|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States24680 Posts
On April 20 2019 10:26 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence. not sure if serious That is literally not the "ultimate constitutional purpose" of gun ownership as per the constitution LOL That last "LOL" really reveals that you aren't interested in discussing the matter openly... your mind is made up and you want to stick it to those who disagree with you. Disappointing, but far from unprecedented in this thread.
In any case, regardless of the militia business, the 2nd amendment clearly states that people have the right to use guns in a civilian manner https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176this is well studied and supported and is only a debate point for the most anti-gun people grasping at straws
I mean think about it. Guns were all around America, used for hunting Which was an important part of obtaining food back then... unlike now, for most people. self defense Against who? Animals attacking you because you practically lived in the wilderness? Not as common now. Against foreign invaders? That just feeds Doodsmack's point. Against each other? Like, gunslingers and the like? That's not exactly a positive. decoration Most people here are perfectly find with decorations using non-functioning guns, even if they don't want them over their own mantles. and even dueling, when it was founded and none of the founding fathers did anything about it.
Hell Alexander Hamilton literally died in a private gun dual So, dueling is a reason to allow civilian gun ownership?
|
On April 20 2019 11:41 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 10:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence. not sure if serious That is literally not the "ultimate constitutional purpose" of gun ownership as per the constitution LOL That last "LOL" really reveals that you aren't interested in discussing the matter openly... your mind is made up and you want to stick it to those who disagree with you. Disappointing, but far from unprecedented in this thread. This is all actually still debated all the time. For example, the words 'civilian manner' are not in the second amendment. You may feel strongly that your interpretation is the correct one, but it is certainly not "clear" as you put it. Which was an important part of obtaining food back then... unlike now, for most people. Against who? Animals attacking you because you practically lived in the wilderness? Not as common now. Against foreign invaders? That just feeds Doodsmack's point. Against each other? Like, gunslingers and the like? That's not exactly a positive. Most people here are perfectly find with decorations using non-functioning guns, even if they don't want them over their own mantles. Show nested quote +and even dueling, when it was founded and none of the founding fathers did anything about it.
Hell Alexander Hamilton literally died in a private gun dual So, dueling is a reason to allow civilian gun ownership?
Doodsmack made a very strong claim, one that is not supported at all, whether youre looking at the literal text of the Constitution or analyzing the meaning and context of the text.
Youre right that "civilian manner" is not in the 2nd amendment but that wasnt my claim. What I'm saying is that studies of auxiliary works of the time as well as an examination of the works, lives, and societies of the founding fathers pretty much unequivocally support the idea that civilians could freely keep and use firearms.
So what that hunting is less common (not to mention the fact that youre describing post colonial america as if it were some wilderness society where everyone hunted and had to fend off bears in the woods)? I brought up the duel because it highlights the idea, which the founding fathers clearly espoused, that guns are nothing more than property that individuals are free to do with what they want to, as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.
Going back to doodsmack's point, the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to give the central power access to an organized armed fighting force. The 2nd amendement clearly focuses on the the people their ability to maintain a free state.
|
United States24680 Posts
That was a much better post as compared to the previous one, since it just focused on the points you wanted to make.
On April 20 2019 12:26 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 11:41 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2019 10:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence. not sure if serious That is literally not the "ultimate constitutional purpose" of gun ownership as per the constitution LOL That last "LOL" really reveals that you aren't interested in discussing the matter openly... your mind is made up and you want to stick it to those who disagree with you. Disappointing, but far from unprecedented in this thread. In any case, regardless of the militia business, the 2nd amendment clearly states that people have the right to use guns in a civilian manner https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176this is well studied and supported and is only a debate point for the most anti-gun people grasping at straws This is all actually still debated all the time. For example, the words 'civilian manner' are not in the second amendment. You may feel strongly that your interpretation is the correct one, but it is certainly not "clear" as you put it. I mean think about it. Guns were all around America, used for hunting Which was an important part of obtaining food back then... unlike now, for most people. self defense Against who? Animals attacking you because you practically lived in the wilderness? Not as common now. Against foreign invaders? That just feeds Doodsmack's point. Against each other? Like, gunslingers and the like? That's not exactly a positive. decoration Most people here are perfectly find with decorations using non-functioning guns, even if they don't want them over their own mantles. and even dueling, when it was founded and none of the founding fathers did anything about it.
Hell Alexander Hamilton literally died in a private gun dual So, dueling is a reason to allow civilian gun ownership? Doodsmack made a very strong claim, one that is not supported at all, whether youre looking at the literal text of the Constitution or analyzing the meaning and context of the text. I do think it's part of the overall picture of why the framers wanted people to have guns... without people having guns there would be insufficient military force to repel enemy nations. You can argue that was a secondary reason and not the primary reason, if you wish.
Youre right that "civilian manner" is not in the 2nd amendment but that wasnt my claim. What I'm saying is that studies of auxiliary works of the time as well as an examination of the works, lives, and societies of the founding fathers pretty much unequivocally support the idea that civilians could freely keep and use firearms. Missing is why the conditions if the late 1700s or early 1800s similarly warrant free use of firearms by civilians today... you can certainly make the argument, if you wish, but it may be beyond the scope of your intentions.
So what that hunting is less common (not to mention the fact that youre describing post colonial america as if it were some wilderness society where everyone hunted and had to fend off bears in the woods)? I brought up the duel because it highlights the idea, which the founding fathers clearly espoused, that guns are nothing more than property that individuals are free to do with what they want to, as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others. Guns were certainly more needed back then, even if they weren't having daily bear attacks in town.
Going back to doodsmack's point, the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to give the central power access to an organized armed fighting force. The 2nd amendement clearly focuses on the the people their ability to maintain a free state.
One thing that might help is if you define 'free state.' Showing there was a proliferation of guns because everyone and their grandmother was just carrying them around and occasionally dueling doesn't fully connect the dots.
To be clear, I have typically argued against sweeping bans of guns in this thread, but I'm cautious to claim the founders agree with me on my positions.
|
On April 20 2019 12:26 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 11:41 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2019 10:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence. not sure if serious That is literally not the "ultimate constitutional purpose" of gun ownership as per the constitution LOL That last "LOL" really reveals that you aren't interested in discussing the matter openly... your mind is made up and you want to stick it to those who disagree with you. Disappointing, but far from unprecedented in this thread. In any case, regardless of the militia business, the 2nd amendment clearly states that people have the right to use guns in a civilian manner https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176this is well studied and supported and is only a debate point for the most anti-gun people grasping at straws This is all actually still debated all the time. For example, the words 'civilian manner' are not in the second amendment. You may feel strongly that your interpretation is the correct one, but it is certainly not "clear" as you put it. I mean think about it. Guns were all around America, used for hunting Which was an important part of obtaining food back then... unlike now, for most people. self defense Against who? Animals attacking you because you practically lived in the wilderness? Not as common now. Against foreign invaders? That just feeds Doodsmack's point. Against each other? Like, gunslingers and the like? That's not exactly a positive. decoration Most people here are perfectly find with decorations using non-functioning guns, even if they don't want them over their own mantles. and even dueling, when it was founded and none of the founding fathers did anything about it.
Hell Alexander Hamilton literally died in a private gun dual So, dueling is a reason to allow civilian gun ownership? Doodsmack made a very strong claim, one that is not supported at all, whether youre looking at the literal text of the Constitution or analyzing the meaning and context of the text. Youre right that "civilian manner" is not in the 2nd amendment but that wasnt my claim. What I'm saying is that studies of auxiliary works of the time as well as an examination of the works, lives, and societies of the founding fathers pretty much unequivocally support the idea that civilians could freely keep and use firearms. So what that hunting is less common (not to mention the fact that youre describing post colonial america as if it were some wilderness society where everyone hunted and had to fend off bears in the woods)? I brought up the duel because it highlights the idea, which the founding fathers clearly espoused, that guns are nothing more than property that individuals are free to do with what they want to, as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others. Going back to doodsmack's point, the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to give the central power access to an organized armed fighting force. The 2nd amendement clearly focuses on the the people their ability to maintain a free state.
I'm not disputing that civilians can own guns and use them for civilian purposes. But the purpose of all that is for the civilians to maintain skill with their guns so that they will be ready to serve in the "militia." The ultimate constitutional purpose of civilian use of guns is to serve in the "militia." So what is the militia? The plain text of the constitution says that Congress can call up the "militia" to fight for the federal government. Sounds a lot like a draft doesnt it?
|
I mean they sound a lot alike other than the fundamental structure, nature, and function of the two. One being a voluntary organization the other compulsatory, one having training and structure beforehand the other not, and one being for the service of their state the other for the service of the nation.
|
On April 21 2019 00:47 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 12:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 20 2019 11:41 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2019 10:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence. not sure if serious That is literally not the "ultimate constitutional purpose" of gun ownership as per the constitution LOL That last "LOL" really reveals that you aren't interested in discussing the matter openly... your mind is made up and you want to stick it to those who disagree with you. Disappointing, but far from unprecedented in this thread. In any case, regardless of the militia business, the 2nd amendment clearly states that people have the right to use guns in a civilian manner https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176this is well studied and supported and is only a debate point for the most anti-gun people grasping at straws This is all actually still debated all the time. For example, the words 'civilian manner' are not in the second amendment. You may feel strongly that your interpretation is the correct one, but it is certainly not "clear" as you put it. I mean think about it. Guns were all around America, used for hunting Which was an important part of obtaining food back then... unlike now, for most people. self defense Against who? Animals attacking you because you practically lived in the wilderness? Not as common now. Against foreign invaders? That just feeds Doodsmack's point. Against each other? Like, gunslingers and the like? That's not exactly a positive. decoration Most people here are perfectly find with decorations using non-functioning guns, even if they don't want them over their own mantles. and even dueling, when it was founded and none of the founding fathers did anything about it.
Hell Alexander Hamilton literally died in a private gun dual So, dueling is a reason to allow civilian gun ownership? Doodsmack made a very strong claim, one that is not supported at all, whether youre looking at the literal text of the Constitution or analyzing the meaning and context of the text. Youre right that "civilian manner" is not in the 2nd amendment but that wasnt my claim. What I'm saying is that studies of auxiliary works of the time as well as an examination of the works, lives, and societies of the founding fathers pretty much unequivocally support the idea that civilians could freely keep and use firearms. So what that hunting is less common (not to mention the fact that youre describing post colonial america as if it were some wilderness society where everyone hunted and had to fend off bears in the woods)? I brought up the duel because it highlights the idea, which the founding fathers clearly espoused, that guns are nothing more than property that individuals are free to do with what they want to, as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others. Going back to doodsmack's point, the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to give the central power access to an organized armed fighting force. The 2nd amendement clearly focuses on the the people their ability to maintain a free state. I'm not disputing that civilians can own guns and use them for civilian purposes. But the purpose of all that is for the civilians to maintain skill with their guns so that they will be ready to serve in the "militia." The ultimate constitutional purpose of civilian use of guns is to serve in the "militia." So what is the militia? The plain text of the constitution says that Congress can call up the "militia" to fight for the federal government. Sounds a lot like a draft doesnt it?
The plain text of Federalist arguments intending to induce support of the constitution is that militia is also an ally of the States, for use in the event the Federal government turns tyrannical. They were well aware that a British king oppressed his British subjects, and knew, argued, and wrote about the same thing happening with a American President instead of a King.
|
The plain text says Congress can call up the militia to serve the federal government. That supersedes the Federalist papers, and it supersedes any claim or personal opinion that the militia is strictly to serve the states. Also I do think there is historical evidence that the militia was mandatory for every male of a certain age. Which sounds a lot like the draft.
|
What exactly is "the militia" is impossible to define definitively. They came from specific communities which were then organized by state before being slotted into an order of battle under federal control. The civil war showed this in action of what a "well regulated militia" is probably best described to be. The "minute men" were clearly a more professionalized and regulated subsect of the militia while anything else of the founding fathers ear was the unorganized rabble you could expect from any English Edwardian feudal levy. Modern era National guard units (1903) being the descendants of the Militias are under dual authority being called up by both with ofc the federal level having more authority. However, outside of national emergency or war they are at the service of the states and function in times of peace as such. They weren't able to be federalized until this 1903 act either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Volunteer_Infantry Is a good example of this in question.
PS we still have that Virginian battle flag suck it
User was warned for this post.
Apparently, blind pride for your states history isn't allowed and will get someone to report you. Minnesota has been ordered by Congress and the presidency to return the vrigianian battle flag it captured at pickets charge (after already saving the union from certain defeat in a suicidal charge). Minnesota has to this day refused to return this battle flag and it resides with the Minnesota historical society.
|
The Virginia flag is a good symbolic example. Virtue, armed, standing on top of a defeated tyrant that had a flail and a crown.
The nation prior to the Constitution wasn't about to elect a king that would raise up an army and use its might to dominate the other branches of the federal government and the states. No way did colonists just fight a revolutionary war to just elect a king closer to home but in the same spirit as George III. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold the constitution to these rightly skeptical state assemblies as containing the necessary protections to states from the feds. The militia and the loyalties of the militia were one of them.
The alternative is absolutely idiotic. It presumes the people writing at length to sell the Constitution as something good were double-dealing their readers. They already knew Congress was the real leader, so it goes, and talked about militias resisting the federal armies in a massive act of deceit. Not so.
The citizen has one last line of defense against a federal government that enforces its will on them from afar. I include either congress with compliant courts or ignored courts, or the executive with the same. The very constitution that creates the legislative, executive, and judicial also preserves to the citizen his or her right to keep and bear arms. I don't really see this defense being necessary in my lifetime, expressly because the existence of the last line of defense makes politicians tread a little carefully. You better believe that if gun control goes too far and makes pistols and shotguns the only lawful weapons to own, you're going to see widespread civil disobedience and crisis.
|
|
|
What better way to go after ascertaining intent than to read the documents that persuaded the country that the constitution was a good idea? I’m not too interested in what you pronounce to be the true intent , or what you think is “kind of [my] thing, I’m interested if you have arguments from the facts against. (And nowhere do I make the case that the sole purpose of the militias is to serve the states)
|
On April 21 2019 08:04 Danglars wrote:
The Virginia flag is a good symbolic example. Virtue, armed, standing on top of a defeated tyrant that had a flail and a crown.
The nation prior to the Constitution wasn't about to elect a king that would raise up an army and use its might to dominate the other branches of the federal government and the states. No way did colonists just fight a revolutionary war to just elect a king closer to home but in the same spirit as George III. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold the constitution to these rightly skeptical state assemblies as containing the necessary protections to states from the feds. The militia and the loyalties of the militia were one of them.
The alternative is absolutely idiotic. It presumes the people writing at length to sell the Constitution as something good were double-dealing their readers. They already knew Congress was the real leader, so it goes, and talked about militias resisting the federal armies in a massive act of deceit. Not so.
The citizen has one last line of defense against a federal government that enforces its will on them from afar. I include either congress with compliant courts or ignored courts, or the executive with the same. The very constitution that creates the legislative, executive, and judicial also preserves to the citizen his or her right to keep and bear arms. I don't really see this defense being necessary in my lifetime, expressly because the existence of the last line of defense makes politicians tread a little carefully. You better believe that if gun control goes too far and makes pistols and shotguns the only lawful weapons to own, you're going to see widespread civil disobedience and crisis.
Article 1, section 8, clause 15: [Congress has the power to] provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Therefore, Congress can call the militia to serve the federal government. In that case the president is its commander in chief. Your claims regarding the militia being solely for defense against the federal government are irrefutably incorrect. This is the plain text of the constitution.
Edit: it does seem as though your posts argue that defense against the federal government is the point of the militia. But at the least, that's not the only point of the militia.
|
|
|
On April 21 2019 08:40 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 08:04 Danglars wrote:
The Virginia flag is a good symbolic example. Virtue, armed, standing on top of a defeated tyrant that had a flail and a crown.
The nation prior to the Constitution wasn't about to elect a king that would raise up an army and use its might to dominate the other branches of the federal government and the states. No way did colonists just fight a revolutionary war to just elect a king closer to home but in the same spirit as George III. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold the constitution to these rightly skeptical state assemblies as containing the necessary protections to states from the feds. The militia and the loyalties of the militia were one of them.
The alternative is absolutely idiotic. It presumes the people writing at length to sell the Constitution as something good were double-dealing their readers. They already knew Congress was the real leader, so it goes, and talked about militias resisting the federal armies in a massive act of deceit. Not so.
The citizen has one last line of defense against a federal government that enforces its will on them from afar. I include either congress with compliant courts or ignored courts, or the executive with the same. The very constitution that creates the legislative, executive, and judicial also preserves to the citizen his or her right to keep and bear arms. I don't really see this defense being necessary in my lifetime, expressly because the existence of the last line of defense makes politicians tread a little carefully. You better believe that if gun control goes too far and makes pistols and shotguns the only lawful weapons to own, you're going to see widespread civil disobedience and crisis. Article 1, section 8, clause 15: [Congress has the power to] provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Therefore, Congress can call the militia to serve the federal government. In that case the president is its commander in chief. Your claims regarding the militia being solely for defense against the federal government are irrefutably incorrect. This is the plain text of the constitution. Edit: it does seem as though your posts argue that defense against the federal government is the point of the militia. But at the least, that's not the only point of the militia.
But these militias that the federal government is calling is still inherently a community and state entity. That the federal government needs to "call" for the militia inherently shows that it is not a federal entity and not at the least under federal justification. That they need to be "called" also makes it firmly I would argue optional for these militias to turn out.
That they were renamed to be national guard units in 1903 to distinguish them as federalizeable units is important.
|
United States24680 Posts
Edit: Oh you addressed the national guard already.
It would also be interesting to require membership in the national guard to own certain classes of firearms.
|
|
|
On April 21 2019 11:26 micronesia wrote:
Edit: Oh you addressed the national guard already.
It would also be interesting to require membership in the national guard to own certain classes of firearms.
Yeah but then you get age gateing again, you'd also have a lot of issues with how much the national guard costs as well as giving military training to a swath of lets be honest increasingly minority rural population. Making them unhappy would have disastrous repercussions.
Fun fact we named them national guard units after the French national guard in honor of Lafayette.
|
What would you mean by "age gating"? You mean age restriction? For firearms? Surely USA already has age restrictions for gun ownership. I really cannot imagine otherwise.
|
On April 21 2019 19:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What would you mean by "age gating"? You mean age restriction? For firearms? Surely USA already has age restrictions for gun ownership. I really cannot imagine otherwise.
He probably meant maximum age and not minimum age. If you have para-military as requirement then people in their 50s or similar lose their guns if they don't keep fit. Seems a win-win though, keeping people fit is something governments want.
|
I can see that a maximum age restriction for gun ownership would be undesirable for Sermakola's politics. Still, I cannot understand why he would describe it as age gating, when presumably English is his first language, instead of just writing plainly what he meant. Assuming that your interpretation is correct.
It is strange though, I would had presumed that Sermakola would be one of those who would had loved to tie gun ownership with the national guard; a grand patriotic display if there ever was one. That a such a right should come with the patriotic duty to the country.
Oh and btw, I have no idea what a Virginian battle flag is, but I think it is rather obvious that Sermakola were warned for writing "suck it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
