The Second Amendment, and overthrowing the government

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sometimes the best control systems are dynamically unstable....like bipedalism, or hi-performance aircraft.

But you can guard against invasion with a much smaller military than the US currently has. Below that level, fine - I can see how the increase in the risk of domestic "tyranny" is offset by a benefit in preventing foreign "tyranny". However, above that level, this is no longer the case.

If someone's really worried about the risk of tyranny from his government, why would he want to give that same government a military that's so large it can handle two major expeditionary campaigns on the other side of the world at the same time?

 

[dmgdnooc]

I wonder just who it is that the US fears will invade its borders.
Isn't that an 18th century fear that has no relevence in the modern world?
　

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder just who it is that the US fears will invade its borders.
Isn't that an 18th century fear that has no relevence in the modern world?
　

IMO, the threat has more often gone the other way. Case in point:

Fenian raids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dmgdnooc]

So, does Canada still maintain a strong army and armed militia in order to be able to successfully repel further incursions from the south?

 

[Revoltingest]

But you can guard against invasion with a much smaller military than the US currently has. Below that level, fine - I can see how the increase in the risk of domestic "tyranny" is offset by a benefit in preventing foreign "tyranny". However, above that level, this is no longer the case.

If someone's really worried about the risk of tyranny from his government, why would he want to give that same government a military that's so large it can handle two major expeditionary campaigns on the other side of the world at the same time?

I agree that we don't need the scale of military we currently have....but then I'm not big
on foreign adventurism & policing the world. It can be smaller, yet still be strong.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I think the Second Amendment speaks to decentralization.

IMO, the worry of the American Founding Fathers was a too-strong federal government. The Second Amendment is about the ability of the individual states to wage war against an oppressive federal government.

IMO, the modern-day situation that would be closest to the Founders' vision would be a strong National Guard in each state and a weak regular army.

They were all also in favour of a strong military.

I think you just provided an excellent example of the inconsistency that the OP talks about.

I'm not sure this make sense. Consider the possibilities:

- strong military, armed citizenry
- strong military, unarmed citizenry
- weak military, armed citizenry
- weak military, unarmed citizenry

Which of these options is a better defense against potential tyranny from one's government? It sure isn't any of the options involving a strong military if the military in question is the one you're worried might try to oppress you.

Though I don't see eye-to-eye with your position, you clearly understand that incongruity.

I wonder just who it is that the US fears will invade its borders.
Isn't that an 18th century fear that has no relevence in the modern world?
　

The commies! ...wait, no, it's the terrorists! ...wait, no, it's the immigrants! ...wait, no, it's...

So, does Canada still maintain a strong army and armed militia in order to be able to successfully repel further incursions from the south?

Hmm!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, does Canada still maintain a strong army and armed militia in order to be able to successfully repel further incursions from the south?

No, we've generally made peace with the nasty Yanks. We've got an armed forces, but they work as partners with the Americans, not as enemies.

I guess time heals all wounds.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, we've generally made peace with the nasty Yanks. We've got an armed forces, but they work as partners with the Americans, not as enemies.

I guess time heals all wounds.

And we really appreciate that you've kept poutine out of our land.
But if you ever get ideas, we have Cincinnati Chili.....lots of it.

 

[dmgdnooc]

No, we've generally made peace with the nasty Yanks. We've got an armed forces, but they work as partners with the Americans, not as enemies.

I guess time heals all wounds.

OK, so the threat of invasion is not, any more, from the north.
Fact is, its not, any more, from the south, east or west either.
And yeah, Oz has an armed forces that work as a partner with the US also.
　
Reading this thread indicates that the perceived threat is from Washington, the national legislature. That seems outlandish to me and prompts another question.
Is the USA a voluntary union of UNITED States or an enforced political fiction?

 

[dmgdnooc]

And we really appreciate that you've kept poutine out of our land.
But if you ever get ideas, we have Cincinnati Chili.....lots of it.

Oh piff and tosh, it should be recognised (and feared) that Australia has at its disposal the 'Pie Floater' a culinary WMD that can shatter porcelain faster than beer makes ya burp.

 

[Mister Emu]

No. Your argument only mentioned owning a car, not personally using it.

"Independent transportation being vital to job security, we have bought a car for you to use." Now it specifically mentions the use of the car, in the same way the 2nd amendment does. The first clause still does not limit the use of the car solely to work related functions.

No it does not, just as "In order to go to the prom, you may have the car tonight" defines the circumstance under which "you may have the car tonight."

The right is shows no limitation(as does the use of the car tonight). We are given free reign to own and use guns so that a militia is possible, not solely for the purposes of being in a militia.

Had they not seen the need to spell out the circumstance under which the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed, they would not have stated it.

Except they did not give circumstances, they explained why it was necessary.

I know plenty of people do, but where has the Supreme Court disagreed?

District of Columbia v Heller.

" The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause."
Second Amendment - Law Library of Congress (Library of Congress)

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh piff and tosh, it should be recognised (and feared) that Australia has at its disposal the 'Pie Floater' a culinary WMD that can shatter porcelain faster than beer makes ya burp.

