6 ms·

Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is

by nrdxp 3y ago

Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost. Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it? Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?
rootusrootus 3y ago
> Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”
krapp 3y ago
So you want to disband all police and leave police powers entirely in the hands of "local militias", which according to current definitions of the 2nd Amendment are (reading notes) literally any American with a gun? Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?" No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare. Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11. It costs a buck o'five, by the way. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184
- nrdxp 3y ago
  I trust local communities more than state officials any day, yes. Nothing is perfect but if you legitimately think the government is functioning well at this point, I don't expect to convince you so yeah. To each his own.
seadan83 3y ago
> Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written. Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows. ------------- Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting: > Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that? ---------------- Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law. "During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1] This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army. Going further back to British history: "Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2] Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting. Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King: > Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2] In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution. In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not. If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. [1] https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/# https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/# [2] https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html* * [2] is clearly slanted and has an agenda, but the history and research seem pretty solid; I was swayed to its point of view.

by nrdxp 3y ago

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

> actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?

rootusrootus 3y ago

> Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”

krapp 3y ago

So you want to disband all police and leave police powers entirely in the hands of "local militias", which according to current definitions of the 2nd Amendment are (reading notes) literally any American with a gun? Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?" No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare. Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11. It costs a buck o'five, by the way. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

nrdxp 3y ago
I trust local communities more than state officials any day, yes. Nothing is perfect but if you legitimately think the government is functioning well at this point, I don't expect to convince you so yeah. To each his own.

seadan83 3y ago

> Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written. Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows. ------------- Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting: > Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that? ---------------- Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law. "During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1] This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army. Going further back to British history: "Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2] Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting. Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King: > Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2] In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution. In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not. If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. [1] https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/# https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/# [2] https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html* * [2] is clearly slanted and has an agenda, but the history and research seem pretty solid; I was swayed to its point of view.