View Single Post
      06-14-2019, 01:32 PM   #121
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1070
Rep
628
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
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?



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.




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.
I've read the Federalist Papers in their entirety. More than once. I love this shit. The Federalist Papers were published in an effort to persuade the states to sign up to the federal Constitution. There were many viewpoints and getting it done was essentially an exercise in herding cats. In any event, the argument in Federalist 46 was that the proposed Federal government, even if it had a standing army, would not be powerful enough to oppress an armed citizenry at large, which is exactly what I have been saying. The argument was that individually armed citizens would be able to band together in militias at the state and local level against the federal government. Your suggestion that the 2A was merely to protect militias, as state actors, rather than individual armed citizens who could form them organically should the need arise, is an inaccurate characterization. From Federalist 46:

"In addition to the advantage of being armed (an advantage Americans have over the people of almost every other nation in the world), the existence of subordinate governments that have the support of the people, and by which militia officers will be appointed, will together form a barrier against the ambitious plans of the Federal government, a barrier which will be more insurmountable than any that a simple government of any form would be capable of."

The scope and purpose of the 2A as extending to an individual right, protecting individual liberty, and serving as a check on governmental power is a matter of settled law at this point, regardless of your narrow focus on militias and Federalist 46.

It sounds like we will just have to agree to disagree, which is fine. You give no credence to the deterrent effect of an armed citizenry; I find it compelling. I also highly value my right to be armed. It shows respect for the natural rights the Founding Fathers held so dear. It gives me a credible opportunity to defend myself, my family, my home, and my liberty.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Dave 90TT1578.00