Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias? (Read 774 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #20 - Feb 25th, 2018 at 4:25pm
Print Post  
DontTread44 wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 7:02pm:
Well, yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense and the Second Amendment literally says, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

This is the article I was reading. It's pretty lengthy and they seem to somewhat know what they are talking about, however I think the author is seriously missing or forgetting the interpretations of Federalism since our country's founding.

Let me know what you think of the article, though.

https://www.alternet.org/comments/news-amp-politics/right-wings-fake-history-sec...

It's a fake narrative. The article you almost linked to ignores the actual history to re-frame it as "progressives" wish it had been.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
DontTread44
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 94
Joined: Nov 22nd, 2016
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #21 - Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:54pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Feb 25th, 2018 at 4:25pm:
It's a fake narrative. The article you almost linked to ignores the actual history to re-frame it as "progressives" wish it had been.


Okay well there are numerous articles just like this one being posted now – where are they getting their alternative history from?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #22 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 8:00am
Print Post  
DontTread44 wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 11:54pm:
Okay well there are numerous articles just like this one being posted now – where are they getting their alternative history from?
They make it up. They ignore historical facts that don't fit their narrative and create facts out of thin air. They examine facts out of context and use out of context facts to reach the conclusions they desire.

By doing things like that, they can claim that people who were armed as British subjects and who used those arms to win their independence created a government with the power to disarm them. They have to ignore massive amounts of evidence to make that claim.

It's clear to me that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution firmly believed that individuals have a Right to be armed, and that that Right is important to the preservation of Liberty, but will only act as a practical bulwark of Liberty if armed citizens are organized and trained by their various State governments.

It's not "either armed individuals or State Militias", it's both, the first being a Right and a necessity for the creation of the second, the second being a practical way to make use of the first in order to preserve Liberty.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
DontTread44
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 94
Joined: Nov 22nd, 2016
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #23 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 7:23pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 8:00am:
They make it up. They ignore historical facts that don't fit their narrative and create facts out of thin air. They examine facts out of context and use out of context facts to reach the conclusions they desire.

By doing things like that, they can claim that people who were armed as British subjects and who used those arms to win their independence created a government with the power to disarm them. They have to ignore massive amounts of evidence to make that claim.

It's clear to me that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution firmly believed that individuals have a Right to be armed, and that that Right is important to the preservation of Liberty, but will only act as a practical bulwark of Liberty if armed citizens are organized and trained by their various State governments.

It's not "either armed individuals or State Militias", it's both, the first being a Right and a necessity for the creation of the second, the second being a practical way to make use of the first in order to preserve Liberty.


Good points. I know the late 18th century U.S. government was imperfect in many ways but, why did it take until 2007 for the right to bear arms to pertain to individuals?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8098
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #24 - Mar 2nd, 2018 at 1:10am
Print Post  
DontTread44 wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 7:23pm:
... I know the late 18th century U.S. government was imperfect in many ways but, why did it take until 2007 for the right to bear arms to pertain to individuals?

You're asking Jeff,  so I'll defer to him to answer.  He better get this right or I'll be all over him like a duck on a June-bug!..    Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #25 - Mar 2nd, 2018 at 9:21am
Print Post  
DontTread44 wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 7:23pm:
Good points. I know the late 18th century U.S. government was imperfect in many ways but, why did it take until 2007 for the right to bear arms to pertain to individuals?
Until Prohibition, there was never any question that Americans had a right to keep and bear arms, including machine guns.

The real question is, when did our government start infringing on a right that existed and was accepted since the beginning?

From what I know, it was when Prohibition fueled gangs in Chicago and elsewhere started machine gunning each other in the streets. This was used as an excuse to "regulate" the ownership of machine guns. There were other excuses such as bank robbers using BARs.

But then, as now, "progressives" focused on the machine guns rather than the criminals or the root causes of the criminality.

That was the "progressive" camel's nose under the tent, and since then they have steadily built a false narrative of the Constitution as a document granting unlimited power to government and "enumerating" certain rights that are to be allowed to citizens, as long as those rights are constrained by "reasonable" restrictions.

Some very bad, absurdly reasoned Supreme Court opinions by majorities of "progressive" Justices asserted, ever since the power to infringe the Right to be armed by "regulating" machine guns was invented out of whole cloth, that "reasonable" restrictions could essentially eliminate the Right, and it took until 2007 for the Supreme Court to honestly look at the Right. Sort of honestly anyway, since they essentially agreed with the first Court that said "regulating " the ownership of machine guns was a "reasonable" infringement of the Right to bear arms.
« Last Edit: Mar 3rd, 2018 at 8:57am by Jeff »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #26 - Mar 2nd, 2018 at 1:07pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 2nd, 2018 at 9:21am:
Until Prohibition, there was never any question that Americans had a right to keep and bear arms, including machine guns.

The real question is, when did our government start infringing on a right that existed and was accepted since the beginning?

From what I know, it was when Prohibition fueled gangs in Chicago and elsewhere started machine gunning each other in the streets. This was used as an excuse to "regulate" the ownership of machine guns. There were other excuses such as bank robbers using BARs.

But then, as now, "progressives" focused on the machine guns rather than the criminals or the root causes of the criminality.

That was the "progressive" camel's nose under the tent, and since then they have steadily built a false narrative of the Constitution as a document granting unlimited power to government and "enumerating" certain rights that are to be allowed to citizens, as long as those rights are contained by "reasonable" restrictions.

Some very bad, absurdly reasoned Supreme Court opinions by majorities of "progressive" Justices asserted, ever since the power to infringe the Right to be armed by "regulating" machine guns was invented out of whole cloth, that "reasonable" restrictions could essentially eliminate the Right, and it took until 2007 for the Supreme Court to honestly look at the Right. Sort of honestly anyway, since they essentially agreed with the first Court that said "regulating " the ownership of machine guns was a "reasonable" infringement of the Right to bear arms.


Are you making a case to allow machine guns back on the streets?

The US prison system went bad so did that happen at the same time?

It's obviously totally corrupt and costing taxpayers billions to keep people in jails. More than any other country, and the results are one of the worst. 

But the Norwegian system is poison to Americans. Do they think machine guns on the streets will make things better?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #27 - Mar 2nd, 2018 at 5:07pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Are you making a case to allow machine guns back on the streets?


No, I was trying to make the case that drug prohibition leads to people being gunned down in the streets.

It's actually well documented.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #28 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 8:55am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 2nd, 2018 at 9:21am:
Until Prohibition, there was never any question that Americans had a right to keep and bear arms, including machine guns.

The real question is, when did our government start infringing on a right that existed and was accepted since the beginning?

From what I know, it was when Prohibition fueled gangs in Chicago and elsewhere started machine gunning each other in the streets. This was used as an excuse to "regulate" the ownership of machine guns. There were other excuses such as bank robbers using BARs.

But then, as now, "progressives" focused on the machine guns rather than the criminals or the root causes of the criminality.

That was the "progressive" camel's nose under the tent, and since then they have steadily built a false narrative of the Constitution as a document granting unlimited power to government and "enumerating" certain rights that are to be allowed to citizens, as long as those rights are contained by "reasonable" restrictions.

Some very bad, absurdly reasoned Supreme Court opinions by majorities of "progressive" Justices asserted, ever since the power to infringe the Right to be armed by "regulating" machine guns was invented out of whole cloth, that "reasonable" restrictions could essentially eliminate the Right, and it took until 2007 for the Supreme Court to honestly look at the Right. Sort of honestly anyway, since they essentially agreed with the first Court that said "regulating " the ownership of machine guns was a "reasonable" infringement of the Right to bear arms.
How did I do Chief?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8098
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Reply #29 - Mar 3rd, 2018 at 10:59am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 3rd, 2018 at 8:55am:
How did I do Chief?

Nailed it.   Smiley

It's good that you mentioned "reasonable" restrictions for regulation on machine guns. SCOTUS should have struck down the National Firearms Act [1934] which prohibited certain types of (automatic) weapons for civilian use.  It was in clear violation of the Constitution.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.  Means exactly that. Restrictions/prohibition on certain types of firearms absolutely is an infringement.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Is the Second Amendment really to promote state militias?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy