Re: School Shootings
Posted: Sun May 29, 2022 2:05 pm
I’m going to try this one more time. I think my big mistake was taking it from right to bear arms to protect against tyranny to the idea of the violent dissolution of government. That just scares people and is like getting in my car and going from 0 to 200.
Let me break it down in a less volatile manner.
1. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written as checks on government power to ensure the freedom of the people and to limit the power of federal and state government. The 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights because the Founders had a real fear of a standing army controlled by the government that could be turned on the people. The best way they could create a check on the military power of the government was to maintain a right of the people to bear arms to if necessary protect themselves from the military and police power of the government. There are a lot of quotes and rhetoric from that time making it quite clear this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
None of the amendments in The Bill of Rights are to support the government’s ability to form an army. That power of government is enumerated in a separate section of the Constitution. This is why the argument that the 2nd Amendment was created so the government can call up the citizenry as an army is a false one. The Bill of Rights was not written to support the government and was written as a document to limit the power of the federal and state governments as well as provide some clear powers for the individual and the state. The war powers of government are covered elsewhere and not part of the rights used to check the power of government.
2. The 2nd Amendment even in America has been denied people to inflict tyranny upon them. In particular, denial of the 2nd Amendment to people of African descent to keep them enslaved and to the Native Americans to keep them from being able employ the weapons the European ancestry people would use against them to take their land and protect themselves from genocide.
Outside of America there is a long history of free men owning arms in any culture that values liberty to protect their liberty and maintain military power with the people to protect themselves from the government. Governments have long controlled arms as a precursor to tyranny whether in class-based European societies where a police and military class like the knight class controlled arms to be able to subjugate and control the peasantry or like the Nazis did with Jewish people to limit their power to protect themselves when they decided to commit genocide on them.
You are seeing the same thing play out in Ukraine in the modern day where the Russians would deny the people weapons to defend themselves if they were able. Military power is essential to maintain freedom for a people, not just with a professional military but also amongst the general populace.
These types of tyrants do not respect the vote or the words of the people they are tyrannizing. They only fear their ability to fight back, which requires arms.
3. The 2nd Amendment has a long history of regulation. This idea the 2nd Amendment does not allow for any kind of regulation or limitation is a false one. Even from the Founding of the nation, there were limitations on weapons ownership. Everyone didn’t get to own a cannon or buy a war ship armed with cannons. In general the idea was that citizens had the arms of a soldier. At the time of creation of the Amendment it was usually a musket or rifle of some kind, a sidearm, and some kind of knife. It obviously changed over time to repeating rifles and pistols to the modern day assault rifle and repeating pistol. This is why I don’t support an assault rifle ban because free citizens should be able own up to the weapons of a common soldier that would be used to fight on their behalf as American soldiers do for our freedom in other nations (or so we are told).
But all through the history of the 2nd Amendment, the government has been allowed to regulate rights as they have done with freedom of speech, illegal search and seizure, privacy laws, and so many other amendments where the actions of the citizenry have required the government and courts to interpret if an action taken by the citizens is protected by a Constitutional Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is no different. It has long and storied history of regulation and interpretation while attempting to maintain its intent and purpose within The Bill of Rights to limit the power of the federal government.
4. Why does nothing get done? There is a huge messaging problem within both parties with the 2nd Amendment.
The Democrats and apparently some Republicans like riverdog do not respect the 2nd Amendment as an important political right with a history and a purpose within The Bill of Rights. Thus they talk about it in a manner like it’s some anachronistic right, while those of us that believe it is still necessary watch the police shoot unarmed people, watch the government arrest and harass people who don’t agree with them, and even in recent times watched a president’s followers attempt to overturn an election and one of his key supporters in General Flynn call for a coup. I don't think that indicates an environment where we can all feel like we'll never have the need to take up on arms to defend ourselves from criminals or possibly the police or military of the nation.
And on the Republican side the 2nd Amendment has been hijacked by gun hobbyists and gun companies who want to sell the 2nd Amendment as some right to load up on guns and ammo, pretend you’re a liberty lover exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, while they just make gun companies wealthy and shoot for personal entertainment.
The real 2nd Amendment was meant for people to work in cooperative fashion and act as a citizen soldiery. They would train. They would own the arms of the common soldier. They didn’t own weapons as a hobby. It’s not a protection that allows a weapons dealer to sell to criminals or in the modern day some mentally unstable individual. Which is why waiting periods, background checks, and requiring training are well within the legal interpretations for the 2nd Amendment.
Switzerland which I posted as an example has done a far better job of implementing a 2nd Amendment type of right than America. The current handling of the 2nd Amendment is lazy, inaccurate, and a boon mostly to gun companies who want to sell gun hobbyists lots of guns and ammo while barely caring about the negative aspects of their rhetoric and business actions.
This should all be cleaned up. If the Democrats want to make a real effort to get moderate Republican and Nonpartisan support to clean it up, all they have to do is adjust their messaging to show they understand the 2nd Amendment, talk about the history of the Amendment, and pursue support from moderate Republicans who want something done about this insanity.
