So the colour of skin is pretty important when determining whether it is a valid act of insurrection?
That’s a myth. Jefferson - in fact, no founder - ever said that. The quote is attributed to John Basil Barnhill during a debate in St. Louis. In 1914.
More here:
Sure does. The NRA was all for gun control when the Black Panthers were against it:
Mulford’s legislation, which became known as the “Panthers Bill,” passed with the support of the National Rifle Association, which apparently believed that the whole “good guy with a gun” thing didn’t apply to black people. California Gov. Ronald Reagan (R), who would later campaign for president as a steadfast defender of the Second Amendment, signed the bill into law.
I guess if you want to rely on your interpretation of the constitution from a creative writing professor (and law professor) then you can believe that a defense from tyrannical government isn’t important, even if Jefferson never said it.
On the other hand, if you read Heller case and what Justice Scalia wrote you’ll find that it clearly is.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
-
Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
No wonder Trump only pays lip service to the 2nd amendment.
Does it literally provide a bulwark against tyrannical government though? I suppose in times when it was a huge population with rifles against a small professional army with rifles and a few cannons then that might have been true. But these days a few rifles against the most powerful army in the world with access to nuclear weapons? I just don’t see it.
A case can be made that the second amendment exists because the southern states were worried that the Congress could create laws to disband the militias that were the southern states’ bulwark defense against slave uprisings.
How is it NOT a n example of that? I mean, I certainly don’t support his actions… but I’m generally going to oppose ANY attempt to overthrow the government.
In this case this guy believed that the government was tyrannical and killing people like him without just cause. Is that not the exact type of justification for why people need to be able to own high powered semi automatic rifles?
I mean, of course you disagree with whether the government’s actions justify such a response from a citizen, but isn’t that kind of the problem with your position?
Normally, decisions that affect the entire population are made through democratic process THROUGH the government’s actions. You are suggesting that you need guns so that you can fight against the government. Who makes the decision about whether to fight in that case?
If the decision is just made by you, as a gun owner, then how are you any different from the guy who shot the cops in Dallas? How is that not a direct example of your explicitly stated reason for needing to own that type of weapon? It’s not even a side-effect… you actually suggested that people need such weapons specifically so that they can commit the types of acts that we witnessed in Dallas.
Yes, this paper by the esteemed Professor Bogus (heh) is what started the current conversation.
I just noticed this paper is from 2009. I’d never heard of it before.
I knew I’d read it somewhere. :)
The 2nd amendment has been watered down a lot in the past 100 years. NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 are shitty laws that should have been overturned by the Supreme Court, but weren’t. That said, I do think civilians being able to arm themselves under the existing laws is still somewhat of a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, its better than nothing, right? Setting aside the fact that if there was some kind of civil war in the US, the military would splinter. A population armed with semi auto weapons poses a steep uphill battle to a government trying to forcibly disarm them, for whatever reason.
If you want to say that the recent incident in Dallas was a legitimate response to a tyrannical government, ok that is your opinion.
I disagree but I am not going to change my opinion on the 2nd amendment based on a racist black guy that decided to murder cops.
The US Army isn’t a monotholic force. It is actually organized as 10 active duty divisions, and 8 national guard divisions. Many of the active Army divisions have reserve components also composed of soldier from a particular state or region
The National Guard division have dual loyality both the President and to Governor of the states. The Air Force is organized similarly.
Imagine its Nov 2020, the widely unpopular President Trump announces that his opponent cheated, and he is remaining as President.
The governors mobilize their well-regulated militia (aka the National Guard) and say no Mr. Trump you are stepping aside. I dare say in 10 division to 8 division fight, having 25 million semi-automatic rifle in the hands of American gun owners would more than tip balance. Even if it is the entire army vs 25 million person insurgency, I don’t like the army’s chances.
We are deep in some serious mall ninja armchair general shit here. Yikes.
What about the part where the “the best way to beat a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Here we have at least a dozen good guys with a gun.
Aside from that, I don’t understand the concept of a tyrannical oppressive government. It ignores how the USA government is set up and run by citizens that volunteer (apply) or representatives that are elected.
It’s like that episode of The Americans where Reagan gets shot. The army general makes a passing statement like “we have control over the situation” and the Soviet woman thinks it’s a coup. She thinks the military is about to launch nukes on Moscow and wants to warn them. The guy is like “you know from what I’ve seen of America I don’t think that’s actually what’s happening here”. But at least she had the excuse that she was an indoctrinated Soviet.
Edited to be less snarky at Olaf, sorry.
This is the most insane thing I’ve ever read in P&R.
Then occasionally you have to accept that this kind of thing is going to happen, because you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes tyrannical government or oppression.
If racist white guys can do it, I don’t see why the occasional racist black guy can’t.
Right there with you, Miramon.
Did you read even the wiki article you quoted there? I mean he does in passing mention the idea that possessing arms might make it easier to rebel, but the point is actually about the power of the states to control the tyranny of the feds. He’s fairly skeptical of armed insurrection purely by disgruntled citizens. The more straightforward reading would conclude that the important right to protect is the right of each State to maintain a militia.
The whole argument is silly, though, because there is definitely not a right to rebellion and we already fought one war to establish that. Even the idea of legitimate armed resistance is both logically flawed and not accepted in practice. It is called terrorism.
There are arguments for why the 2nd amendment is important as a right, but “we need to be able to overthrow the government” was not a universally agreed truth even at the time (when there was a lot of self-serving reasons for people to claim what they had just done was ok), and it is incredibly outdated in the modern world of peaceful democratic power transfers.
Not by anyone who knows what they are talking about. terrorism could be a tactic of rebellion, but rebellion != terrorism