Hah! Pie floater sounds delectable!
Cincinnati Chili, OTOH, makes even haggis look like a desert confection.....& it's slightly radioactive.


Other powerful WMDs.....
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Worst_100_Foods_of_All_Time

 

[Kathryn]

Oh piff and tosh, it should be recognised (and feared) that Australia has at its disposal the 'Pie Floater' a culinary WMD that can shatter porcelain faster than beer makes ya burp.

And don't forget Vegemite!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, so the threat of invasion is not, any more, from the north.

Recently, it's still been from the north... just further north:

Distant Early Warning Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading this thread indicates that the perceived threat is from Washington, the national legislature. That seems outlandish to me and prompts another question.
Is the USA a voluntary union of UNITED States or an enforced political fiction?

I'd say that the American Civil War disspelled the idea that the union is voluntary.

"Independent transportation being vital to job security, we have bought a car for you to use." Now it specifically mentions the use of the car, in the same way the 2nd amendment does. The first clause still does not limit the use of the car solely to work related functions.

But it probably does limit it to transportation functions. I would probably call it a violation of that statement if the person used the car in a way that had nothing to do with transportation (living in it, for example). I would certainly consider it a violation if he used the car in a way that took away its ability to use it for transportation (entering it in a demolition derby, for example).

The right is shows no limitation(as does the use of the car tonight). We are given free reign to own and use guns so that a militia is possible, not solely for the purposes of being in a militia.

What about cases like, say, the Branch Davidians, where the group was arming themselves to fight against the very "well regulated militia" that the Constitution identifies as the purpose of the Second Amendment?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do remember one principle from the one law course I did take: if there's a vague clause in a contract, one of the assumptions used in interpreting it is that it was intended to fulfil some sort of purpose, so any interpretation that makes the clause meaningless is rejected.

It seems to me that your interpretation here renders the entire statement about a "well regulated militia" meaningless. Doesn't it?

Isn't it reasonable to interpret the Constitution in such a way that assumes that its authors and the legislators who approved it had some purpose for the qualifier about "well regulated militias" on the front of the Second Amendment? The way you've put things here, it doesn't matter... and I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to decide that a phrase in the highest law of the land doesn't matter.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Hah! Pie floater sounds delectable!
Cincinnati Chili, OTOH, makes even haggis look like a desert confection.....& it's slightly radioactive.


Other powerful WMDs.....
Worst 100 Foods of All Time - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Ha, a pie floater is delectable.
3am after a night of amber liquids nothing tastes better.
But wars are won by deception and mis-direction; its not the going in, its the going out of it where the danger lies.
　
This is the going in, the going out would break the kiddie filter and permanently stain your screen.
Picasa Web Albums - Kristina
　
Cincinnati chilli sounds tame, I'm a vindaloo kinda guy, and poutine looks like good TV food.

 

[Revoltingest]

Clearly, we should not risk war with weapons-of-arse-destruction.

 

[dmgdnooc]

And don't forget Vegemite!

Vegemite! Vegemite, are we gonna argue?
　
What's wrong with slathering salty used axle grease on your toast first thing in the morning?
Huh, Huh, Huh?
Yeah, nothin' everyone does it, or wishes that they could.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Clearly, we should not risk war with weapons-of-arse-destruction.

Ah, you see the light.
Those guys in Washington have done the smart thing in smooching up to the Aussies and being our ally.

 

[dmgdnooc]

[/size]
Recently, it's still been from the north... just further north:

Distant Early Warning Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'd say that the American Civil War disspelled the idea that the union is voluntary.


A nuclear attack!
And what defence is a militia against that?
Or what good is a standing army against such an attack?
There is no defence against such an attack, the only option available is retaliation.
　
A sea borne invasion is inconceivable given that the USA has, for all intents and purposes, the only blue water navy left in the world.
　
I am aware of the American Civil War and that it enforced union.
But I am also aware that it was nearly 150 years ago. Surely the union does not remain an enforced political entity to this day.
And if it is still enforced then of what use is a State militia (of weekend soldiers) armed with rifles expected to be against a professional army armed with tanks and artillery, strike aircraft and attack helicopters?
They would be better off throwing rocks like the Palestinians imo.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A nuclear attack!
And what defence is a militia against that?

I take it you've never seen the movie Red Dawn.

I am aware of the American Civil War and that it enforced union.

For various reasons (largely slavery, IMO, though I'm sure there will be southerners here who dispute this), the southern states tried to secede from the Union and form the Confederate States of America. The Union objected to this and the Civil War ensued.

But I am also aware that it was nearly 150 years ago. Surely the union does not remain an enforced political entity to this day.

Well, no state has tried to secede since then.

And if it is still enforced then of what use is a State militia (of weekend soldiers) armed with rifles expected to be against a professional army armed with tanks and artillery, strike aircraft and attack helicopters?
They would be better off throwing rocks like the Palestinians imo.

You're not really familiar with the National Guard, are you? They've got tanks, artillery, strike aircraft and attack helicopters, too.

Many National Guard units have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the USA's military force.