Jump to content
Spaztecs

100-year-old Holocaust survivor compares Trump to Hitler

Recommended Posts

Just now, sactowndog said:

Federalist 29 makes no mention of self defense.   While I am happy to listen to Scalia’s scholarship on other writings it is clear the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment as discussed in 29 is defense against a despot.  A defense you strangely assert is no longer needed.  

I brought up the federalist papers because they are a primary source of the founders thoughts in drafting the constitution. 

 

You said 29 is about defense from the Federal government. It is not.  It clearly states that militias are to have federal oversight but be ran by the states for the purpose of the federal government being able to call on them to defend against the military if needed.  Basically it is insurance for the Federal government or against neighboring states.   It also only address the prefatory clause of the amendment.  Shall not be infringed can not be more evident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jefferson wrote in his proposed Virginia state constitution "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Adams wrote ""the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense" and that "Every Act of Authority, of one Man over another for which there is not an absolute Necessity, is tyrannical.

'

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just ten days afterJames Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to Congress in 1789, Tench Coxe, a prominent federalist and life-long correspondent of Jefferson and Madison, wrote that what became the second amendment would confirm the people "in their right to keep and bear their private arms."  James Madison endorsed the widely published article in which these words appear.  Coxe's writings provide unmistakable evidence that eighteenthcentury Americans defined muskets, rifles, and pistols as "arms," 34 and that they endorsed an individual "right to own and keep and use arms and consequently of self-defense and of the public militia power." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Jefferson wrote in his proposed Virginia state constitution "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Adams wrote ""the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense" and that "Every Act of Authority, of one Man over another for which there is not an absolute Necessity, is tyrannical.

'

Yes I read that.  And I would agree that self defense is viable reason for a subset of arms that would meet that need.  But as you also pointed out the founders talked about having arms commensurate to the standing army. (A right which we have lost btw)   The needs for arms of that type is only needed to overthrow a tyrannical despot.   
 

Again your defense of the 2nd Amendment and its breadth of arms protections when contrasted to your assertion of an authoritarian being impossible is illogical and contradictory.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sactowndog said:

Yes I read that.  And I would agree that self defense is viable reason for a subset of arms that would meet that need.  But as you also pointed out the founders talked about having arms commensurate to the standing army. (A right which we have lost btw)   The needs for arms of that type is only needed to overthrow a tyrannical despot.   
 

Again your defense of the 2nd Amendment and its breadth of arms protections when contrasted to your assertion of an authoritarian being impossible is illogical and contradictory.  

A right wing Authoritarian usurping control of the Federal Government was never the reason for the 2A.  Read the paper.  You are just wrong.  Flat out wrong.  The Framers made it clear in multiple writings that the right to bear arms is a right to self defense.  That is what was clearly intended.  Read the paper.  Learn something.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Jefferson wrote in his proposed Virginia state constitution "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Adams wrote ""the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense" and that "Every Act of Authority, of one Man over another for which there is not an absolute Necessity, is tyrannical.

'

Defense can have many meanings and I don’t doubt self defense given the presence of hostile enemies was one of many intended meanings.   But nothing you posted prescribes a ranking of the meanings in terms of importance of the 2nd Amendment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

A right wing Authoritarian usurping control of the Federal Government was never the reason for the 2A.  Read the paper.  You are just wrong.  Flat out wrong.  The Framers made it clear in multiple writings that the right to bear arms is a right to self defense.  That is what was clearly intended.  Read the paper.  Learn something.  

 

I read the paper and your extenuating defense to self defense.  It is not in just that context.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I read the paper and your extenuating defense to self defense.  It is not in just that context.  

Well the framers in independent writings, SCOTUS and federalist 29 all disagree with you.

But hey, you do you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Defense can have many meanings and I don’t doubt self defense given the presence of hostile enemies was one of many intended meanings.   But nothing you posted prescribes a ranking of the meanings in terms of importance of the 2nd Amendment. 

No, read their writings.  It was an active right to self defense and the framers could not have made that more clear in their writings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Well the framers in independent writings, SCOTUS and federalist 29 all disagree with you.

But hey, you do you.

No they say self defense is a valid use.  Not the only purpose or the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.   But whatever.  We aren’t getting any closer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Federalist 29 didn’t mention self defense anywhere.  We are going in circles at this point. 

It also never mentioned defense against a federal despot which was your entire argument.  It mentioned two things.  The impact on the work force for large militias and how the preferred militia would be a tool of the Federal government in an emergency situation in which the army became an enemy of the state.  That is what it was about

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

No they say self defense is a valid use.  Not the only purpose or the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.   But whatever.  We aren’t getting any closer. 

We are not going in circles.  Going in circles would require the concept of you presenting an argument that is as valid as mine and we are missing each other.  That is not the case.  Your argument has been trounced.  The framers wrote with no uncertainty whatsoever that the second amendment protected "arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, in private self-defense" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It also never mentioned defense against a federal despot which was your entire argument.  It mentioned two things.  The impact on the work force for large militias and how the preferred militia would be a tool of the Federal government in an emergency situation in which the army became an enemy of the state.  That is what it was about

The discussion was if it would become a tool.  I don’t care enough at this point to quote the exact phrase of trusting your neighbors etc.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The discussion was if it would become a tool.  I don’t care enough at this point to quote the exact phrase of trusting your neighbors etc.   

No, I totally get it .  Your original premise that the purpose of the second amendment was to protect against a Federal despot has been trashed.  It is simply not true.  Your secondary argument that the amendment was never meant to preserve the right of self defense was trashed, per the writings of the times of myriad notable framers.

Now you do not care.  Ok.  Ok.  Learn a lesson here.  Pick fights you can win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No, I totally get it .  Your original premise that the purpose of the second amendment was to protect against a Federal despot has been trashed.  It is simply not true.  Your secondary argument that the amendment was never meant to preserve the right of self defense was trashed, per the writings of the times of myriad notable framers.

Now you do not care.  Ok.  Ok.  Learn a lesson here.  Pick fights you can win.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493411

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493411

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. 

 

Exactly. nothing to do with a federal despot.  As stated, the militia was BEHOILDEN to the federal government in case they needed to fight the military.  The rest is about it not being to large to impact labor.  Again, this is addressing the secondary clause of the amendment.  The framers writings make it abundantly clear they viewed the second amendment as a right to personal self defense, as I have already outlined above.  

Take your L.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It also never mentioned defense against a federal despot which was your entire argument.  It mentioned two things.  The impact on the work force for large militias and how the preferred militia would be a tool of the Federal government in an emergency situation in which the army became an enemy of the state.  That is what it was about

The 2A was mostly designed in support of militias, which many of the framers believed to be a preferred alternative to a standing army, which they viewed as expensive and a potential tool of a future monarchist. Their view was that militias could be drafted in service of the union.

However, to your point, few if any would’ve been against the idea of owning weapons as a necessary means of self defense. Because of this, I have no legal issues with the way the 2A is currently interpreted.

Also, Hamilton for the win again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...