2 ms·

>Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers Politics is all a product of it's time; and furthermore, when it comes d

>Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers Politics is all a product of it's time; and furthermore, when it comes down to "compromise or realistically get rolled by a foreign adversary", those slavers you look down on still laid the foundation for the social liberalification that ultimately resulted in the world you live in today. That "bunch of slavers" built a state in which there was the understanding the populace would be armed heavily enough to overthrow it, and it (the Government) was fettered from doing anything to stop that replacement short of Congress declaring War. That... to put it mildly, was and still is pretty radical in the grand scheme of the history of Government.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Not to let this thread get dragged too far off-topic, but that's another example of why it isn't useful to put too much weight on the reasons they did the things they did in their time (as opposed to asking "What time are we in now, and how should effective government be shaped to serve the people in this time?"). In this modern era, most of the reasons for arming the public are completely obsolete: - there is no longer a frontier so large the nation cannot defend it and must therefore be able to call up a well-regulated militia to defend its expansive borders against a people who (wisely) would challenge the nation's territorial claims - the end of slavery means the end of the need for slave-patrols, which were the unwritten reason the South supported the Second Amendment (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670). - in the era of planes, drones, e-warfare, bombs, tanks, APCs, and guided missiles, any notion that private firearm ownership actually constrains the government is foolishness. We've watched the government crack open far too many citizen compounds with violence applied to believe that. One could argue we actually watched half the country try to seize power via their Second Amendment-granted rights back in the 1860s and get about 20% of their men exterminated for their trouble. What constrains government activity is the continuing function of democracy to make that government accountable to the people if they find the violence was wrongly-applied or unpalatable. Broadly speaking, American citizens use their broad right of private firearm ownership mostly to kill each other and never to constrain government; the times it appeared government was constrained by private firearm ownership were a lot more about the executive agents on the ground not wanting another "Waco incident" than about the actual power of the private citizens holding weapons to stop the agents. I like to keep in mind that one of the most ardent advocates for the Second Amendment to check the power of government eventually died via a bullet from his own dueling pistol. As did his son.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Not to let this thread get dragged too far off-topic, but that's another example of why it isn't useful to put too much weight on the reasons they did the things they did in their time (as opposed to asking "What time are we in now, and how should effective government be shaped to serve the people in this time?"). In this modern era, most of the reasons for arming the public are completely obsolete: - there is no longer a frontier so large the nation cannot defend it and must therefore be able to call up a well-regulated militia to defend its expansive borders against a people who (wisely) would challenge the nation's territorial claims - the end of slavery means the end of the need for slave-patrols, which were the unwritten reason the South supported the Second Amendment (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670). - in the era of planes, drones, e-warfare, bombs, tanks, APCs, and guided missiles, any notion that private firearm ownership actually constrains the government is foolishness. We've watched the government crack open far too many citizen compounds with violence applied to believe that. One could argue we actually watched half the country try to seize power via their Second Amendment-granted rights back in the 1860s and get about 20% of their men exterminated for their trouble. What constrains government activity is the continuing function of democracy to make that government accountable to the people if they find the violence was wrongly-applied or unpalatable. Broadly speaking, American citizens use their broad right of private firearm ownership mostly to kill each other and never to constrain government; the times it appeared government was constrained by private firearm ownership were a lot more about the executive agents on the ground not wanting another "Waco incident" than about the actual power of the private citizens holding weapons to stop the agents. I like to keep in mind that one of the most ardent advocates for the Second Amendment to check the power of government eventually died via a bullet from his own dueling pistol. As did his son.