A relic of the 18th century?It started in the 18th century... because that's exactly what it is.
#fightme
If she does, the new one will be AOC
Now to see if she gets "disappeared."
--Patrick
I really do wonder at how weird American politics has gotten. The party for Rule of Law and Keeping Government Small just stands and watches as a guy pulls more and more power to the presidency, and keeps walking all over pretty much every law there is. Not to mention how the party of Conservative Values keeps backing what can only be described as an unrepentant sinner of the highest order.And that's why they released that transcript based on partial "notes" by his aids.
Because all Trump has to do is make sure his base is still a threat to the GOP senators when it comes to their own primaries. That will keep them inline no matter how obvious the crimes.
Alright, I don't normally do the forum rhetoric thing because I don't care what anyone thinks, but I can't turn down a fightme.It started in the 18th century... because that's exactly what it is.
#fightme
Many religious people consider Trump to be in the vein of Noah, i.e. an unrepetant sinner that's going to help them because he was sent by God to do his bidding, intentionally or not. In fact, they are happy to have someone do the dirty work for them because it means they can keep their hands seemingly clean. It's one of the reasons evangelicals (which are basically part of a criminal organization at this point) seem to love him.I really do wonder at how weird American politics has gotten. The party for Rule of Law and Keeping Government Small just stands and watches as a guy pulls more and more power to the presidency, and keeps walking all over pretty much every law there is. Not to mention how the party of Conservative Values keeps backing what can only be described as an unrepentant sinner of the highest order.
Honestly, no matter how popular a guy was, I don't see them getting off so easily in almost any other Western country. Johnson may be mucking things up, but the courts ruled against him and parliament is in session again.
You're falling into the classic blunder of what the words "regulated" and "militia" mean.Alright, I don't normally do the forum rhetoric thing because I don't care what anyone thinks, but I can't turn down a fightme.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's start with the language of the amendment, written by James Madison. Security of a free state does not mean the states, it means security of the nation. The United States did not have a standing military at the time, and there was worry that the British or other outside forces, including but not limited to native American and slave uprisings, would try to invade while the nation was defenseless and short of resources. The second amendment was implemented not so the individual person could fight against the government, but so the government could call upon a militia to defend against threats to the government.
This is why, in 1791 when the whiskey rebellion started over outrage on the government taxing whiskey, the President (George Washington) didn't say that these second amendment using Patriots are just exercising their right. He lead a few thousand militia members to stop the rebellion with force, and was proof that the new government was willing to use such force to enforce it's laws. The second amendment wasn't there to support the rebellion, but rather the nation in squashing it.
Fun fact: this is also the only time the president has been Commander in Chief on an actual battlefield.
__________
Section 1, Article 8 (damn you for making me look this stuff up just to be factual) of the Constitution allows for Congress to oversee the regulation and training of militias. Southern governors saw this as a major sticking point in not wanting to ratify the Constitution. One such governor, whose name I can't remember but will edit in once I'm not typing this on a phone, believed that Congress could use this as a means to depower southern militias and prohibit them from stopping slave uprisings or tracking down runaways. James Madison, himself a southern legislator, penned the second amendment for this purpose, and was very careful in his language for doing so, because they certainly weren't giving anyone that wasn't a white man a gun.
________
In no way am I saying that the second amendment, as interpreted now, should be done away with (that's another topic,) but the rallying cry that it was "intended" to fight against the government is historically dishonest.
Only as much as freedom of the press is. Or do you believe that the 1st amendment only applies to newspapers printed on movable type printing presses?A relic of the 18th century?
As can I. You're the one who called it a relic because of when it originated.I can argue for the value of freedom of the press without referencing the 1700s.
Then why aren't republicans being shot?As can I.
I do not make any assertions of what those words mean in the language of the time. A regulated militia did simply meant armed and trained, though I take unbridge that militia was understood to mean anyone. Modern application has deemed it so, but that is not the subject I am speaking of, I am speaking of "intent." The militia was the white men of the states, and for the purpose of the viewpoint at the time we can call them "everyone that mattered."You're falling into the classic blunder of what the words "regulated" and "militia" mean.
