Someday I would like to see a serious discussion of the two parts of the second amendment--the part that mentions “a well regulated militia” and “the right to keep and bear arms.” The current assumption seems to be that James Madison was incapable of writing a coherent compound sentence.
Someday I would like to see a serious discussion of the two parts of the second amendment--the part that mentions “a well regulated militia” and “the right to keep and bear arms.” The current assumption seems to be that James Madison was incapable of writing a coherent compound sentence.
I'll concede Amendment 14 section 3 is outdated with limited application to one specific time in our history, Reconstruction, when they concede Amendment 2 is outdated.
The current assumption also seems to think the US is still an unconquered wilderness of savages and vicious man attacking animals. That would be immigration and the insane fear of introducing wolves back into the wilderness. Interesting in that no one seems to be processing we have impinged on the cougar habitat so much that young cougars think it's cool to nap out on the outdoor decks in the suburbs. Well...youth knows no boundaries which is why I let the one hanging around my property hang around my property. She knew her boundaries and kept it to night time activity when my dogs and cats were safely in the house.
In 1787, a state (or ad hoc militia) was a serious threat to the central government (see the Whiskey Rebellion) and that's exactly what the states feared, a central government going tyrannical. Ergo, the Second Amendment to satisfy the doubts about a strong central government. At that time, militias and any quickly formed federal army would be equipped with the same weaponry and tactics. Fair fight. This situation has changed dramatically in past 236 years and militias of any sort are now wildly unprepared to face America's standing military. The NRA and MAGA nuts who think they can take on the military with their AR 15s are a few stinger missiles, Cobra gunships and Seal Team Sixes shy of sanity.
If we're talking about some idiots in their fantasy cosplay dreams, you are absolutely right.
If we're talking about a national response to an actual tyrannical military, the numbers make things decidedly less clear.
I don't say that to justify very much of anything of the right's current position on guns, but to note that the basic concept of firearms acting as a potential check on government over-reach isn't quite as idiotic as some would paint it. For all the power and reach of our military, it is not built to be an occupation force / counter-insurgency force for a nation of 340M people.
I also don't think it is the ground to use in fighting to get better gun safety.
The Air Force and Navy may have a part to play in making things much clearer to clearer heads. The idea that any ground based militia could have any hope is part of the MAGA idiocracy.
Remind me again of how much the RAF and Royal Navy were able to bring their considerable force to bear in The Troubles.
I grant that the stereotypical militia types we have now are idiots, but gravy seals aren't the only potential resistance that could crop up to a truly tyrannical government. Any serious resistance to the US government isn't going to be trying to go toe to toe with either of those branches. In fact, they'd rarely go toe to toe with any serious force.
Remember, for all its power, the US military isn't built to be an occupation force, especially of a country the size of ours. It is also highly doubtful that the entire force would be super enthusiastic about the mission.
Beyond that, keep in mind that a resistance or underground or whatever doesn't have to eventually seize full control. They may have more limited goals that don't require besting the US military in the field.
If the military decides to support tyranny (strong man rule), it's game over for democracy in any case. So yours is a different argument contextually. I don't disagree but I assume that more patriotic heads will prevail if a Trump or Trump wannabe attains the WH again and asks the military to enforce illegal orders against citizens or institutions.
Well, I do on day 1. But after the purges and key replacements, plenty of orders will be perfectly legal. And they likely won't go to the military at first. But if and when someone starts resisting Trump's newly created Federal Security Bureau...well that'd be armed insurrection, amirite?
The military oath is to the Constitution, not the presidency. Plenty of those orders will be unconstitutional as Milly so rightly feared. The jury is definitely out on the military's readiness to respond to an authoritarian like Trump.
And when Michael Flynn holds Milly's job? The day one orders won't be blatantly unconstitutional, but they'll stretch there...
And yeah, the jury's out on how the military will respond, but I'm not holding my breath. As I said, when some group resists some government agency, we'll have armed insurrection on our hands, and that will make quite a lot 'legal' especially for one of those open-ended emergencies we like to have.
We may however get lucky with Trump being too stupid to actually be effective at it.
Technically it is quite the pickle we would be in if he wins.
Though we could also bet on cheeseburger and the hope that his VP, while likely terrible, doesn't want to go down in history as the actual author of American Democracy's destruction. And for as easily ridiculed as that faint hope would be, it also isn't nothing.
I was going to make a crack about how they are also missing an intelligence apparatus and NSA style surveillance system. However it feels unnecessary when they take pictures of themselves with their toys and post the pics on social media from a cell phone denoting their exact location.
