This Week's Supreme Court Rulings

[agricola]

That's the thing, that amendment was written for a different day and age, why don't americans realise that?

It wasnt though, and indeed its probably a lot more relevant now than it was then, and they realise this.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The two don't require the same to do though. To do it without guns is far far harder then to do it with guns. To do it without guns, you need a really well organised rebellion.

To do it with guns, you just need pockets of resistance. You just need enough people to disagree who are willing to make a stand on the matter, and be armed. It isn't enough that just 10 or 100 do it here or there, but thousands across a nation, due to a REAL greivance, could be enough to force the army/police services to look at what they are doing, once you force those groups to think about the orders they are following, it becomes far harder for a ruling body to continue to push harsh laws.

You don't need a nationally organised rebellion, which you would need without arms. It is possible, but it is far far harder to have pockets of resistance when there is nothing to resist with. What you end up with is pockets of rioting that is suppressed by the police and displayed as violent thugs to the populace.

People seem to think that just because the Government can bomb their own people from 30,000 feet that resistance is pointless, but that is just untrue.

I think it's the same thing. No rebellion can truly work without broad popular support.

Using your 'pockets of resistance' scenario, it's possible to imagine an organized group taking a capital city, but without national support, they wouldn't hold it for long.

 

[bi0boy]

You have taken an example that has demonstratable errors in it. The assumption that the word of a woman is less then that of a man, and compared it to something where you have not shown any demonstratable errors at all.

Using merely the fact that they are both written on old documents as the sole reason we should ignore it.

So should we ignore the Right to Free Speech too? It is also written on an old document, as this seems to be the only factors required to decide that it is wrong, should we ignore it now?

No I haven't. I was merely suggesting that maybe we should think twice about following laws and customs simply because they were written down hundred of years ago and start thinking about what we actually want for our society in the 21st century.

Maybe the Americans could say "Yes we want free speech, nice idea lets keep it in our constitution. Armed militias? Anyone allowed to carry guns? Hmm lets think about that one, it was probably a good idea in the old frontier days but maybe not any more"

 

[Dravinian]

I think it's the same thing. No rebellion can truly work without broad popular support.

Using your 'pockets of resistance' scenario, it's possible to imagine an organized group taking a capital city, but without national support, they wouldn't hold it for long.

National support is not the same as a national organisation or groups organised across the nation.

 

[Dravinian]

No I haven't. I was merely suggesting that maybe we should think twice about following laws and customs simply because they were written down hundred of years ago and start thinking about what we actually want for our society in the 21st century.

Maybe the Americans could say "Yes we want free speech, nice idea lets keep it in our constitution. Armed militias? Anyone allowed to carry guns? Hmm lets think about that one, it was probably a good idea in the old frontier days but maybe not any more"

They did, the Supreme Court did exactly that. They upheld the decision, and I think the majority of Americans agree with them, it is the nature of their country that they do.

If you had read Justice Scalia remarks he said:

"what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

They did look at it, and they decided to uphold it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It wasnt though, and indeed its probably a lot more relevant now than it was then, and they realise this.

It is not more relevant now.

It was written by people who had just won their freedom from an empire using militia tactics.

 

[Dravinian]

It is not more relevant now.

It was written by people who had just won their freedom from an empire using militia tactics.

While this is true, that isn't a refutation that it is relevant now, it is just a statement of fact about history.

 

[bi0boy]

They did, the Supreme Court did exactly that. They upheld the decision, and I think the majority of Americans agree with them, it is the nature of their country that they do.

If you had read Justice Scalia remarks he said:

"what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

They did look at it, and they decided to uphold it.

That quote shows they were not reviewing whether or not the second amendment should continue to exist, but just how it should be interpreted.

 

[Dravinian]

That quote shows they were not reviewing whether or not the second amendment should continue to exist, but just how it should be interpreted.

True.

You have not shown how it is in error, only stated that it should be looked at, giving a 'maybe' opinion that merely because time has passed guns shouldn't be legal anymore.

 

[agricola]

It is not more relevant now.

It was written by people who had just won their freedom from an empire using militia tactics.

Yes, and now they have lots of armed criminals, and a federal government that (since the 2a was written) has fought a war to prevent states rights (however justified it was) and which currently has a far greater monopoly of military force than the British did vs the 13 colonies.

 

[dilute micro]

A well organised rebellion can still overthrow a Government, but you don't need arms for that.

The idea that just because a mililtia couldn't keep enough arms to realistically fight a war against their own Government, is a misleading one. That isn't the point of the mililtia, no militia can stand against a Government, it is unlikely they could on the day they ratified this amendment.

