Guns, Guns Guns

My understanding is that there are "living document" people who understand that societies change and new information becomes known over time which must change our responses.

Then there are those who revere the written word even if it was written by semi literate desert nomads 3,000 years ago, or by a clique of slave owning rich white men 226 years ago.

Good luck to you, but it is a very different mindset than most educated people have nowadays.

PeterZ wrote:

Annachie wrote:PeterZ, try reading your constitution sometime, because I'd bet you haven't.

Daryl, apart from guns, our PM would make a perfect Tea Party candidate.

I have read it. The quotes supports what Zakharra posted. If you believe the Constitution means something other than what its writers intended it to mean, you do not support the rule of law. Instead those that believe as you do would use the Constitution to justify whatever they want.

Thank God you are downunder. That's one less "living document" sort to deal with here.

When societies change, change the Constitution through the Amendment process. That's what the process is for. Giving nine justices the absolute power to determine how the words of that document are defined, allows them to make law independent of the rest of government.

The 18th and 21st Amendments are examples of how our system is supposed to work. Changing what words like "militia" and "general welfare" mean in the context of the Constitution destroys the very limits on government Constitution was writen to create.

Furthermore, changing those definitions outside the Amendment process also breaks the American Social Contract. We as citizens agree to abide by a rules defined by the US and State Constitutions. A majority of 5 out of 9 people can't redefine the Social Contract that binds an entire country. Yet those who believe in a living document believe just that.

Daryl, the promise held in the meaning of the words writen by our founders led to a large part of our nation willing to fight and die to free slaves who could not free themselves. That promise was called on by Martin Luther King in his speech. The promise that Lincoln referred to in his debate against Stephen Douglass; that all men were created equal in their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. When those words were writen, all men did not enjoy those rights. Yet the original words defined as the writers intended offered a promise that justified both our Civil War and MLK's Civil Rights movement on the basis of fulfilling that promise.

Pardon me if I scoff at your defense of the living document theory of constitutional interpretation. Our system works just fine using original intent for the most part. As in all things, we can improve and continue to try. I hope that we can reduce the progressive living document types to a minority just small enough to keep the adults honest but no more than that.

ps. funny how when progressives refer to educated people, they mean people who agree with them. Many educated people in the US don't agree with progressives.

PeterZ wrote:When societies change, change the Constitution through the Amendment process. That's what the process is for. Giving nine justices the absolute power to determine how the words of that document are defined, allows them to make law independent of the rest of government.

The 18th and 21st Amendments are examples of how our system is supposed to work. Changing what words like "militia" and "general welfare" mean in the context of the Constitution destroys the very limits on government Constitution was writen to create.

Furthermore, changing those definitions outside the Amendment process also breaks the American Social Contract. We as citizens agree to abide by a rules defined by the US and State Constitutions. A majority of 5 out of 9 people can't redefine the Social Contract that binds an entire country. Yet those who believe in a living document believe just that.

Daryl, the promise held in the meaning of the words writen by our founders led to a large part of our nation willing to fight and die to free slaves who could not free themselves. That promise was called on by Martin Luther King in his speech. The promise that Lincoln referred to in his debate against Stephen Douglass; that all men were created equal in their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. When those words were writen, all men did not enjoy those rights. Yet the original words defined as the writers intended offered a promise that justified both our Civil War and MLK's Civil Rights movement on the basis of fulfilling that promise.

Pardon me if I scoff at your defense of the living document theory of constitutional interpretation. Our system works just fine using original intent for the most part. As in all things, we can improve and continue to try. I hope that we can reduce the progressive living document types to a minority just small enough to keep the adults honest but no more than that.

ps. funny how when progressives refer to educated people, they mean people who agree with them. Many educated people in the US don't agree with progressives.

Extremely well said.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:Tenshinai, the US Supreme Court has agreed with the definition I and others are using in deciding what the 2nd Amendment means.

So what? They´re clearly wrong. Whether the USSC agree because they don´t understand or because they just happen to "surprisingly" be partisan towards the gunnuts or both, is another question. Not like it would be the first time USA has laws made or interpreted for a special interest group.

Me personally, i couldn´t care less how you set your laws in this regard, but i do care that your society is so corrupt that it will rather come up with a fancy and utterly fake interpretation for the law you claim to adhere to than to replace it with something that actually says what you want it to say.

But of course, you can´t risk that because the risk is too great that you then might end up with a law that actually agrees with what the 2nd amendment says which would then require the extremely problematic writing of an additional law that regulates private ownership of weapons. Which in turn of course would carry a fair risk of being more restrictive.