In libertarian circles (and helped along by the NRA), the well regulated militia part has been retconned into meaning pretty much any citizen with a gun = militia; and well regulated = target practice, tactical drills, etc. That's totally what Madison et al. meant, right? /s
This is a cause invented and promoted by gun manufacturers. It will take a campaign like that for stopping smoking in order for people to realize people with guns usually kill people without guns.
Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances from muzzle-loaders to AR-15s, why not apply the same rationale to all arms?
I agree. Or even nuclear arms? The point is that what we have is a law written for a different time period. What if it had been written much earlier and had read, every man has a right to wear a sword?
It's certainly true that most people killed by guns did not themselves have guns, at the time. It does not follow that *having* a gun makes you *less* likely to be killed, when a shooting situation occurs. There are a few cases of successful "return fire," to be sure. Once in a while, a civilian just carrying his gun while out in the community *is* the hero, but that's not the same thing as being safer for having the gun. In the chaos of an unplanned public gunfight among amateurs, sometimes the armed civilian just makes himself the priority target, to the original shooter, or to other would-be heroes, or to arriving police. Sometimes he adds to the carnage, shooting the wrong people.
No question. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing of pointing out how readily the other side of the debate would snatch up such a line. As you point out, the reality is much more complicated.
Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as police or as repressive tools (as there wasn't really anything like a civilian police force at that time).
Plus they were often boarded on the local population as there were no barracks.
Plus they were expensive.
So hey, lets avoid having one by relying on an armed populace as a militia instead.
Militias were also popular in the south because of the whole potential slave rebellion thing.
The militia was never well regulated or trained or particularly good at fighting, so we ended up with a standing army anyway (even if it was on the small side).
The reality is that militias have generally sucked at he whole defense thing. They tend to either not show up or fold at the first opportunity... or die in droves from disease when called up because sanitation and discipline aren't things.
Not to mention that when the 2nd Amend was authored there was no government or military to purchase and distribute guns to its soldiers. Organized militias were the military. We were fighting for our independence ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.
Someday I would like to see a serious discussion of the two parts of the second amendment--the part that mentions “a well regulated militia” and “the right to keep and bear arms.” The current assumption seems to be that James Madison was incapable of writing a coherent compound sentence.
I'll concede Amendment 14 section 3 is outdated with limited application to one specific time in our history, Reconstruction, when they concede Amendment 2 is outdated.
The current assumption also seems to think the US is still an unconquered wilderness of savages and vicious man attacking animals. That would be immigration and the insane fear of introducing wolves back into the wilderness. Interesting in that no one seems to be processing we have impinged on the cougar habitat so much that young cougars think it's cool to nap out on the outdoor decks in the suburbs. Well...youth knows no boundaries which is why I let the one hanging around my property hang around my property. She knew her boundaries and kept it to night time activity when my dogs and cats were safely in the house.
Young cougars lounging on outdoor decks in the suburbs.
Seems like something I'd read about that starts: "I never thought these letters were real, but guess what happened to me..."
;)
In 1787, a state (or ad hoc militia) was a serious threat to the central government (see the Whiskey Rebellion) and that's exactly what the states feared, a central government going tyrannical. Ergo, the Second Amendment to satisfy the doubts about a strong central government. At that time, militias and any quickly formed federal army would be equipped with the same weaponry and tactics. Fair fight. This situation has changed dramatically in past 236 years and militias of any sort are now wildly unprepared to face America's standing military. The NRA and MAGA nuts who think they can take on the military with their AR 15s are a few stinger missiles, Cobra gunships and Seal Team Sixes shy of sanity.
If we're talking about some idiots in their fantasy cosplay dreams, you are absolutely right.
If we're talking about a national response to an actual tyrannical military, the numbers make things decidedly less clear.
I don't say that to justify very much of anything of the right's current position on guns, but to note that the basic concept of firearms acting as a potential check on government over-reach isn't quite as idiotic as some would paint it. For all the power and reach of our military, it is not built to be an occupation force / counter-insurgency force for a nation of 340M people.
I also don't think it is the ground to use in fighting to get better gun safety.
The Air Force and Navy may have a part to play in making things much clearer to clearer heads. The idea that any ground based militia could have any hope is part of the MAGA idiocracy.
Remind me again of how much the RAF and Royal Navy were able to bring their considerable force to bear in The Troubles.
I grant that the stereotypical militia types we have now are idiots, but gravy seals aren't the only potential resistance that could crop up to a truly tyrannical government. Any serious resistance to the US government isn't going to be trying to go toe to toe with either of those branches. In fact, they'd rarely go toe to toe with any serious force.
