keep killing each other like nowhere else in the World (like ten times more than the west average). It's mathematically provable.