Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:35:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
955 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, William R. Ward writes:
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> writes:
> > Furthermore, as sometimes I am prone to doing, *if* I concede your full
> > understanding of the 2nd, can't we all just say it was a dumb-ass ammendment
> > written in a time before street lights and police, and it should be stricken
> > from the books? The frontier *has* been tamed (yes is quoted from WW--get
> > over it ;) )
>
> The US Constitution is designed to ensure a reasonably fair government
> that doesn't have too much power over the people. But if that were to
> break down, the 2nd Amendment is there to provide the people a last-
> ditch method of regaining the control over the country. Because in
> the philosophy of the DoI and Constitution, the people hold the
> ultimate power. Not a king or tyrant. This is as true today as it
> was in the 18th century.
It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that
its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against
tyranny.
>
> Honestly speaking, it would be an uphill battle: the U.S. military
> against the ragtag collection of people who own guns (i.e. the "well-
> regulated militia"). It may not be a fair fighting chance, but it's a
> chance. And with enough deserters from the Army it *could* succeed.
The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the
Confederate Army. I think that the confederates would view their actions as
an excercise of state rights rather than second amendment rights, however
(if only because they'd be in the trap of having to let the black slaves
have weapons). :-)
>
> I'm not advocating that this should happen; I think that despite the
> erosion of civil liberties that has been going on for some time, and
> that has accelerated significantly since September 11, 2001, there is
> still a great deal of power left to the people without an armed
> uprising. But the bottom line is, that there is always the potential
> for an armed uprising as a backup, in case the mechanism of democracy
> were to break down. The threat of such an uprising makes it less
> likely the government will try to declare martial law, cancel an
> election, or take other steps that have occurred in many democracies
> (especially in Central & South America).
Just *vote* the current moron out, you don't have to shoot him (well, okay,
if you want to go Ashcroft plinking, I'll turn a blind eye).
:-O
>
> I do not subscribe to the idea that all citizens are members of a
> "well-regulated militia" however. I do think that all citizens are
> *potential* members of such a militia, in case the democratic system
> should fail. This is what the misguided fools who were battling the
> ATF in the late '90's were thinking. I disagree with them that the
> time has come. I hope it will never come. But if it did, the 2nd
> Amendment provides a way to ensure the "Security of a Free State."
I think the idea was that you couldn't have a well-regulated militia when
you needed one if everyone was a duffer without ever having practiced with a
weapon.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part covers that. [...] (...) As long as democratic institutions are still working then it isn't time for a revolution. But when the right to vote gets taken away (e.g. an election (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