So it´s easier to just pretend.

How are they wrong? Just because it disagrees with your view doesn't mean its wrong. It is accurate for the [i]United States of America[/u]. Not for other nations. The SCOTUS has undeniably come down on the side that the 2nd Amendment is there to give the -individual- citizen the right to have weapons, firearms or otherwise. So please stop trying to enforce the laws of other nations on the US. It for for us.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:The well regulated militia isn't a government monopoly or something the government has a say in whether or not it can exist.

Really? That´s a very "interesting" view.
So tell me then, just how do you have something that is well regulated then?
Like i said before, while you can argue that it means well organised, that is a VERY questionable claim to make.

As i said, it doesn´t matter that much whether it´s national/regional/local level government that does the regulating, but without that, you can only have a militia.

During the Revolution, there was no real government. Much of the forces fighting the British were militias. There was an organized continental army, but it was filled with a lot of men who supplied their own firearms. ie, the militia.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:The 2nd is there, mainly, to give the people a way to effectively protect themselves and keep an eye on the government.

That´s complete rubbish and you should be able to tell just by reading it. 2nd is there to make sure USA has something to defend it against invasion.

It´s there because the British tried to essentially disarm the American colonies.

Are you serious? This shoots your own argument in the foot. The British, who were the government, was trying to disarm the colonists and they fought back with the weapons they had? How outrageous... How dare we have a right that keeps weapons in the hands of our citizens. How dare we think that our own government might want to disarm the citizens of the US for one reason or another. The 2nd is there to protect against tyranny and the founders knew that ANY government can become a tyranny, even their own so they wrote in the right of its citizens to defend themselves. So they aren't fully dependent on the government (remember the Constitution is a document thatlimits the federal government. Something the Democrat party hates)

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:One way to do that is by ensuring that the people are armed.

Please quit repeating that craptacularly ridiculous delusion.

Unless you lack even the slightest knowledge of history or military matters, you KNOW it is delusional.

As has already been mentioned, people being armed almost never prevents dictators taking power or governments abusing power.

But people being armed has in fact more often HELPED dictatorial governments into power. Like Hitler and Stalin.

I guess you can´t see it, because you fail to understand WHO among the people are interested in having guns.
I´ll give you a hint and tell you that it´s not the moderates among the population.


#####

I'm sorry, but who is the American here? The rights in the Constitution are for Americans, the 1st through the 10th. ALL of them. you do not get to pick and choose what you want to enforce and what to take away. Just because you dislike it (and it's clear you hate the idea of a population that can defend itself) doesn't mean its wrong. An armed populace has also helped fight tyranny. The French partisans in WWII, the American Revolution (an armed population..) Other revolutions and people resisting invasions. Getting weapons in the hands of the people makes it a hell of a lot harder for tyranny and invaders to succeed.

Also, why are you so offended by our rights? It's not affecting you. We understand that a government, any government, can turn tyrannical and that its up to the population, the citizens of that country, to make sure it doesn't. A government should be afraid of its people, not the people of the government.

Daryl wrote:My understanding is that there are "living document" people who understand that societies change and new information becomes known over time which must change our responses.

Then there are those who revere the written word even if it was written by semi literate desert nomads 3,000 years ago, or by a clique of slave owning rich white men 226 years ago.

Good luck to you, but it is a very different mindset than most educated people have nowadays.

If you want to change the Constitution, then do it via the two methods written into it. Don't use 'its a living document' as an excuse to bypass the legislative process and change what some laws and rights are just because you've warped what is accepted via modern media. If you're going to change it, the use the amendment process.

Zakharra wrote:How are they wrong? Just because it disagrees with your view doesn't mean its wrong.

They are wrong because the document does not say what it is claimed to say.
Hello, linguist here, specifically working with English and Swedish.
Particularly, i´ve worked as a linguist focused on historical language.

And yeah, i´m actually fairly sure noone in the USSC has a more "expert" background than myself.

Any MY VIEW? MY VIEW is that responsible people can own guns as long as they are careful.

The current ruling by the USSC agrees fairly well with "my view". But it is not in accordance with 2nd amendment.

Zakharra wrote:It is accurate for the [i]United States of America[/u].

Legal is legal. If the words say yes then it´s yes no matter where you are, the meaning of a statement does not change across borders.

You cannot take legal text and translate them.

Zakharra wrote:The SCOTUS has undeniably come down on the side that the 2nd Amendment is there to give the -individual- citizen the right to have weapons, firearms or otherwise. So please stop trying to enforce the laws of other nations on the US. It for for us.

