That is such an important point, that people need to realize that the war for freedom has moved from arms to politics, and they need to realize it's just as serious a war for power and wealth and control over, fought with propaganda and media and money and they should put more effort into voting right and less into worrying about armed rebellion.
Winner winner!
They worry about the 2nd amendment and not being able to fight off a tyrannical/fascist government that they are blind to the fact that they keep voting for people that are pushing the government in that direction (its a long was off in my opinion but when the CIA starts doing military operations we should be concerned).
What's that saying? Fascism will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross (and probably handing out free guns).
Seems pretty clear to me too.
But like other parts of the Constitution, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has gradually morphed over time to keep up with changing societal norms. Not necessarily a bad thing, as it's now hard for us to understand how the founding fathers could pen the Constitution while holding slaves (which does lower my interest in arguments based on their "intent").
For better or worse, the 2nd Amendment now encompasses personal ownership of guns. As well established as the right to an abortion, the right to privacy, etc. Done deal.
I do shake my head when I hear people suggest that individuals owning guns somehow prevent our government from turning tyrannical. Does anyone really believe that AR-15 touting civilians can stand up against a modern military? Stop watching Red Dawn reruns.
The original purpose is actually pretty easy to grok. Let's take this in context. Having just overthrown the British royal government, who's army confiscated firearms whenever they could, then suffered through the Articles of Confederation, the framers wanted very much to support the rights of the people to defend themselves against anything. Not just foreign armies, but any threat to their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Read the Federalist Papers, those writings are clear.
For those of you who think somehow the 2nd Amendment is about an organized militia, remember the other nine amendments are all individual rights. How odd that a collective right or a state right would be part of the Bill of Rights? Because the 2nd is an individual right. Do I really need to explain the plain language of the 2nd? Remember, the 2nd was written in 1789, and English today is not the same.
I'd say the people ignoring the words are those pretending that "the right of the people" somehow means "the right of the states". We can certainly argue that definitions of "well-regulated" and "militia" have morphed, but I don't think anyone can argue that the definitions of "people" and "states" have swapped places. As to why the language includes a qualifier, even in the 18th century there were powerful progressives who thought that the peasants should rightfully be property of the various governments, the State merely replacing the feudal lord in the natural scheme of things. Sixone's reference to the Jacobite Uprising is certainly relevant, but we should never forget that then, as now, many powerful people lent their sympathy to the government, not the starving disarmed peasants.Your post seems typical to me of those who take your own agenda and put it in the mouths of the founding fathers.
Yes, the founding fathers had a general sense at the time that having a gun should be the right of people - given that people were expected to contribute to loval security, to be available for the state militia, for hunting for many - there was a broad basis for the right, but if that was their only purpose - that broad individual right - they would have written it like the other amendments, and simply put the last part of the amendment: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
But, they DID make it unique - the only right to have its purpose explained, with a preamble phrase.
You say 'for those who think the 2nd amendment is somehow about an organized militia'.
Well, 'those' include its authors, who qualified the right in its language: 'A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right...'
So, yiou treat 'those who think the 2nd amendment as somehow about an organized militia' like some kind of bizarre people with an agenda, when it's you ignoring its words.
Language has changed in some ways from 1791, but the basic meaning of what they said about the well-regulated militia being the basis for the right has not.
It couldn't be much plainer, seeing how you simply ignore what it says.
I've never heard a good answer from the people who want the amendment to be a much larger right not based on state militias, why they didn't just include the last part.
THAT is what it would say if they'd meant that these people want to claim.
It doesn't have that sort of qualifier on any other right. It doesn't say, 'public discource without coercion being necessary for the political reasoning in a free state, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.' It doesn't say, 'freedom from the thread of drastic punishment by the state being necessary to the moral behavior of a free state, the right of the people to be free of cruel and unusual punishment shall not be infringed'.
None of the others have some purpose, some limiting function, for the rights specified. But they specifically rejected the naked and unambiguous right you want them to have passed.
The question isn't what the amendment says, the question is whether you will be accurate, or re-write it to fit your agenda, ignoring what it says.
The situation as far as our need for those state militias as our main national defense without a standing army has changed drastically - not the English language about it.
There is some gray area, that while they stated a purpose of collective defense at the state, to meet that purpose they gave what reads as an individual right - albeit one which the Supreme Court has had no problem taking away from some people if there's much of a reason at all, such as someone who commits a crime - and has served the sentence. Why can their right be taken away forever? It doesn't mention that in the amendment.
(Which raises another interesting question - which constitutional rights can be taken from criminals not in custody, forever? Free speech? Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? The right to keep troops in their home? We seem to have no problem letting states deny them the right to vote; and we let the government deny them the right to freedom from 'unreasonable search and seizure' under the rules of probation that can last ten years or more, in principle forever, in lieu of more prison).
So the amendment has really lost its relevance in terms of its stated purpose of the need for state militias to protect society without a standing army to do it;but we can't just toss aside rights in the constitution. So the best solution would seem to update the amendment. I don't think people can really make a very rational case why the current situation where everyone seems ok with rifles but not automatic guns being protected is based in the amendment - but that distinction is said to come from it.
