4 ms·

> I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders was to protect against an orwellian government... Orwellian is an anachronism here. It was probably

> I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders was to protect against an orwellian government... Orwellian is an anachronism here. It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States.

LocalH 4y ago
Unfortunately, the people in power have all but removed that possibility from the table.
kodah 4y ago
> It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States. This is how I learned 2A. More or less, no government can last forever and at some point governments will need to be overthrown and set anew. Sound familiar? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. They even provided some basic criteria for when might be a good time: > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. I was taught that 2A was the tool that ensures that this section of the Declaration of Independence would still be relevant to their new government.
- cjsplat 4y ago
  If you believe this, does the 2A give people individual rights to own tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical weapons? If not, why? Where are the limits in the constitution on the types of arms a person can own? This is especially relevant if the goal of the 2S is to be able to stand up to the US armed forces. Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces?
  - briHass 4y ago
    > Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces? You need to define the hypothetical 'sides' here a little better. Is this armed mob fighting for principles that many members of the 'government forces' agree with? Would this government force be willing to kill large numbers of their neighbors and fellow countrymen? A surprisingly effective resistance can be made by an outnumbered/outgunned 'mob', assuming they have some basic weapons. Home field advantage and guerrilla warfare go pretty far. See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine.
    - cjsplat 4y ago
      Talk to Kodah above about his fantasy league of rebellion. I believe the militia clause actually means state level armed service, such as was common in the various states at the time.
      - kodah 4y ago
        You and I actually believe the same thing, I just believe 2A is linked to early militias, and in the event that there were infighting in the US that early component would be needed again. I also believe 2A reinforces state power with respect to federal power, and balancing them is important. You on the other hand are an egotistical ass with 220 karma and behavior to boot.
    - cjsplat 4y ago
madengr 4y ago
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Orwellian is an anachronism here. How so? It's not a word that would have been known to the founders, but neither is "2A". It makes no sense to claim that when we talk about the founders, we can't legitimately use our own language but must instead use theirs.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > How so? It's not a word that would have been known to the founders, but neither is "2A". "Orwellian" is specifically modern ideological term with a lot of specifically modern connotations (e.g. a technological surveillance state) that are misleading when talking about people from the 18th century. My sense is it's a whole lot narrower than what the founders had in mind. On the other hand, the Second Amendment was literally written by one of the founders. > It makes no sense to claim that when we talk about the founders, we can't legitimately use our own language but must instead use theirs. Use anachronisms all you want, no one's stopping you. It just that by leaning on them, you're likely spout nonsense and either confuse yourself or confuse others. Also, there's important differences between "modern language" and "anachronism."
XorNot 4y ago
> It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States. If this was the actual interpretation being promulgated legally then there's all sorts of weird follow ups to it: i.e. any ruling or law which increases the level of security and protections of government institutions against some definition of an armed citizen militia would be against the spirit of the 2nd amendment because you're reducing the ability of the citizenry to engage in a successful violent insurrection. This is a perfectly sensible precedent: if the Second Amendment is interpreted as an intent to allow armed revolution, then for some legal definition of a "just" revolution the arms of the citizenry must allow them to fight and win, and this could be reasonably interpreted therefore as "the government may implement no security measures which make it so safe it could not be overthrown".
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > If this was the actual interpretation being promulgated legally then there's all sorts of weird follow ups to it... Not really. You can only go places like that if you use an interpretive framework were words can be stretched past the breaking point and speculations piled one on top of the other to take you anywhere where you want to go. A lot of people think that's not a reasonable way to interpret the law, and they do have a point. > This is a perfectly sensible precedent... If that's "perfectly sensible precedent," cite the case that established it.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    The entire concept of judicial review is built on this benchmark - "if this, then why not that?" That it is not established is because the SC has definitely not interpreted the 2nd to mean "power to overthrow the government" - but it has mostly managed to do that by completely disregarding the first half of the 2nd's wording in favor of "citizens may own small arms" - which is oddly specific given the rest of the phrasing, but that was the conclusion they drew from Heller[1] I'm responding to the claim that the "founders" intended it for armed insurrection: did they? Because the Court does not interpret it that way, and if it did then you do in fact have to answer questions about why any limits on owning hardware sufficient to overthrow the government are allowed. A claim about Founder's intent in the constitution isn't some idle statement: the purpose and reason for the Supreme Court is to carry through interpretation of that the intent of the constitution for law of the land, otherwise why bother saying it? If we're going to ignore law and precedent then none of this matters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller...