If they´re wrong, they´re wrong. I´m merely advocating that you aknowledge that 2nd doesn´t say that and get yourself a law that actually DOES say what you want it to say.

Not my fault that the USSC can´t handle their own language.

Zakharra wrote:Are you serious? This shoots your own argument in the foot.

Sheesh, can´t you at least read up... No it doesn´t shoot my argument in the foot, but i guess i shouldn´t have expected you to understand why.

Zakharra wrote:How dare we have a right that keeps weapons in the hands of our citizens. How dare we think that our own government might want to disarm the citizens of the US for one reason or another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ

Sorry, but that´s just so ridiculous i couldn´t help but think of that video.

Zakharra wrote:The 2nd is there to protect against tyranny and the founders knew that ANY government can become a tyranny, even their own so they wrote in the right of its citizens to defend themselves. So they aren't fully dependent on the government (remember the Constitution is a document thatlimits the federal government. Something the Democrat party hates)

Please click the youtube link again.

There´s just so much wrong with those statements its beyond silly and i just cannot manage to explain it because i just start laughing.

READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Don´t just use it as your neat little rubberstamp for conspiracy theories and prejudice.

And please, why don´t you actually go take a look at what dems and reps actually have DONE rather than what they or their opponents claim they do?

You´re so amazingly biased that it boggles the mind.

Zakharra wrote:I'm sorry, but who is the American here? The rights in the Constitution are for Americans, the 1st through the 10th. ALL of them. you do not get to pick and choose what you want to enforce and what to take away.

You claim that keeping people armed is a guarantee to maintaining rights and limiting government, that´s rubbish. Historical evidence says the opposite. Having the population armed tend to be the best way to have one faction or another to overthrow the "legal government".

And you can whine about it as much as you want, let me repeat, i don´t fricking care if you have laws that says everyone can own personal firearms or heavy artillery, what i care about is that you are abusing a legal document.

Again, READ the 2nd amendment. How would you interpret it if the subjects were not guns?

To me the subject of the text is completely irrelevant, because it does not affect me.

And i´m more gun liberal than not.

Who cares who the text is for, you´re perfectly welcome to argue with me about Swedish law the moment you can read Swedish to the same degree or better than an average native.

Zakharra wrote:Just because you dislike it (and it's clear you hate the idea of a population that can defend itself) doesn't mean its wrong.

This just shows that you apparently cant read, as i´ve repeatedly referred to the FACT that ever since the 17th century, armed populations have had extremely little relevance in regards to defending their nations.

Zakharra wrote:An armed populace has also helped fight tyranny. The French partisans in WWII, the American Revolution (an armed population..)

Guerilla warfare can only prevent an invader from maintaining control, it does not defend the nation. And the French resistance were supplied with guns from UK.

And the American revolution got a crapload of money and arms from especially France, and was quickly quite well organised, or "well regulated" if you wish. And without the heavy weapons from Europe, the revolution would have been stillborn.

And the British were never really serious about quelling the US revolution. Had they actually gone serious, the revolution would have been crushed. Please do read up on it.

Zakharra wrote:Other revolutions and people resisting invasions. Getting weapons in the hands of the people makes it a hell of a lot harder for tyranny and invaders to succeed.

Really... Please do list them and tell exactly how the armed population actually mattered then.

Zakharra wrote:Also, why are you so offended by our rights?

"oh my he´s critical he must be *whatever*"...

If i´m offended in any way, it´s by the dishonesty, corruption and heavy indoctrination your nation runs with.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:How are they wrong? Just because it disagrees with your view doesn't mean its wrong.

They are wrong because the document does not say what it is claimed to say.
Hello, linguist here, specifically working with English and Swedish.
Particularly, i´ve worked as a linguist focused on historical language.

And yeah, i´m actually fairly sure noone in the USSC has a more "expert" background than myself.

Any MY VIEW? MY VIEW is that responsible people can own guns as long as they are careful.

The current ruling by the USSC agrees fairly well with "my view". But it is not in accordance with 2nd amendment.

Zakharra wrote:It is accurate for the [i]United States of America[/u].

Legal is legal. If the words say yes then it´s yes no matter where you are, the meaning of a statement does not change across borders.

You cannot take legal text and translate them.

Zakharra wrote:The SCOTUS has undeniably come down on the side that the 2nd Amendment is there to give the -individual- citizen the right to have weapons, firearms or otherwise. So please stop trying to enforce the laws of other nations on the US. It for for us.

If they´re wrong, they´re wrong. I´m merely advocating that you aknowledge that 2nd doesn´t say that and get yourself a law that actually DOES say what you want it to say.

