View Single Post
      06-14-2019, 10:55 AM   #119
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1051
Rep
622
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
For your premise to be correct, then all players in the government would want to disarm the populace. Because Republicans are no different than Democrats that when it comes to one thing, power, that is the most important thing. If an armed populace were an actual existential threat to that power, we would have been disarmed a long time ago. Besides, in modern times, there are much easier ways to subjugate a population and it isn't through force or arms.
I honestly donít understand your point here. To the extent you are saying that the 2A can only have a deterrent effect if 100% of those in government are influenced by it, this is nonsense on its face. To the extent you are saying that we would already be disarmed if those in government believed it presented a threat to their power, this is also nonsense. The 2A has been under continuous attack by federal and state legislators for at least the last 60 years. Itís the Constitution, the popularity of the 2A and the courts that have stopped them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
There were two factors behind the founders being against a standing army, one simple and one more philosophical:

1.) a standing army is expensive and as a new country we were broke. We couldn't afford it. The only branch we were to have full time is a standing Navy because there is no such thing as a part time Navy that has any power. Remember, any nation that was worth a damn in the previous couple hundred years dominated because of their Navy.

2.) A standing army can be used to subjugate the population. The founders knew that, they experienced it, history supported that claim. But that doesn't mean we didn't need an army. Hence that whole "militia" part of the 2A that is so conveniently left out recently. The militias, when called upon, become our standing army. Our national guard is the closest modern approximation to that. Even with that, anything that wasn't a personal weapon was left in garrison. Naval guns, mortars, etc were not for public consumption. And we had the added bonus everyone already had their own muskets! We didn't have to buy any.


Remember, the Federalist Papers were against the Bill of Rights and so the 2A. I don't agree with that opinion but that's for another discussion.
Iím not sure I understand your point here either. It sounds like we are in agreement that motivating factors behind the 2A include ensuring individual liberty and checking government power. To the extent you are saying the 2A was merely to prevent the establishment of a federal standing army, or to establish state militias, this is not historically factual, nor does it explain the text of the 2A itself.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.Ē