Many Americans would not doubt like to amend it to strip off the well-regulated militia language - which would still leave the definition of which arms are protected.
Others would like to give states and the federal government clearer rights to have gun control; for example, Milton Eisenhower, the President's brother, just after the second to last time we did pass some federal gun control in 1968, led a presidential commission under Nixon on the issue which called for the confiscation of nearly all handguns.
But since none of these views has the political support for a constitutional amendment, we keep the original, and just write whatever laws our politician judges let be written by 'interpreting' the amendment to mean things it doesn't say - after over 200 years when the Justices finally ruled more on what it said, it was a 5-4 decision, hardly supporting that the definitions they claim were there are clearly there.
That is such an important point, that people need to realize that the war for freedom has moved from arms to politics, and they need to realize it's just as serious a war for power and wealth and control over, fought with propaganda and media and money and they should put more effort into voting right and less into worrying about armed rebellion.
You're right! Because no group of civilians has ever overthrown a government with more advanced weaponry. Let's also completely ignore that if the government got so bad people would rebel, the military members would stick by their orders to continue to serve said government. If all the civilians that work with the military didn't show up for work anymore, the military would be crippled.
Same as today, protect us from our own government.
Of course they outlawed armor piercing rounds so its a moot point.
One of the things the founding fathers didn't have - hundreds of thousands in street gangs. Back then, guns with citizens were much less likely to be used for crime.
There's this little problem, until the revolution makes killing the government people a grand noble patriotic cause, they'll be used by criminals for murdering police.
Of course when I say problem, I mean to that part of the American people who don't think that's a good thing, sacrificing our police to the cult of the gun.
One of the things the founding fathers didn't have - hundreds of thousands in street gangs. Back then, guns with citizens were much less likely to be used for crime.
Then maybe we should think about why we have hundreds of thousands in street gangs instead of ignoring the Constitution?
You can't make an argument so you think sarcasm is a substitute.
No, no group of civilians has ever defeated a military anything like the US has.
The whole thing is pretty absurd to try to discuss, but in any plausible scenario at most there would be armed citizens against armed citizens.
The government if it needed to could recruit any size army from foreign sources, filled with poor foreigners who would be thrilled to take the position against people in the US.
Things won't get to that point, but people need to accept that there will not be any 'armed rebellion' that won't be put down fast as terrorism.
We've already had a stolen presidency (2000), a banking class that has a good amount of immunity from prosecution, all new wealth directed to a small group at the top...
We already have one of the two major parties wanting to further that shift of wealth.
Where's the armed rebellion? The occupy movement? The Tea Party who is co-opted to fight FOR the wealthy in the name of a 'people's rebellion'?
The American people are not the middle-easterners rising up. We have a very low tolerance for the cost of civil disobedience. We have people fighting AGAINST popular causes - look at how Scott Walker survived a recall election after he broke his campaign promise and went after the workers, in a state with a long history of worker support.
Our federal government has been hijacked undemocratically - over a million more people voted for Democrats for the House but Republicans have control. Republicans have taken a veto power in the Senate for all important legislation by abusing the filibuster. Where is the uprising? People on the right are cheering those things, as if it's their victory. Show me the posts from Republicans in this forum objecting to things like that gerrymandering on principle. It's hard to find any such posts even condeming voter supression.
Theese are the people who will 'rise up'? If they do 'rise up', it'll only be as dupes of the powerful interests to fight AGAINST someone like Obama in favor of those interests.
Our democracy is not working well - 'the people' can't get much done in their interest.
On the other hand, much as the people of China to now have made a bargain with the government to exchange political power for economic gains, there's a lot going just fine for the people in the US - even as wealth is radically redicstributed to the top, even as democracy is violated - we're still seeing some historic progress in areas, including finally addressing some inequalities for gays we've been guilty of for our whole national history. We still have a lot of freedoms as long as we don't want a strong democracy.
The whole idea of US armed rebellion is absurd and wasteful and doesn't help with people paying attention to their vote enough.
the idea of overthrowing your oppressive government is/was a pretty radical notion . . . moderate? does that just mean the status quo?You're missing the point. As you point out, most people are still making a decent living under the status quo.
A massive uprising isn't absurd at all, things just haven't gotten anywhere near bad enough to start one. And they likely won't during our lifetimes; but eventually they might, and if that happens the American people will need options.
As for our democracy not working well, it's working just fine, people just aren't voting. The radical rule both parties, and their politics reflect that. Things would get a lot better if the moderate super-majority would simply vote; not just for the President and Congress but in the primaries, in their local state elections, hell in their school-board elections if applicable but most don't.
Democracy is only representative of the sum of its participants; and most of America is asleep at the wheel. It's one reason I think making not voting a fine-able offense would do a world of good. The vote of an uninformed moderate is usually still more reasonable than the vote of an informed radical.
the idea of overthrowing your oppressive government is/was a pretty radical notion . . . moderate? does that just mean the status quo?
you're right, most of america is sleeping when it comes to following the activities of our government. .
those who are paying attention and are outraged by it are labeled radicals . . .