Not my fault that the USSC can´t handle their own language.

Zakharra wrote:Are you serious? This shoots your own argument in the foot.

Sheesh, can´t you at least read up... No it doesn´t shoot my argument in the foot, but i guess i shouldn´t have expected you to understand why.

Zakharra wrote:How dare we have a right that keeps weapons in the hands of our citizens. How dare we think that our own government might want to disarm the citizens of the US for one reason or another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ

Sorry, but that´s just so ridiculous i couldn´t help but think of that video.

Zakharra wrote:The 2nd is there to protect against tyranny and the founders knew that ANY government can become a tyranny, even their own so they wrote in the right of its citizens to defend themselves. So they aren't fully dependent on the government (remember the Constitution is a document thatlimits the federal government. Something the Democrat party hates)

Please click the youtube link again.

There´s just so much wrong with those statements its beyond silly and i just cannot manage to explain it because i just start laughing.

READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Don´t just use it as your neat little rubberstamp for conspiracy theories and prejudice.

And please, why don´t you actually go take a look at what dems and reps actually have DONE rather than what they or their opponents claim they do?

You´re so amazingly biased that it boggles the mind.

Zakharra wrote:I'm sorry, but who is the American here? The rights in the Constitution are for Americans, the 1st through the 10th. ALL of them. you do not get to pick and choose what you want to enforce and what to take away.

You claim that keeping people armed is a guarantee to maintaining rights and limiting government, that´s rubbish. Historical evidence says the opposite. Having the population armed tend to be the best way to have one faction or another to overthrow the "legal government".

And you can whine about it as much as you want, let me repeat, i don´t fricking care if you have laws that says everyone can own personal firearms or heavy artillery, what i care about is that you are abusing a legal document.

Again, READ the 2nd amendment. How would you interpret it if the subjects were not guns?

To me the subject of the text is completely irrelevant, because it does not affect me.

And i´m more gun liberal than not.

Who cares who the text is for, you´re perfectly welcome to argue with me about Swedish law the moment you can read Swedish to the same degree or better than an average native.

Zakharra wrote:Just because you dislike it (and it's clear you hate the idea of a population that can defend itself) doesn't mean its wrong.

This just shows that you apparently cant read, as i´ve repeatedly referred to the FACT that ever since the 17th century, armed populations have had extremely little relevance in regards to defending their nations.

Zakharra wrote:An armed populace has also helped fight tyranny. The French partisans in WWII, the American Revolution (an armed population..)

Guerilla warfare can only prevent an invader from maintaining control, it does not defend the nation. And the French resistance were supplied with guns from UK.

And the American revolution got a crapload of money and arms from especially France, and was quickly quite well organised, or "well regulated" if you wish. And without the heavy weapons from Europe, the revolution would have been stillborn.

And the British were never really serious about quelling the US revolution. Had they actually gone serious, the revolution would have been crushed. Please do read up on it.

Zakharra wrote:Other revolutions and people resisting invasions. Getting weapons in the hands of the people makes it a hell of a lot harder for tyranny and invaders to succeed.

Really... Please do list them and tell exactly how the armed population actually mattered then.

Zakharra wrote:Also, why are you so offended by our rights?

"oh my he´s critical he must be *whatever*"...

If i´m offended in any way, it´s by the dishonesty, corruption and heavy indoctrination your nation runs with.

I'm sure every Chief Justice on the US Supreme Court has a much better legal background in US law and the Constitution than you do. The SCOTUS has come down firmly on the side of the individuals right to own firearms. It has struck -down- the gun ban in Washington DC, and in numerous other jurisdictions. For decades now, that court has firmly come down against what you seem to support: regulation and restrictions of firearms. Like it or not, and it's clear you don't like it since you argue so vehemently against it, the 2nd Amendment is an individual's right to bear arms, which is anything from a knife, to a bow and arrows, to firearms.

I have read it numerous times and it's an affirmation of the individual's right to have and bear firearms. It's also up to the citizens to ensure that their government does -not- restrict their rights. Restricting firearms as you and others wish, is a restriction of a right guaranteed to us by the US Constitution.

That´s complete rubbish and you should be able to tell just by reading it. 2nd is there to make sure USA has something to defend it against invasion.

It´s there because the British tried to essentially disarm the American colonies.

