View Single Post
      06-14-2019, 11:47 AM   #120
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1796
Rep
4,283
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
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.
You're not going to overthrow a tyrannical government because you don't like half the people in Congress. Since you're making the claim, maybe you can present some evidence that our government is "afraid" of an armed populace and that's what is keeping us from tyranny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
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.
It's not been under continuous attack, but whatever. The 2A has not come up for votes of repeal. But I'm being coy, I know you are abdicating that the NFA or such laws are "attacks". I also see you're not even differentiating between state and federal governments anymore which is good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
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.
I suggest you read Federalist #46. The 2A was specifically written for militias and armed citizens to make up the ranks of those militias. It wasn't the armed populace that would prevent a tyrannical government, it was the militias role to accomplish that and to keep a standing army nonexistent or small enough to not be a factor.

Even #46 mentions the idea of the US government using it's military to overwhelm the states as almost nonexistent. Since the state militias now (the national guard) are indistinguishable from the regular US military, it's even more of a nonexistent threat. But that doesn't sell fear or firearms so it's beneficial to push a different narrative these days.