The idea of overthrowing an oppressive government is quite moderate and reasonable if there's no better option.
A moderate is someone who can see both sides of the issue and make a rational choice, a radical is someone who only cares about his/her side of the issue succeeding.
As for our democracy not working well, it's working just fine, people just aren't voting.
The radical rule both parties, and their politics reflect that. Things would get a lot better if the moderate super-majority would simply vote; not just for the President and Congress but in the primaries, in their local state elections, hell in their school-board elections if applicable but most don't.
Democracy is only representative of the sum of its participants; and most of America is asleep at the wheel. It's one reason I think making not voting a fine-able offense would do a world of good. The vote of an uninformed moderate is usually still more reasonable than the vote of an informed radical.
No, it's not. But like so many less informed 'moderates', you happily make assertions.
Even the issue you concede isn't the problem, a lack of voting - except where it's caused by something you don't mention, voter suppression measures that are an issue.
We have one of the two major parties working in pretty much every state they control - which is at a record high - to suppress voters in various ways. That's a problem.
I'm not even going to try to bother informing you on the issue, other than just noting how inadequate your claim is, totally ignoring things like the enormous role money has been allowed in corrupting our elections for the first time in our country's history, the requirement of large money for media in nearly all races, and much more 'breaking' our democracy.
You're just so far out there in saying 'there's no problem' - burying your head in the sand, one could say a radical position ignoring the facts - I don't see much hope for informing you.
And that's false again. There is one element of truth to your claim - where gerrymandering is the worst, districts are made with high concentrations of one party, which leads to people who are less from the 'center' who get crossover votes from those districts. I wouldn't call them radical, but using your flawed definitions, they are more 'radical'.
(Interesting example - there is only one white Democrat in Congress from the South left, it was reported).
But more generally, you abuse the word 'radical' above again. The progressive caucus are not 'radicals' - but you probably call them such.
When the radical becomes the norm, the norm becomes radical. Is it radical for Senators to increase the use of the filibuster from a handful of times a year to several hundred? And yet now when they do it, it's hard to find any reporting calling any use of it 'radical' - it's just treated as routine. How often are Republicans called 'radicals' for the radical actions?
I have a test for people on an issue.
List the ten greatest things the government has passed in the last century.
Then look at how many of them passed when Democrats had a super-majority - and ONLY passed because of that. So was that 'radical' - or was the opposition 'radical'?
For example, When JFK ran on a platform of estabilshing Medicare coverage, Ronald Reagan was made the national spokesman by the medical lobbying group to fight him.
Was Reagan a 'radical'? Or is Medicare and were the Democratic supermajority that passed it and JFK 'radical'?
When Clinton passed his tax hike on the top 2% in 1993 and did not get one Republican vote, was he 'radical', or was the Republican opposition? Note the budget he won the fight on - by one vote IIRC - led to a period of prosperity and a balanced budget, ending the 'radical' deficits created for 12 years by the Republicans before him. Who's the radical?
No, actually, the vote of an uninformed moderate is likely to simply be a bad vote - one highly influenced by the money spent on marketing by special interests.
Yes Craig, I know you attach this romantic definition to "radical" and consider yourself a romantic icon. Hence the reason you quote yourself in your signature.
For my part, a "moderate" is someone who looks at both sides of an issue and makes a rational choice, a "radical" is someone who only cares about his side winning and couldn't care less about opposing arguments; and he/she will deny objective legitimacy if necessary. This mentality leads radicals to easy usurpation by any who superficially preach to their cause. Radicals exist on both sides.
I'm not saying there's no problem, I'm saying that the core issue is lack of participation and complacency.
As for our democracy not working well, it's working just fine...
Right now, if enough people ran for office and voted ONLY for politicians who would, say, cut out all financial lobbying; then we'd have no financial lobbying within a year or two. This is not impossible, we saw it most recently with SOPA/PIPA going down in flames in a matter of days.
The issue is organizing people behind a certain issue and getting them to vote on it, and that's hard to do. Most people are complacently living their lives.
And FYI Craig, you can keep your self-serving "information". Being a moderate who doesn't dismiss perspectives out of hand, I can all but guarantee mine is better.
As for our democracy not working well, it's working just fine, people just aren't voting.
You're missing the point. As you point out, most people are still making a decent living under the status quo.
A massive uprising isn't absurd at all, things just haven't gotten anywhere near bad enough to start one. And they likely won't during our lifetimes; but eventually they might, and if that happens the American people will need options.
As for our democracy not working well, it's working just fine, people just aren't voting. The radical rule both parties, and their politics reflect that. Things would get a lot better if the moderate super-majority would simply vote; not just for the President and Congress but in the primaries, in their local state elections, hell in their school-board elections if applicable but most don't.
Democracy is only representative of the sum of its participants; and most of America is asleep at the wheel. It's one reason I think making not voting a fine-able offense would do a world of good. The vote of an uninformed moderate is usually still more reasonable than the vote of an informed radical.