The British, at the time, were the legal government. They tried to disarm the citizens, who rebelled and fought back using [i]their own weapons[/u] and those captured from the British. Most of the soldiers who fought on the US side supplied their own muskets, or were ones they got from dead British, but for the most part, it was common ordinary citizens who fought the British under the Colonial officers, militia formed by ordinary citizens. The minute Men, now an organized army by any means, but the local men in the area grabbing their hunting musket (there was little difference in use between a hunting weapon and war musket except maybe the war one might have a nub for a bayonet. Otherwise they were the same, useable for hunting or war and just as effective in either).

Bottom line is they were fighting against a corrupt government that wanted to disarm them. And the Founders ensured that the people would have the ability to defend themselves again if it happened, by either invaders or by their own government. There is no way they could have seen how military technology would take off and the Us get a strong military, but even though those things have happened, it doesn't mean that the 2nd isn't relevant anymore. It still gives us the right to defend ourselves, and I can confidently say that anyone that tried to invade the US would be in for one HELL of a headache. Hunting rifles make good sniper rifles and it would cost them a hell of a lot of casualties to take over the country. And if our government tried to impose a dictatorship on its citizens? Civil war and you can't claim that the US military would side with the President.

Over all you have the view of a foreigner. To you, our laws and many rights look odd (or as you have implied with at least one right, insane), and to you, there might not be any need for those right(s), but that doesn't mean we in the US think those rights are invalid (rights aren't privileges to be taken away. They are guaranteed to us and aren't something the government can legislate away at a whim because it doesn't like how its citizens are or think or believe.

and at the end, a foreigner's views of what US rights are or should be doesn't mean spit. You do not have any authority to declare that our rights are invalid, stupid or out of date. That is for us to decide, not you. So please take your hostile anti-US rights attitude and go. I am not and never will be a European. I am an American and damned proud to be one. If you want a say in our rights, become an American citizen, otherwise, please leave. Your opinion is just that, an opinion and any legal matters outside of the US are worthless when applied to the US and US law/Constitution. Unless your nation conquers us, our rights stay. End of story.

First of all, I want to point out that saying "we have that right because it's in the Constitution", while true, is essentially tautological and does not make for an interesting debate. The argument is isn't only whether (which is part of what Tenishinai is arguing)you have that right, but rather if society enshrining that right is jsutified and/or counterproductive.

Quoting out of order.

Zakharra wrote:Over all you have the view of a foreigner. To you, our laws and many rights look odd (or as you have implied with at least one right, insane), and to you, there might not be any need for those right(s), but that doesn't mean we in the US think those rights are invalid (rights aren't privileges to be taken away. They are guaranteed to us and aren't something the government can legislate away at a whim because it doesn't like how its citizens are or think or believe.

and at the end, a foreigner's views of what US rights are or should be doesn't mean spit. You do not have any authority to declare that our rights are invalid, stupid or out of date. That is for us to decide, not you. So please take your hostile anti-US rights attitude and go. I am not and never will be a European. I am an American and damned proud to be one. If you want a say in our rights, become an American citizen, otherwise, please leave. Your opinion is just that, an opinion and any legal matters outside of the US are worthless when applied to the US and US law/Constitution. Unless your nation conquers us, our rights stay. End of story.

OK, first of all, please don't get this defensive. Conspiracy theories aside, no foreigner is proposing to force you to give up your rights or make any laws. However, we do have the right to opine on and criticise your nation and society, just as you can do to ours - and frankly, I've never seen Americans (including - possibly especially - conservatives) to be hesitant in doing so to other countries, and there are a fair amount of Americans who do seem to argue that American values should be adopted by other countries - see Keith Ablow for a relatively extreme example (see the video as well as the text, as he expands on his proposals there).

The British, at the time, were the legal government. They tried to disarm the citizens, who rebelled and fought back using [i]their own weapons[/u] and those captured from the British. Most of the soldiers who fought on the US side supplied their own muskets, or were ones they got from dead British, but for the most part, it was common ordinary citizens who fought the British under the Colonial officers, militia formed by ordinary citizens. The minute Men, now an organized army by any means, but the local men in the area grabbing their hunting musket (there was little difference in use between a hunting weapon and war musket except maybe the war one might have a nub for a bayonet. Otherwise they were the same, useable for hunting or war and just as effective in either).

I admit to not being any sort of expert on the American Revolution, but AFAIK most of the victories were won by open field battles with the Continental army, rather than irregular forces. And as was mentioned earlier, the American forces enjoyed considerable foreign support, as well as much of the British army being tied up in Europe.

That's actually a fairly consistent pattern - the majority of geurilla forces which manage to succeed do so with a considerably degree of foreign assistance and often with the occupier/oppresser being distracted elsewhere or else actively fighting someone else (you brought up the French Resistance - I'll remind you that they didn't actually succeed in throwing the Germans out of France, it was the Allies who did that. How long do you think the Resistance would have lasted if the Germans hadn't been fighting other nations at the time?).