No one wants to see citizens, especially children killed, because some lunatic has far too easy access to weapons made for killing. But at the same time we want some assurances the 2nd Amendment is understood and considered when making these decisions.
Let me break it down in a less volatile manner.
1. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written as checks on government power to ensure the freedom of the people and to limit the power of federal and state government. The 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights because the Founders had a real fear of a standing army controlled by the government that could be turned on the people. The best way they could create a check on the military power of the government was to maintain a right of the people to bear arms to if necessary protect themselves from the military and police power of the government. There are a lot of quotes and rhetoric from that time making it quite clear this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
None of the amendments in The Bill of Rights are to support the government’s ability to form an army. That power of government is enumerated in a separate section of the Constitution. This is why the argument that the 2nd Amendment was created so the government can call up the citizenry as an army is a false one. The Bill of Rights was not written to support the government and was written as a document to limit the power of the federal and state governments as well as provide some clear powers for the individual and the state. The war powers of government are covered elsewhere and not part of the rights used to check the power of government.
2. The 2nd Amendment even in America has been denied people to inflict tyranny upon them. In particular, denial of the 2nd Amendment to people of African descent to keep them enslaved and to the Native Americans to keep them from being able employ the weapons the European ancestry people would use against them to take their land and protect themselves from genocide.
Outside of America there is a long history of free men owning arms in any culture that values liberty to protect their liberty and maintain military power with the people to protect themselves from the government. Governments have long controlled arms as a precursor to tyranny whether in class-based European societies where a police and military class like the knight class controlled arms to be able to subjugate and control the peasantry or like the Nazis did with Jewish people to limit their power to protect themselves when they decided to commit genocide on them.
You are seeing the same thing play out in Ukraine in the modern day where the Russians would deny the people weapons to defend themselves if they were able. Military power is essential to maintain freedom for a people, not just with a professional military but also amongst the general populace.
These types of tyrants do not respect the vote or the words of the people they are tyrannizing. They only fear their ability to fight back, which requires arms.
3. The 2nd Amendment has a long history of regulation. This idea the 2nd Amendment does not allow for any kind of regulation or limitation is a false one. Even from the Founding of the nation, there were limitations on weapons ownership. Everyone didn’t get to own a cannon or buy a war ship armed with cannons. In general the idea was that citizens had the arms of a soldier. At the time of creation of the Amendment it was usually a musket or rifle of some kind, a sidearm, and some kind of knife. It obviously changed over time to repeating rifles and pistols to the modern day assault rifle and repeating pistol. This is why I don’t support an assault rifle ban because free citizens should be able own up to the weapons of a common soldier that would be used to fight on their behalf as American soldiers do for our freedom in other nations (or so we are told).
But all through the history of the 2nd Amendment, the government has been allowed to regulate rights as they have done with freedom of speech, illegal search and seizure, privacy laws, and so many other amendments where the actions of the citizenry have required the government and courts to interpret if an action taken by the citizens is protected by a Constitutional Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is no different. It has long and storied history of regulation and interpretation while attempting to maintain its intent and purpose within The Bill of Rights to limit the power of the federal government.
4. Why does nothing get done? There is a huge messaging problem within both parties with the 2nd Amendment.
The Democrats and apparently some Republicans like riverdog do not respect the 2nd Amendment as an important political right with a history and a purpose within The Bill of Rights. Thus they talk about it in a manner like it’s some anachronistic right, while those of us that believe it is still necessary watch the police shoot unarmed people, watch the government arrest and harass people who don’t agree with them, and even in recent times watched a president’s followers attempt to overturn an election and one of his key supporters in General Flynn call for a coup. I don't think that indicates an environment where we can all feel like we'll never have the need to take up on arms to defend ourselves from criminals or possibly the police or military of the nation.
And on the Republican side the 2nd Amendment has been hijacked by gun hobbyists and gun companies who want to sell the 2nd Amendment as some right to load up on guns and ammo, pretend you’re a liberty lover exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, while they just make gun companies wealthy and shoot for personal entertainment.
The real 2nd Amendment was meant for people to work in cooperative fashion and act as a citizen soldiery. They would train. They would own the arms of the common soldier. They didn’t own weapons as a hobby. It’s not a protection that allows a weapons dealer to sell to criminals or in the modern day some mentally unstable individual. Which is why waiting periods, background checks, and requiring training are well within the legal interpretations for the 2nd Amendment.
Switzerland which I posted as an example has done a far better job of implementing a 2nd Amendment type of right than America. The current handling of the 2nd Amendment is lazy, inaccurate, and a boon mostly to gun companies who want to sell gun hobbyists lots of guns and ammo while barely caring about the negative aspects of their rhetoric and business actions.
This should all be cleaned up. If the Democrats want to make a real effort to get moderate Republican and Nonpartisan support to clean it up, all they have to do is adjust their messaging to show they understand the 2nd Amendment, talk about the history of the Amendment, and pursue support from moderate Republicans who want something done about this insanity.
No one wants to see citizens, especially children killed, because some lunatic has far too easy access to weapons made for killing. But at the same time we want some assurances the 2nd Amendment is understood and considered when making these decisions.