6 ms·

[citation needed]

ceejayoz 9mo ago
It's not exactly an unusual claim, and it was very much the loudly espoused position of the Republican Party until, well, last week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... > In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms"...
- hollandheese 9mo ago
  This was posited as the nice sounding reason for the second amendment, when the more accurate reason was to ensure citizens had guns to drive out the indigenous peoples and steal their lands. We rather quickly saw the federal government rolling over the people even with weapons in the Whiskey Rebellion.
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    I don't disagree. But it's still very funny seeing the Right wrestle with "wait, the other team has guns?!" and "wait, Trump sounds like he wants gun control?!" right now when this claim has been the basis of their argument for decades.
    - hollandheese 9mo ago
      Yeah, it is quite funny.
    - awesome_dude 9mo ago
      To be fair, the right struggle with the argument every time it's put to the test. I recall the 2016 shootings of Dallas Police Officers and the right were apoplectic about the individual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Xavier_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Xavier_Johnson
    - moogly 9mo ago
      They wrestled with it for about 5 minutes, then got the memo, shrugged and resumed to deep-throat the boot.
  - cmrdporcupine 9mo ago
    Don't forget the very profound usefulness of a "well-armed militia" in putting down slave rebellions and catching escaped slaves.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- OhMeadhbh 9mo ago
  In 46, Madison was discussing foreign danger in response to Hamilton in 29. but... thx for providing a citation. That's a much better response to downvoting.
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    That… doesn't seem to be accurate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 > This essay examines the relative strength of the state and federal governments under the proposed United States Constitution. It is titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared"… he describes at length in this paper a series of hypothetical conflicts between state and federal government. Madison does not expect or hope the constitution to lead to the kind of conflict between state and federal authority described here. Rather, he seeks to rebut the arguments that he anticipates from opponents of the constitution by asserting that their "chimerical" predictions of the federal government crushing state governments are unfounded

[citation needed]

It's not exactly an unusual claim, and it was very much the loudly espoused position of the Republican Party until, well, last week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... > In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms"...

hollandheese 9mo ago
This was posited as the nice sounding reason for the second amendment, when the more accurate reason was to ensure citizens had guns to drive out the indigenous peoples and steal their lands. We rather quickly saw the federal government rolling over the people even with weapons in the Whiskey Rebellion.
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  I don't disagree. But it's still very funny seeing the Right wrestle with "wait, the other team has guns?!" and "wait, Trump sounds like he wants gun control?!" right now when this claim has been the basis of their argument for decades.
  - hollandheese 9mo ago
    Yeah, it is quite funny.
  - awesome_dude 9mo ago
    To be fair, the right struggle with the argument every time it's put to the test. I recall the 2016 shootings of Dallas Police Officers and the right were apoplectic about the individual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Xavier_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Xavier_Johnson
  - moogly 9mo ago
    They wrestled with it for about 5 minutes, then got the memo, shrugged and resumed to deep-throat the boot.
- cmrdporcupine 9mo ago
  Don't forget the very profound usefulness of a "well-armed militia" in putting down slave rebellions and catching escaped slaves.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
OhMeadhbh 9mo ago
In 46, Madison was discussing foreign danger in response to Hamilton in 29. but... thx for providing a citation. That's a much better response to downvoting.
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  That… doesn't seem to be accurate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 > This essay examines the relative strength of the state and federal governments under the proposed United States Constitution. It is titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared"… he describes at length in this paper a series of hypothetical conflicts between state and federal government. Madison does not expect or hope the constitution to lead to the kind of conflict between state and federal authority described here. Rather, he seeks to rebut the arguments that he anticipates from opponents of the constitution by asserting that their "chimerical" predictions of the federal government crushing state governments are unfounded