A relic of the 18th century?
If she does, the new one will be AOC
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.
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.
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.
EDIT: Had a snippet of an unfinished post attached. Sorry about that.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
You're falling into the classic blunder of what the words "regulated" and "militia" mean.
200 years ago, "regulated" did not mean "strictly controlled by government." It meant "in good working order," like a well-regulated timepiece. You can also look to what the British called their footsoldier of the time - a Regular. That meant he was trained and equipped up to the standard of warfare at the time. A well "regulated" militia was one that was as equally equipped and proficient as a standing army.
Similarly, the "militia" is not an organized government body. It is, literally, everyone. At first it was just every able-bodied white male citizen, but as various social mores changed, it became basically any adult capable of carrying and firing a weapon.
Furthermore, while the Militia act of 1792 did provide for a means for the president to command units comprised of militia (directly because of the Whiskey Rebellion, as you point out), it did not actually require the militia to obey. This was a sore sticking point in the War of 1812 when the militia units of New York refused to take part in military actions into (then British) Canada, because they considered their only duty to be directly defending their home. This gave rise to the creation of volunteer units, which many people confuse for being "the militia."
Alexander Hamilton wrote in "Concerning the Militia" in 1788, "...if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens." Here, Hamilton is directly stating the purpose of a well armed and capable militia is to directly counter the threat posed to liberty by a misused governmental army.
GasBandit
Staff member
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?
GasBandit
Staff member
As can I. You're the one who called it a relic because of when it originated.
It's the same old song and dance. Someone always brings up how the framers never could have conceived of modern weaponry, so the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to them. Well, they also never could have conceived of the internet, or satellite TV.
Then why aren't republicans being shot?
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."
Madison proposed the second amendment during the Federal convention of 1788. As the leader of the Federalists, he was arguing for ratification of the Constitution. Patrick Henry (the name I couldn't remember from before, good ol give me liberty) was heading the antifederalists, and his motivation against was clear. Outside of being the first libertarian and believing taxation was theft, he saw the article giving power of regulation of militias to the federal government as being the bludgeon the North would use to end slavery in the South. And yes, I mean regulation as it was used then, meaning the training and equipping, or the lack thereof in Henry's eyes.
The majority population of East Virginia (Henry's home) at the time was that of enslaved blacks, and there was constant fear of an uprising, as violent outbursts had already happened with the state militia being used to stop them. Henry believed that if Congress was given control of militias, they could simply vote not to arm them, and then the South would be unable to enforce slavery. This is the context of which Madison introduced the second amendment, as an appeasement that Congress would be unable to do that.
Again, I'm not arguing that the second amendment isn't understood today as applying the right of gun ownership to everyone. That is settled law. My argument is that "the second amendment was put there to stop tyranny" isn't true. It was added to enforce it.
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
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
It's a shame we don't have a thread for this exact topic.
Gotta break up all the Trump crap with something a little lighter, like arguing the second amendment
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.
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-.
And for anyone interested, you can read that paper here https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
Edit: Just as trivia, I wanted to add that the idea for a uniformed militia eventually became the coast guard
Last edited:
Because I think the idea of a random guy taking down the government with his gun is stupid.
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.
AND have a full court press of talking heads on their pet cable news channel saying how you deserved it within the hour.
It's not even in 18th century any more...
Well, you're supposed to form a militia... duh.
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.
Heh, and looking it up, the Speaker is the only Dem in the succesion atm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
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. "
IE... have everybody get together once or twice a year and give them all military-grade weapons. Hard to say any more clearly that the intent is to arm the entire populace.
I thought it was the National Guard.
HINT: they where never any of those things. Or at least not since the 70's.
You are correct, I mixed up my guards
figmentPez
Staff member
Is it just me, or does the Republican stance seem to be, "You can't commit a high crime over the phone!"?
figmentPez
Staff member
"Swing voters don't like the idea of impeachment..."
Uh, really?
Uh, really?
In other news, the New York Times posted an article about how impeachment will push swing voters towards voting for Trump. This conclusion was reached after interviewing six supposed "swing voters", you know, like the guy who has a prominent painting of Robert E. Lee next to his desk or the woman that says she she only voted for Trump because she felt he was better then Hilary but then admitted she voted a full Republican ticket during the midterms too.
My favorite? The "swing voter" that has gone to 23 Trump rallies and wrote a book about his tweets.
Come on NYT, seriously.
Edit : Damn it! I knew I should have checked that new post as I was writing mine, haha. Beat to the punch.
My favorite? The "swing voter" that has gone to 23 Trump rallies and wrote a book about his tweets.
Come on NYT, seriously.
Edit : Damn it! I knew I should have checked that new post as I was writing mine, haha. Beat to the punch.
My only hope is that whoever runs democrat does not look at any state as "safe" like Hilary did. You might be able to ignore some big ones like New York or California, but part of why Hilary lost is she didn't take some of the battle states seriously enough because polls showed her with such a good lead already. If they make that mistake again I am going to scream.
Copies and pastes @@Li3n's post.
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.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
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.
figmentPez
Staff member