The point of the militia is to allow the people to make a stand.

It is very easy to walk over people who have no option but to stand there and be walked upon. It is another thing to walk over people, who are well armed. Now you have to kill some of them.

That just makes it that much harder.

Uh you're off the mark on so many things. First, learn the ratification process.

"A well organised rebellion can still overthrow a Government, but you don't need arms for that."
....And if everybody already agrees with each other then that's like a peaceful rebellion. And I might point out - you don't need a militia to make a stand.

The point of a militia isn't just to put up a fight as a sort of protest. You're using general terms in your speak but the fact is we're talking about American government dealing with a republic, an actual republic at the time. Another thing you're speaking of "the militia" as if you're thinking of one in your head. Which one would that be? If you'll notice my wording when I was talking to agricola I mentioned governments forming militias in contrast to people forming them. Cities and states and counties can form militias and sponsor them and provide them with arms. And history shows that they did. This was the question the Supreme court recently had to deal with. Because our government today is far out of whack with the original government it takes a bit of delving into the past to get intent. The point there between 'government', 'people' and militias is the recognition by the FF that the the government is separate from the people meaning that governments can spoil and people aren't subject to such a government. Not only that but the Declaration of Independence says that it is the people's duty to destroy that government. It was a beautiful thing they did putting together a government with a self-destruct button.

 

[Dravinian]

Uh you're off the mark on so many things. First, learn the ratification process.

"A well organised rebellion can still overthrow a Government, but you don't need arms for that."
....And if everybody already agrees with each other then that's like a peaceful rebellion. And I might point out - you don't need a militia to make a stand.

The question was of a well organised rebellion. Nothing you said here is in disagreement with what I said.

The point of a militia isn't just to put up a fight as a sort of protest. You're using general terms in your speak but the fact is we're talking about American government dealing with a republic, an actual republic at the time. Another thing you're speaking of "the militia" as if you're thinking of one in your head. Which one would that be? If you'll notice my wording when I was talking to agricola I mentioned governments forming militias in contrast to people forming them. Cities and states and counties can form militias and sponsor them and provide them with arms. And history shows that they did. This was the question the Supreme court recently had to deal with. Because our government today is far out of whack with the original government it takes a bit of delving into the past to get intent. The point there between 'government', 'people' and militias is the recognition by the FF that the the government is separate from the people meaning that governments can spoil and people aren't subject to such a government. Not only that but the Declaration of Independence says that it is the people's duty to destroy that government. It was a beautiful thing they did putting together a government with a self-destruct button.

Nothing you said here disagreed with anything I said.

Why did you use such a tone when nothing you said contradicted or disagreed with anything I said? The way you have written is if you are contradicting or correcting me. Yet nothing you have said has contradicted anything I have said, nor has it corrected anything I have said.

You merely expounded upon what I said.

 

[dilute micro]

Okay, that's fine. I actually could reword what I said better after having read it. I thought you were out in left field for a minute there.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes, and now they have lots of armed criminals, and a federal government that (since the 2a was written) has fought a war to prevent states rights (however justified it was) and which currently has a far greater monopoly of military force than the British did vs the 13 colonies.

They have lots of armed criminals because there are lots of guns about.

You cannot compare it with the 13 colonies because it is now a democracy, there should be no us Vs them.

 

[dilute micro]

They have lots of armed criminals because there are lots of guns about.

You cannot compare it with the 13 colonies because it is now a democracy, there should be no us Vs them.

But here's where the point I made earlier in this thread makes me smile. If you're speaking of "us vs them" as the people and the government then yes it should always be a tentative relationship. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

I want to add that the inspiration for the 2nd amendment was the Disarming Act.

 

[Sir_Ian_Blair]

The Supreme Court’s ruling that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting was the opening shot in what will be a long legal and legislative battle over exactly how strictly cities and states can regulate firearms, advocates and elected officials said Thursday.

The ruling was only a partial victory .

As Free people we have an unalienable right to bear arms. The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to regulate the right. The Bill Of Rights - the 2nd Amendment - states that the right should not be infringed upon.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The ruling was only a partial victory .

As Free people we have an unalienable right to bear arms. The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to regulate the right. The Bill Of Rights - the 2nd Amendment - state that the right should not be infringed upon.

Define 'Free'

 

[Sir_Ian_Blair]

Define 'Free'

To be able to enjoy to the full extent my rights to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness.

 

[sleaterkinney]

To be able to enjoy to the full extent my rights to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness.

But you still have rules to follow for those, you are not 'Free'.

 

[Sir_Ian_Blair]

But you still have rules to follow for those, you are not 'Free'.

Elaborate, please.