When Obama came to visit...

[Pio1980]

Re, the tech capabilities of the USAF and other federal agencies is a matter of the highest security, as long as generalissimo blabbermouth doesn't disclose them with his braggadocio bullshit.

[BigElCat]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

The fallacious interpretation of the 2nd amendment that justifies armed insurrection is obviously an erroneous recipe for catastrophic failure.

Fallacious interpretation ? Hell, it makes no sense at all. It's not even a sentence in the English language; a 'word salad' of gibberish (IMHO).

Here it is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It can be twisted around to mean anything.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

Fallacious interpretation ? Hell, it makes no sense at all. It's not even a sentence in the English language; a 'word salad' of gibberish (IMHO).

Here it is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It can be twisted around to mean anything.

If taken grammatically as written, then the purpose of "to keep and bear arms" is to support a well-ordered State militia, full stop. That is the only "right" granted by the second amendment. The rest is left to the States and local regulation.
Btw, I agree that the anachronistic "word salad" lacking relevant context is the source of ambiguity and confusion.

[BigElCat]

In 1791, a free state was a state that prohibited slavery.

Somehow they wanted to make it illegal for the Slave States to form there own militias, and give the Free States a means to defend themselves.

Weird.

[BigElCat]

So our right to own guns is contingent on us being in a militia?

We have to be in a militia to own a gun. I'm glad that question is not on the FBI background check.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

So our right to own guns is contingent on us being in a militia?

We have to be in a militia to own a gun. I'm glad that question is not on the FBI background check.

No, the Constitution only supports the "right" to keep and bear arms for support of a "well-ordered" State militia as written.
Otherwise, the Constitution leaves regulation of ownership and use to the states, except for the exceptions of continuous firing automatic firearms and muzzle suppressors for firearms regulated by the ATF Dept.
Otherwise,
You can own and use anything your state permits, used as allowed by state, county, and city ordinances.

[Pio1980]

Curiously "originalist strict constructionists" play fast and loose with their interpretations of the meaning of the second, and add all sorts of "rights" that are plainly not part of the brief wording, one assumes, by summoning the FFs intentions via a seance only they are privy. Intentions unenumerated aren't necessarily "Constitutional" outside of reasonable connection to the text. For instance there is no Constitutional "right" to armed insurrection against Federal authority under the 2nd by any reasonable reading of the text.

[donquixote99]

The 2nd is the 'militia to be safe from federal action' amendment. It's main purpose was to make the federal equivalent of the redcoat's march from Boston to Concord to seize a militia stockpile illegal.

The framers well-remembered how much they hated having all those redcoats around, and their idea was not to have a federal standing army, but have militias instead. There is a provision in the Constitution that says no appropriation for an army can persist more than two years. This means that there's always an election for the House of Representatives before a second such appropriation can be made. They figured this would assure that if a House voted for the ruinous cost of a standing army in peacetime, the people would vote them out.

The funding limitation mechanism the framers set-up worked a lot like they expected, until after WWII. The militias, not so much. In any case, the oddly-worded 2nd was written so that it would get votes both from the 'let every man be armed' believers, and the 'well-regulated militia' believers. And it therefore means whatever you want, though what actually matters is what current courts are willing to say it means.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The 2nd is the 'militia to be safe from federal action' amendment. It's main purpose was to make the federal equivalent of the redcoat's march from Boston to Concord to seize a militia stockpile illegal.

The framers well-remembered how much they hated having all those redcoats around, and their idea was not to have a federal standing army, but have militias instead. There is a provision in the Constitution that says no appropriation for an army can persist more than two years. This means that there's always an election for the House of Representatives before a second such appropriation can be made. They figured this would assure that if a House voted for the ruinous cost of a standing army in peacetime, the people would vote them out.

The funding limitation mechanism the framers set-up worked a lot like they expected, until after WWII. The militias, not so much. In any case, the oddly-worded 2nd was written so that it would get votes both from the 'let every man be armed' believers, and the 'well-regulated militia' believers. And it therefore means whatever you want, though what actually matters is what current courts are willing to say it means.

Funny how that worked out in practice. The second is pretty much an irrelevant relic of a time long past under that read.
Re the "States Rights" argument that frequently arises, there was of course an armed rebellion based on slavery as a state right that didn't end in favor of supporting it. Nonetheless, state supported authoritarian oppression continued. Was that an acceptable alternative to Federal authority? For many, not so much.

[donquixote99]

The broad tendency has been for the Federal Government to be more liberal and less corrupt than the run of state governments. With exceptions noted. Likewise militias have gotten up to more mischief than the U.S. Army, Again, with exceptions noted.

The idea of 'constitutional right of insurrection' is a flagrant oxymoron. The resort to violent coercion is always the antithesis of 'rights.'