Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Feb 20, 2018.
Your first mistake was thinking the opposition has principles beyond the will to power.
Yes, it's called "compromise." And we will keep "compromising" until we compromise our rights out of existence. Maybe that would be a good time to have that long anticipated "national debate."
So would someone who was applying a principled approach to the 2nd Amendment posit that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to assure that citizens retain the wherewithal to fight, on as even a playing field as possible, an over reaching, too intrusive government?
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
Note that only the first one addresses the Second Amendment. The second one was written in 1788, that is, before the Second Amendment was proposed by Congress. In other words, this was the viewpoint of Americans in the early Republic even before the Second Amendment was being debated. I am unaware of a contrary viewpoint (well, I mean, I am sure General Gage had a different viewpoint, but I mean among Americans).
More from the same link: "Critics of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment sometimes claim that the Standard Model implies that people can go to war with the government whenever they disagree with any government decision, such as an unpopular tax increase. Coxe refuted this claim. Coxe clearly believed in the individual right to arms, and he just as clearly believed that it was wrong for the Pennsylvania farmers to take up arms against a lawful tax that had been duly created through proper constitutional methods. Coxe would continue to support the right to arms as a mechanism allowing popular revolt as a last resort against tyranny ― but Coxe, like the vast majority of Americans, could tell the difference between a tyrant and George Washington. Today, when federal taxes are much higher than the taxes that sparked the Whiskey Rebellion, the vast majority of Americans, including those who support Coxe's understanding of the Second Amendment, agree that a tax constitutionally imposed by Congress is no grounds for a Second Amendment revolution to rescue the Constitution from tyranny."
Are you trying to assemble a class action law suit?
Just seems like you are gathering ammo for one.
Wow! Lots of words. My question still stands for you because, as far as I can tell, you have not answered it. What is your response to the question, "So would someone who was applying a principled approach to the 2nd Amendment posit that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to assure that citizens retain the wherewithal to fight, on as even a playing field as possible, an over reaching, too intrusive government?"?
Actually I can answer the question in simple layman terms...
No. The 2A was put in place to level the field against tyranny. It is not there to take up arms because you disagree with the Government on some issue. Governments always over reach, over tax and over spend.
You say it was not put in place to allow for the taking up of arms over a simple disagreement. I wholeheartedly agree. What type of tyrannical act would warrant the full use of the right of the 2nd Amendment in your opinion? I believe that weakening the citizens' ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical over reaching government by the very government that has become/is becoming tyrannically over reaching might would have been in the minds of the authors don't you think?
The government over reach is not and has not been the actual problem. Judges without principles are the problem. As long as judges rule with their personal opinions instead of with the Constitution which is the law then where is the actual over reach?
LOL! I thought persons from the past who had something to do with the adoption of the Second Amendment could answer your question better than I could. My answer is no. The Second Amendment was not to "level the playing field."
Rather, it was to keep power in the people, not the government or the Army. An overwhelming deterrent to overreaching.
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
By PUBLIUS (actually James Madison), Fed. No. 46.
This seems to me to be, in Madison's mind, not a level playing field, but one which "forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Madison's intention was a militia armed and not able to "be conquered . . . by regular troops."
So, I do not believe Madison or his contemporaries would have dreamed of a government that thought military weapons, suitable to a militia, M4, mortar, grenades, SAW, shoulder fired recoilless rifle, and similar arms, would be banned consistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, keeping in mind the purpose of a well regulated militia. Such bans obviously undermine the purpose.
That's what I think also.
Thomas Jefferson said a rebellion every 20 years was a good thing for the country.
"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
Entire letter for context and your reading pleasure.
"To William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787
-- I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to shew civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. -- I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. -- You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. -- The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform."
The man was a visionary. And brilliant. I think I admire him more than just about any other founding father, overall.
They do it on a Saturday to avoid the news?
What happens to current owners of bumpstocks? Will a bunch of videos disappear overnight? Will the NRA she on this issue? Will bumpstocks be double illegal in Florida?
From the link on TTAG:
What does this mean? Are they changing the definition of "machine gun?" Why do none of the customary internet gun sites and gurus have any mention of this action?
Nothing yet. This is just step one of a process.
DOJ press release, in which they say they will publish the notice "as soon as possible."
The proposed rule next has to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget as part of the regulatory review process. ATF also has to submit an analysis and evaluate public comments on regulating the devices. The review process will likely take months.