Perhaps you can explain the reasoning to us, since you proselytize this action, yet decline to act on it? What's holding you back?Then why aren't republicans being shot?
And yet the paper I quoted by Hamilton directly contradicts this, as did the insubordination of the New York militia units during the War of 1812.My argument is that "the second amendment was put there to stop tyranny" isn't true. It was added to enforce it.
Gotta break up all the Trump crap with something a little lighter, like arguing the second amendmentIt's a shame we don't have a thread for this exact topic.
The war of 1812 is after the ratification of the Constitution and the creation of the 2nd amendment, so it can't really speak to intent of the time.And yet the paper I quoted by Hamilton directly contradicts this, as did the insubordination of the New York militia units during the War of 1812.
Because I think the idea of a random guy taking down the government with his gun is stupid.Perhaps you can explain the reasoning to us, since you proselytize this action, yet decline to act on it? What's holding you back?
Serious answers only, please.
--Patrick
If the gub'mint *really* wanted your guns, they could turn you and your entire family into a pink mist before you even knew they were there.Because I think the idea of a random guy taking down the government with his gun is stupid.
The war of 1812 is after the ratification of the Constitution
Well, you're supposed to form a militia... duh.Because I think the idea of a random guy taking down the government with his gun is stupid.
It's like he knows that the Speaker is next in line after the VP, and wants to make sure no Reps decide that it's ok to remove him because they have a back-up.I enjoy the way Trump is trying to take Pence down with him though.
I disagree. It's within the same "living memory" lifetime as the Militia Act of 1792, which was made to "clarify" the role and control of militia units. It serves as practical example of the policy's intent a mere 20 years after the act instead of 200.The war of 1812 is after the ratification of the Constitution and the creation of the 2nd amendment, so it can't really speak to intent of the time.
This is not exactly correct. He IS stating that training the entire militia (every single working man in the country) to the standard of full time soldiery would be injurious to industry and labor, and thus recommends training only a portion of it - just enough to counter the threat to liberty posed by a standing army. It isn't establishing a military branch. Also notable is the paragraph right before the one we're talking about, where Hamilton ends by saying - "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "As for Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers, in that particular paper you quote he is not speaking of the militia as it was then known. He was proposing that, rather than a militia be made up of everyone, that such a thing would be bad for the work force and instead a different, smaller, uniformed militia should be formed, with specialized training as a sort of second military, this one run by the states. This contradicts your assertion that the militia means -everyone-.
I thought it was the National Guard.Edit: Just as trivia, I wanted to add that the idea for a uniformed militia eventually became the coast guard
HINT: they where never any of those things. Or at least not since the 70's.The party for Rule of Law and Keeping Government Small just stands and watches as a guy pulls more and more power to the presidency, and keeps walking all over pretty much every law there is. Not to mention how the party of Conservative Values keeps backing what can only be described as an unrepentant sinner of the highest order.
Honestly, no matter how popular a guy was, I don't see them getting off so easily in almost any other Western country. Johnson may be mucking things up, but the courts ruled against him and parliament is in session again.
You are correct, I mixed up my guardsI thought it was the National Guard.
Copies and pastes @@Li3n's post."Swing voter" means "rural white voter"
That'd be Rambo. And, while entertaining, it's just fiction and should be viewed as such.Because I think the idea of a random guy taking down the government with his gun is stupid.
Which is why I think it's far more likely that multi-national corporations backing private para-military groups would be the force used to disrupt the government. I really hope it's my anxiety making me think this way, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that all the giant businesses that love Trump would use their resources, including mercenaries, to ensure that their puppet stays in office for life.That'd be Rambo. And, while entertaining, it's just fiction and should be viewed as such.
Any kind of actual coup would require the cooperation and planning of far more than a single individual.