Remember, for all its power, the US military isn't built to be an occupation force, especially of a country the size of ours. It is also highly doubtful that the entire force would be super enthusiastic about the mission.
Beyond that, keep in mind that a resistance or underground or whatever doesn't have to eventually seize full control. They may have more limited goals that don't require besting the US military in the field.
If the military decides to support tyranny (strong man rule), it's game over for democracy in any case. So yours is a different argument contextually. I don't disagree but I assume that more patriotic heads will prevail if a Trump or Trump wannabe attains the WH again and asks the military to enforce illegal orders against citizens or institutions.
I don't assume that at all.
Well, I do on day 1. But after the purges and key replacements, plenty of orders will be perfectly legal. And they likely won't go to the military at first. But if and when someone starts resisting Trump's newly created Federal Security Bureau...well that'd be armed insurrection, amirite?
The military oath is to the Constitution, not the presidency. Plenty of those orders will be unconstitutional as Milly so rightly feared. The jury is definitely out on the military's readiness to respond to an authoritarian like Trump.
And when Michael Flynn holds Milly's job? The day one orders won't be blatantly unconstitutional, but they'll stretch there...
And yeah, the jury's out on how the military will respond, but I'm not holding my breath. As I said, when some group resists some government agency, we'll have armed insurrection on our hands, and that will make quite a lot 'legal' especially for one of those open-ended emergencies we like to have.
We may however get lucky with Trump being too stupid to actually be effective at it.
This is quite the pickle we are in if we have to bet on stupidity to save the day.
Technically it is quite the pickle we would be in if he wins.
Though we could also bet on cheeseburger and the hope that his VP, while likely terrible, doesn't want to go down in history as the actual author of American Democracy's destruction. And for as easily ridiculed as that faint hope would be, it also isn't nothing.
damn all those wars we lost in the last 60 years didn’t get the memo
I was going to make a crack about how they are also missing an intelligence apparatus and NSA style surveillance system. However it feels unnecessary when they take pictures of themselves with their toys and post the pics on social media from a cell phone denoting their exact location.
😆
In libertarian circles (and helped along by the NRA), the well regulated militia part has been retconned into meaning pretty much any citizen with a gun = militia; and well regulated = target practice, tactical drills, etc. That's totally what Madison et al. meant, right? /s
This is a cause invented and promoted by gun manufacturers. It will take a campaign like that for stopping smoking in order for people to realize people with guns usually kill people without guns.
Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances from muzzle-loaders to AR-15s, why not apply the same rationale to all arms?
I agree. Or even nuclear arms? The point is that what we have is a law written for a different time period. What if it had been written much earlier and had read, every man has a right to wear a sword?
"people to realize people with guns usually kill people without guns."
Plenty of gun owners would tell you that they realize this quite well.
It's certainly true that most people killed by guns did not themselves have guns, at the time. It does not follow that *having* a gun makes you *less* likely to be killed, when a shooting situation occurs. There are a few cases of successful "return fire," to be sure. Once in a while, a civilian just carrying his gun while out in the community *is* the hero, but that's not the same thing as being safer for having the gun. In the chaos of an unplanned public gunfight among amateurs, sometimes the armed civilian just makes himself the priority target, to the original shooter, or to other would-be heroes, or to arriving police. Sometimes he adds to the carnage, shooting the wrong people.
No question. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing of pointing out how readily the other side of the debate would snatch up such a line. As you point out, the reality is much more complicated.
Or people with guns kill themselves, and men accomplish it at an alarming rate.
That's true too; I forgot to mention that piece of it. Thank you for doing it.
Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as police or as repressive tools (as there wasn't really anything like a civilian police force at that time).
Plus they were often boarded on the local population as there were no barracks.
Plus they were expensive.
So hey, lets avoid having one by relying on an armed populace as a militia instead.
Militias were also popular in the south because of the whole potential slave rebellion thing.
The militia was never well regulated or trained or particularly good at fighting, so we ended up with a standing army anyway (even if it was on the small side).
The reality is that militias have generally sucked at he whole defense thing. They tend to either not show up or fold at the first opportunity... or die in droves from disease when called up because sanitation and discipline aren't things.
Not to mention that when the 2nd Amend was authored there was no government or military to purchase and distribute guns to its soldiers. Organized militias were the military. We were fighting for our independence ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.
Yeah, it's messy and has been since back then... at least the third amendment is more clear?
Neither of us has even mentioned the advances in firearms tech and materials, etc.
Or the creation of police forces and the end of the frontier.