LocalH 4y ago

Unfortunately, the people in power have all but removed that possibility from the table.

kodah 4y ago

> It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States. This is how I learned 2A. More or less, no government can last forever and at some point governments will need to be overthrown and set anew. Sound familiar? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. They even provided some basic criteria for when might be a good time: > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. I was taught that 2A was the tool that ensures that this section of the Declaration of Independence would still be relevant to their new government.

cjsplat 4y ago
If you believe this, does the 2A give people individual rights to own tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical weapons? If not, why? Where are the limits in the constitution on the types of arms a person can own? This is especially relevant if the goal of the 2S is to be able to stand up to the US armed forces. Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces?
- briHass 4y ago
  > Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces? You need to define the hypothetical 'sides' here a little better. Is this armed mob fighting for principles that many members of the 'government forces' agree with? Would this government force be willing to kill large numbers of their neighbors and fellow countrymen? A surprisingly effective resistance can be made by an outnumbered/outgunned 'mob', assuming they have some basic weapons. Home field advantage and guerrilla warfare go pretty far. See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine.
  - cjsplat 4y ago
    Talk to Kodah above about his fantasy league of rebellion. I believe the militia clause actually means state level armed service, such as was common in the various states at the time.
    - kodah 4y ago
      You and I actually believe the same thing, I just believe 2A is linked to early militias, and in the event that there were infighting in the US that early component would be needed again. I also believe 2A reinforces state power with respect to federal power, and balancing them is important. You on the other hand are an egotistical ass with 220 karma and behavior to boot.
  - cjsplat 4y ago

madengr 4y ago

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> Orwellian is an anachronism here. How so? It's not a word that would have been known to the founders, but neither is "2A". It makes no sense to claim that when we talk about the founders, we can't legitimately use our own language but must instead use theirs.

tablespoon 4y ago
> How so? It's not a word that would have been known to the founders, but neither is "2A". "Orwellian" is specifically modern ideological term with a lot of specifically modern connotations (e.g. a technological surveillance state) that are misleading when talking about people from the 18th century. My sense is it's a whole lot narrower than what the founders had in mind. On the other hand, the Second Amendment was literally written by one of the founders. > It makes no sense to claim that when we talk about the founders, we can't legitimately use our own language but must instead use theirs. Use anachronisms all you want, no one's stopping you. It just that by leaning on them, you're likely spout nonsense and either confuse yourself or confuse others. Also, there's important differences between "modern language" and "anachronism."

XorNot 4y ago

> It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States. If this was the actual interpretation being promulgated legally then there's all sorts of weird follow ups to it: i.e. any ruling or law which increases the level of security and protections of government institutions against some definition of an armed citizen militia would be against the spirit of the 2nd amendment because you're reducing the ability of the citizenry to engage in a successful violent insurrection. This is a perfectly sensible precedent: if the Second Amendment is interpreted as an intent to allow armed revolution, then for some legal definition of a "just" revolution the arms of the citizenry must allow them to fight and win, and this could be reasonably interpreted therefore as "the government may implement no security measures which make it so safe it could not be overthrown".

tablespoon 4y ago
> If this was the actual interpretation being promulgated legally then there's all sorts of weird follow ups to it... Not really. You can only go places like that if you use an interpretive framework were words can be stretched past the breaking point and speculations piled one on top of the other to take you anywhere where you want to go. A lot of people think that's not a reasonable way to interpret the law, and they do have a point. > This is a perfectly sensible precedent... If that's "perfectly sensible precedent," cite the case that established it.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The entire concept of judicial review is built on this benchmark - "if this, then why not that?" That it is not established is because the SC has definitely not interpreted the 2nd to mean "power to overthrow the government" - but it has mostly managed to do that by completely disregarding the first half of the 2nd's wording in favor of "citizens may own small arms" - which is oddly specific given the rest of the phrasing, but that was the conclusion they drew from Heller[1] I'm responding to the claim that the "founders" intended it for armed insurrection: did they? Because the Court does not interpret it that way, and if it did then you do in fact have to answer questions about why any limits on owning hardware sufficient to overthrow the government are allowed. A claim about Founder's intent in the constitution isn't some idle statement: the purpose and reason for the Supreme Court is to carry through interpretation of that the intent of the constitution for law of the land, otherwise why bother saying it? If we're going to ignore law and precedent then none of this matters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller...