General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack

[Minonian]

Yeah that thing was written along time ago now wasn't it, sort of aimed at enabling folks to have their muskets ready incase the evil British redcoats come over the hill.

Things are a bit different in 2017, I doubt they expected a single citizen having access to weapons to kill and injure hundreds.

:O Excellent point! That law is is historically outdated, and back than it was necessary for the protection of a weak newly born nation but The United states of America in this days is the #1 military superpower of the world.

I can rarely surprised like this, but you just did it!

If only we could put something like "well regulated" into the constitution.

[up]

 

[Stigbob]

The government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees for the people the right to possess the means by which they can violently oppose the government, if needs be.

You could never win, or even present a credible threat. You'd just be bringing a rifle to a tank/plane/drone/missile/aircraft carrier fight.

I thought the second amendment was about the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, in the UK that would be the Territorial Army (you call them the National Guard). They'd probably be some of the people called out to deal with armed nutters trying to topple the government.

 

[Trinity Star]

If only we could put something like "well regulated" into the constitution.

They could perhaps do something like an amendment.

 

[FuzzySpider]

The government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees for the people the right to possess the means by which they can violently oppose the government, if needs be.

Ok.

Question - you have a rogue in the Whitehouse right now trying to start a nuclear war with North Korea and who has clear sympathies with neo-fascist groups. This is happening against a backdrop of state-sponsored brutality towards black people and bans on certain Asian groups from travelling to or within the USA, along with potential mass deportations of settled people living there now.

If there was ever a time to resist it is now. But the guns are silent. Why?

 

[Minonian]

If there was ever a time to resist it is now. But the guns are silent. Why?

Because most of the gun toting nutjobs whom ready and willing to commit a killing spree, go against the government, or start fight with cops? His supporter.

 

[Moonax IRL]

The government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees for the people the right to possess the means by which they can violently oppose the government, if needs be.

Any chance you'd quote the relevant paragraph to support same.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Any chance you'd quote the relevant paragraph to support same.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Here is a link to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court regarding "well regulated" militias...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Oral Arguments preceding...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqXTZLJ95p0&t=4229s

 

[Deleted member 115407]

While I generally see any attempt to overthrow the government as treasonous, the sentiment is not without historical backing....

...of the people, by the people, for the people.

The United States is an extension of the will of the people. If and when it begins to act against the will of the people is where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

Where folks go wrong is conflating the securing of the means to violently oppose the government with actively and violently opposing the government.

We the People, through the laws executed by government, get to decide what is and is not acceptable opposition, and at present time we have decided that violent opposition is unacceptable. If a person or small group uses violence as means to achieve some political end, they are not exercising their rights under the US constitution.

But what if the government were to overstep its restrictions so grossly that the people felt they had no choice but to violently oppose it? Would that still be treason?

Congress decides to pass a law that prohibits people from criticizing congress upon threat of incarceration or even death....
The executive decides that it will be more cost effective to assign soldiers an available room in people's homes....
The Supreme Court decides that "general welfare" enables the government to seize your property without compensation....
Armed government agents freely enter and search your home without a warrant....
Defendants are summarily executed without appeal after being brought before and convicted by a trial judge....

These are extreme examples of government overreach, but they are not unheard of. There have been plenty of governments in that past 100 years that have imposed such things on their people, in fact some of those governments still exist today.

The Second Amendment secures, for the people, the right to maintain the means of opposing such government abuses should they occur (and acts as a deterrent from them occurring in the first place).

 

[FuzzySpider]

The United States is an extension of the will of the people. If and when it begins to act against the will of the people is where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

If that were true the person with the most votes would have been president.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I said overthrow, not oppose. But I get what you're saying. Some things dangerously similar to your examples are already happening with alarming regularity.

Asset forfeiture law
No knock warrants
Summary execution by police

I could go on, but I need to get back to work for a bit.

Asset forfeiture law... agreed.
No knock warrants... I'll have to read up on this.
Summary execution by police.. eh, there is a lot of gray area here. But I'll be the first to criticize police when they are heavy-handed.

 

[Moonax IRL]

Amendment II
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Here is a link to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court regarding "well regulated" militias...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Oral Arguments preceding...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqXTZLJ95p0&t=4229s

Its not 1776 anymore, surely the militia has been replaced by the US military whose task is to protect the nation and its constitution. Bearing in mind it has the worlds largest defence budget by a huge margin, what`s it`s excuse. By all means disband the US military spend the trillions on healthcare and proper social services and then raise your militia`s from Joe citizen to defend the constitution and the nation as per the constitution. If that was the case you could make a valid argument for keeping your weapons. Otherwise its .

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Its not 1776 anymore, surely the militia has been replaced by the US military whose task is to protect the nation and its constitution. Bearing in mind it has the worlds largest defence budget by a huge margin, what`s it`s excuse. By all means disband the US military spend the trillions on healthcare and proper social services and then raise your militia`s from Joe citizen to defend the constitution and the nation as per the constitution. If that was the case you could make a valid argument for keeping your weapons. Otherwise its .

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and are just ranting wildly now. As I stated previously, the point of the Second Amendment is to secure for the people the right to keep and bear arms, so that they have the means to violently oppose the government should the need arise.

To your first point, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides for both Federal Armies and State Militias...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...

For your point about military spending, the American People need not justify or excuse military spending to foreign nations, nor do we have to provide reason for any other spending we may or may not see fit to participate in. We can allocate our own capital for domestic use as we see fit, and without your permission or approval.

 

[Moonax IRL]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and are just ranting wildly now. As I stated previously, the point of the Second Amendment is to secure for the people the right to keep and bear arms, so that they have the means to violently oppose the government should the need arise.

To your first point, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides for both Federal Armies and State Militias...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...

For your point about military spending, the American People need not justify or excuse military spending to foreign nations, nor do we have to provide reason for any other spending we may or may not see fit to participate in. We can allocate our own capital for domestic use as we see fit, and without your permission or approval.

Isn`t it cheaper to use your rights at the ballot box to overthrow the government instead expending ammunition at imaginary threats. Have you no faith in democracy in the "Land of the Free" or is that particular phrase as well.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Isn`t it cheaper to use your rights at the ballot box to overthrow the government instead expending ammunition at imaginary threats. Have you no faith in democracy in the "Land of the Free" or it that particular phrase as well.

There we go again, conflating the right to secure a means with actual applied violence should the need arise.

Last I checked the United States has a robust and healthy voting system by which the people seek to achieve change, and it is used by the people every two years to do just that.

 

[Moonax IRL]

There we go again, conflating the right to secure a means with actual applied violence should the need arise.

Last I checked the United States has a robust and healthy voting system by which the people seek to achieve change, and it is used by the people every two years to do just that.

So what you are saying is that the citizen should have the right to use force to resist any threat from any enemy, foreign or domestic, therefore they need their weapons.

 

[FuzzySpider]

There we go again, conflating the right to secure a means with actual applied violence should the need arise.

Last I checked the United States has a robust and healthy voting system by which the people seek to achieve change, and it is used by the people every two years to do just that.

Last I checked the guy who lost is in charge, aided by a hostile foreign power, is supported by neo-nzis, is trying to dismantle safeguards, is under investigation for obstruction of justice, and is investigating how to pardon himself.

If there was ever a time to take on the government it is now.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

So what you are saying is that the citizen should have the right to use force to resist any threat from any enemy, foreign or domestic, therefore they need their weapons.

Yes. It is a right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (and by many of our State Constitutions as well).

Texas: Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State

The Second Amendment guarantees, for the people, the right to secure the means by which they can violently oppose the Federal Government, or any other enemy of the People, should the need to do so arise.

 

[Moonax IRL]

Yes. It is a right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (and by many of our State Constitutions as well).

The second amendment guarantees, for the people, the right to secure the means by which they can violently oppose the Federal Government, or any other enemy of the People, should the need to do so arise.

Fair enough, I can take from that, that you fully support the right of Iraqi, Afghan and Vietnamese citizens to attack with such force and inflict casualties on US soldiers in their countries.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Fair enough, I can take from that, that you fully support the right of Iragi, Afghan and Vietnamese citizens to attack with such force and inflict casualties on US soldiers in their countries.

Of course. Why wouldn't they have that right?

And US Soldiers in their countries have a right to defend themselves.

What's your point?

 

[Moonax IRL]

Of course. Why wouldn't they have that right?

And US Soldiers in their countries have a right to defend themselves.

What's your point?

But does the US have the right to be in said countries.