Bottom line is they were fighting against a corrupt government that wanted to disarm them. And the Founders ensured that the people would have the ability to defend themselves again if it happened, by either invaders or by their own government. There is no way they could have seen how military technology would take off and the Us get a strong military, but even though those things have happened, it doesn't mean that the 2nd isn't relevant anymore. It still gives us the right to defend ourselves, and I can confidently say that anyone that tried to invade the US would be in for one HELL of a headache. Hunting rifles make good sniper rifles and it would cost them a hell of a lot of casualties to take over the country. And if our government tried to impose a dictatorship on its citizens? Civil war and you can't claim that the US military would side with the President.

True, if you're assuming the dictator/invader is a moron.

As I mentioned earlier (in this thread, I think) - any successful tyranny ultimately rests on the support of the military. If the military (or at least a large part of it) isn't supporting him, then the army (or even the police) will deal with the matter before the citizens even get involved. if the military does support him, then armed resistance will be met with overwhelming forces. (Hell, you have an example in recent years - just how successful were resistance movements in resisting the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?). So I think assuming the military will side against him is both not guaranteed and not really relevant. Especially since any would-be dictator with half a brain will present arguments proving his rule is Constitutionally kosher.

Frankly, in the US (and most modern democracies, for that matter) if you have the necessary support to establish a dictatorship, it's probably easier (and cheaper) to jsut run for office, unless we're discussing some kind of post-apocalyptic scenario

As for an invader - given your geography and the strength of your military, again there's no realistic chance of anyon taking over the US. If they do, if they're smart they're not going to even try to disarm the US population or even deal with them directly, rather co-opting the centers of power and resource distribution (for a fictional example, see the Jao series).

posted by Eyal First of all, I want to point out that saying "we have that right because it's in the Constitution", while true, is essentially tautological and does not make for an interesting debate. The argument is isn't only whether (which is part of what Tenishinai is arguing)you have that right, but rather if society enshrining that right is jsutified and/or counterproductive.

My main issue with Tenishinia is he seems to be saying that some rights like the 2nd are obsolete and outdated and should be removed, mostly because he sees it that way. Rights aren't something that can or should be bartered away by the federal government. They were pout in the Constitution as a way to guarantee that they -can't- be taken away, and I know that a lot of Democrats and the more liberal people in the US would absolutely -love- to remove the 2nd Amendment, as well as the one on free speech(when its used against them), and likely a few others. They'd rather it be the government is what says what rights its citizens have and have them be more like privileges which can be taken away rather than rights which have to be respected. And removing of one right, makes it easier to remove/alter other rights until there are no rights but what the government dictates.

It did take a series of open battles to win, with French help (thanks France! *waves*), but it went on a lot longer than it would have if so much of the population hadn't been armed. I remember reading that the British were rather angry at the Colonist habit of shooting their officers. If the only people who have weapons are soldiers, there's damned all that they can really do to fight any invaders/attackers. A disarmed populous is a weaker one.

It also ties into the history of the growth of the Us where often it was the peoples responsibility to provide for a lot of their own protection, when the police or army outposts can be hours/days away, you have to have something to defend yourself on hand.

True, if you're assuming the dictator/invader is a moron.

Politicians then. It doesn't take much for even democratically elected officials to start displaying dictatorial tendencies. We can say that our current President is doing that with what he just did with the Executive order, after he has said numerous times that he -doesn't- have that authority. Kind of a hypocrite he is, isn't he? It would be far easier than you think for a group of politicians to slide into being dictators, albeit on a 'gentle' scale since they still have to appease the masses and work the political machine, but it's nowhere near impossible for it to happen quietly. One way is by stacking the bureaucracies and judge benches with people who think like they do, another way is by using public money to pay off the masses. Promise them free money/goods and they will do whatever you wish. I believe it is Benjamin Franklin who said we will have a republic only until the politicians realize they can bribe the people with public money.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on most of this. I feel all of the rights are still relevant and shouldn't be abridged or restricted.

Zakharra wrote:I'm sure every Chief Justice on the US Supreme Court has a much better legal background in US law and the Constitution than you do.

So, lets see here then...

In a case where the determining factor is a matter of linguistics, you choose to ignore what someone who is a linguist says, who has worked professionally, even specifically worked with historical documents of the same era, in two languages, someone who has zero personal attachment to what the ruling actually is, in favour of a legal specialist that is about as likely to be 100% unbiased as the ocean is to be dry?

Yeah, great logic there.

Doesn´t matter how much law they know if they can´t read properly. Or more likely, doesn´t WANT to read properly.

Lets do it quick and simple shall we:

"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."

Now, please read that a few times. Then try reading just the blue text, and STOP at the end of that.

Unless you´re completely illiterate, you should notice that reading the blue text on its own does not provide a complete text.
And it is clearly written thusly very intentionally.

If all they wanted was to say that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, that could easily have been written as semiseparate text, but as it is, the two parts can NOT be cut apart, as doing so kills context completely and makes the first part deficient and the second part linguistically questionable.

Which of course reinforces what should be bloody obvious, that the text is written as a complete whole, not to be cut apart and played with in suitably itty bitty small pieces that you can claim means whatever you wish.

Now then that we have established that little detail to anyone who didn´t flunk English for dummies, why don´t you tell me exactly how that context is supposed to be read to maintain legal separation between militia and people in the meaning of the text?

Answer is, you CANNOT. Not without butchering the language or being seriously dishonest.
Not to mention how to evade the contextual connection between militia and state in the text. That would take a ridiculous amount of verbal acrobatics as well. Or bias and/or dishonesty.

Oh yes, your constant insistence about how the reason for this right is for the population to limit the state...

It doesn´t say necessary for a free state (which would still be highly questionable to claim that it says what you claim it says but would at least give you a hint of possibility), it blatantly clearly says necessary for the SECURITY of a free state.

Meaning that your assertion in that regard doesn´t have any basis in reality.

Play with your guns as much as you want, have fun. Please just do it safely.

But don´t try to claim that the 2nd amendment or the intent of those who wrote it is what you gives you any right to play with your guns. Because that´s just rubbish.

Corruption and politics is currently the basis for that "right".

Zakharra wrote:Like it or not, and it's clear you don't like it since you argue so vehemently against it

Are you having trouble with basic comprehension?

1. I couldn´t care less how you do it in USA as long as you´re not complete idiots about it.
2. PERSONALLY, i´m somewhat against any restrictions not based on safety.

But of course, it´s easier for you to reject reality if you claim i´m opposed to guns no matter what. Which is a lie and i have repeatedly noted such. So maybe you should just stop repeating the lie?

Or does that leave you too much without arguments?

Zakharra wrote:the 2nd Amendment is an individual's right

Only if you´re inept at English.

Zakharra wrote:Restricting firearms as you and others wish,

Quit the lies. You have clearly failed basic comprehension, as i have definitely never said i want to restrict firearms.

Zakharra wrote:The British, at the time, were the legal government. They tried to disarm the citizens, who rebelled and fought back using [i]their own weapons[/u] and those captured from the British.

Nice creation myth. About as much truth in it as in other creation myths.

Zakharra wrote:Most of the soldiers who fought on the US side supplied their own muskets, or were ones they got from dead British, but for the most part, it was common ordinary citizens who fought the British under the Colonial officers, militia formed by ordinary citizens.

Ah yes, organised militias that trained at least somewhat properly, supported by their cities. Supplied and getting a BIG chunk of its weapons from Europe, especially heavy weapons.

While it´s not really true, i do find the saying "amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics" rather a suitable counterpoint to your statement.

Zakharra wrote:The minute Men, now an organized army by any means

Exactly. "Well organised militia". Organised by the proto-state of USA. This is nowhere near "population with guns" that you keep yearning so for.

The minute men trained a lot to be effective.
And their leadership ranged from professional to pathetic. Often depending on how much training they had the chance to get in before ending up in action.

Zakharra wrote:but the local men in the area grabbing their hunting musket (there was little difference in use between a hunting weapon and war musket except maybe the war one might have a nub for a bayonet. Otherwise they were the same, useable for hunting or war and just as effective in either).

An army with nothing but muskets would have died quickly.
And a large portion of those men got their weapons from elsewhere. Claims of how large portion of personal firearms originated from their homes range from 10-ish to 60-ish%.

A third or a fourth is probably a realistic guesstimate.

Maybe you need to check where militias were formed, and just exactly how common it was among urban people to have guns useful for military purposes at home?

Sheesh, myths are very annoying. And USA have waaayyy too many.

Zakharra wrote:Bottom line is they were fighting against a corrupt government that wanted to disarm them.

Oh god...

1. Only reason the US revolution was successful was because the British were far more busy elsewhere.
2. The American colonies were exactly that, COLONIES. Effectively not your government at all. Which is why enough people could agree on opposing it.
3. The American colonies were much too far from the center of gravity(or government) for the British to prioritize it. The colonies were essentially expendable even if it took some time for that to be commonly realised.
4. Had the revolution been against a local government that actually had a critical stake in keeping control, it would have died embarassingly quickly.

Zakharra wrote:And the Founders ensured that the people would have the ability to defend themselves again if it happened, by either invaders or by their own government.

The founders wanted a staterun militia and no army unless i seriously missrecall.

Zakharra wrote:and I can confidently say that anyone that tried to invade the US would be in for one HELL of a headache. Hunting rifles make good sniper rifles and it would cost them a hell of a lot of casualties to take over the country.

You´re seriously delusional in this.

The point of contact will only become large enough for individual snipers to matter at all, when most of your country is already conquered.

Ok, lets be very simple about this, for comparison, the region i live in, warping the borders a bit results in the presence of about 50000 rifles. The local homeguard commander considers those "mostly irrelevant" and an "insignicant force" compared to his couple of thousand homeguard personnel.

People with guns are irrelevant. People with guns that also have military training MAY be relevant.
People with guns who are part of a military or para-military force that they have trained with and have the needed support, supply and heavy weapons, that´s when you start getting relevant.

Otherwise it´s just dead people who haven´t figured out they´re dead yet.

Zakharra wrote:And if our government tried to impose a dictatorship on its citizens? Civil war and you can't claim that the US military would side with the President.

With all the religious worship of authority figures in USA? *lol*

And GWB already effectively did impose such a thing for a while, and almost noone even said anything in opposition. Because hey, national security!

Do you seriously believe that ALL US military and civillians with weapons would AGREE on whether someone is "imposing a dictatorship"?

Do you really believe that anyone stupid enough to think they could actually do a "hostile take over" of the government and get away with it, could get the political support to get there?

Its tragically funny though that Obama gets called dictatorial when he keeps doing something GWB did.

Not that he might not be dictatorial, it´s just sad that people just ignore who came up with most of the ideas.

Zakharra wrote:Over all you have the view of a foreigner. To you, our laws and many rights look odd

"Oh my, those quaint foreigners don´t understand anything"... And heeellooo arrogance.

The fact that i actually have more rights here, that obviously doesn´t matter.

Zakharra wrote:and to you, there might not be any need for those right(s)

Helloooo? We just happen to have "those rights" here as well.

Zakharra wrote:I am not and never will be a European.

And may i say thank the gods for that.

Zakharra wrote:otherwise, please leave.

Up yours.

Freedom of speech you know. It goes both ways. Whether you want it or not.

I would strongly suggest you do not try to give people orders when your delusional and have no authority to do so.

Zakharra wrote:My main issue with Tenishinia is he seems to be saying that some rights like the 2nd are obsolete and outdated and should be removed

And again you prove that you are apparently unable to read and understand the written word.

Never said or wrote such a thing.

2nd amendment does not say what you claim it does, and it does not say what US law currently says it does(by extension), either you need to disconnect the laws from the amendment(and as they effectively govern different matters that shouldn´t be hard ), or modify laws if you insist on following the amendment as originally written.

I´ve also stated that parts of the US constitution is obsolete and outdated, mostly in regards to form of government and elections, because they simply don´t work well due to change in technology.

Inability to change is nearly always a clear sign of impending collapse.

Zakharra wrote:as well as the one on free speech(when its used against them)

You mean like you want to do? And your obsession about conspiracy theories with the EBIL DEMOCRATS as the horribly nasty guys are getting seriously ridiculous.

Sheesh, what are you, a teaparty nutjob?

Zakharra wrote:but it went on a lot longer than it would have if so much of the population hadn't been armed.

Impossible to say. And since the majority of weapons used were probably imported ones, probably not true.

Zakharra wrote:It also ties into the history of the growth of the Us where often it was the peoples responsibility to provide for a lot of their own protection, when the police or army outposts can be hours/days away, you have to have something to defend yourself on hand.

And this just shows off even more just how thoroughly indoctrinated you are with the big myth.

Because it wasn´t the outback that made the revolution, it was the east coast towns and cities. The places where police and army did exist.

Zakharra wrote:A disarmed populous is a weaker one.

Why don´t you take that up with Ghandi?

Eyal wrote:Frankly, in the US (and most modern democracies, for that matter) if you have the necessary support to establish a dictatorship, it's probably easier (and cheaper) to jsut run for office, unless we're discussing some kind of post-apocalyptic scenario

Pretty much. And it seems that is looking to become the modus operandi in USA for the last 2 presidents and onwards. To at least some extent.