7228

It’s a which hunt. Which which is which?

7229

Timex you are misunderstanding my point. No one is saying the second amendment negates the need for a standing army in terms of completely and totally eliminating a standing army. I’m not saying that and Hamilton did not say that in Federalist 29. Where did that idea come from? I mean, the power to raise and fund a standing army is expressly in the Constitution and we’ve obviously had a standing army almost our entire history. Obviously I’m not saying the second amendment eliminates a standing army. I’m starting to get pissed now - are you just intentionally being obtuse?

What I am saying is that the second amendment was intended as a bulwark against the new US becoming too dependent on a standing army as a power base - as check and balance on the excessive centralization of military power. One of the fears of some factions of the Founders was that the states would be rendered too weak and the federal government too strong. And not in a direct conquest/military occupation way but rather in that the states needed to retain the power to police their own territories (hence the references to posse commitatus in Federalist 29).

I’m getting angry so I’m going to step off the thread for a bit but do you just not know enough American and English history to understand the context I’m referencing? I mean, an honest reading of Federalist 29 pretty much puts this whole argument to rest.

The bigger context is that the Founders believed in “regulated liberty” which is a balance of individual liberty and the needs of a civilized state. They were neither libertarians nor statists but rather believed in individual liberty regulated to work in the big picture for the benefit of society as a whole. Checks and balances, individual rights combined with collective obligations to pay taxes and serve in defense. In that context, we can see that the NRA view of the 2nd Amendment is really a later development based on the way views on guns changed in slave states and in the Wild West. In the context of the founding, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for states to retain the power to police their own territories - to raise a militia to handle insurrections and invasions without having to be lackeys of the federal government. There is just no support for the idea of state militias hostile to or attacking/invading/insurrecting the federal government. Yes, that idea arose later in the context of the buildup to the Civil War but it was opposed vehemently and ultimately smashed to fucking shit by US Grant and others at the cost of 600K American lives. Do you want to revive that shit?

Let me calm down and say one more thing, to clarify: there is a major difference between saying the 2nd Amendment preserves the power of state militias as an alternate power base to the federal military, to prevent the states from becoming servile dependents on federal military power (which is what was intended - see Federalist 29) versus saying the 2nd Amendment is about arming citizens so they can storm the capitol, throw down the government and execute the “traitors”. The latter view is wrong, ahistorical and truly bad policy. The former view is what makes sense in context.

7230

I believe that Congress authorized a standing army on the last day of its first session, in 1789.

7231

This conversation started because I was responding to this comment by Matt:

7232

I’ll submit that I was in error at referring to national vs state defense there. The point stands that the second amendment was not intended to arm insurrectionists, i.e. the libertarian wet dream of a bunch of armed yahoos barging into a session of Congress to rescue the people from tyranny.

I don’t know what to say. There was no professional army of the United States from 1784 until 1792 when the Legion of the United States was formed. The First and Second American Regiments, called up in 1785 and 1791, were explicitly temporary.

7233

I think I would rephrase Matt_W’s point somewhat. In my view, the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from outlawing state militias and rendering the states dependent upon and hence militarily subordinate to, the federal government. In my view, the Constitution supported both federal and state level military establishments, as part of the concept of checks and balances. Part of this was to keep the federal military from becoming dominant but also to keep the states from losing the ability to defend themselves. And in my view, when I say “defend themselves” I mean from the things that are expressly referenced in Federalist 29, “invasions and insurrections”. The idea of a federal military dictatorship was a relevant fear at the time (see references to Frederick the Great, above) but the method the Founders chose was to balance federal military power by retaining state military power in the form of militias.

My perspective is that I don’t see the 2nd Amendment as being about the states fighting the federal government in bloody military battles. Rather, it is about ensuring the states have the power to raise militias and defend themselves against insurrections and invasions, so they are not servile dependents upon federal military power.

I am pounding this point b/c I feel the idea of the 2nd Amendment protecting a right to violently rebel against the federal government is ahistorical, arose later during the run-up to the Civil War, contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in that most bloody of American Wars, and was roundly defeated by that Civil War. And then, under the NRA, this damn-near treasonous idea has resurrected itself.

The whole concept that we would write into our constitution a right to violently overthrow our own government is crazy, regardless of whether it’s an individual or state right. What we wrote into our constitution was a right that preserved the power of state governments to defend their own territory, to prevent the states from being servile dependents on federal military power. That’s it. That’s the whole deal. The overthrow the feds with guns ideas came later, during the run-up to the treasonous insurrection and violent catastrophe of the Civil War. We should be disavowing and condemning those ideas, not reviving them.

7234

Ya, that’s cool, I never made an argument against such a thing (although I believe that there are legitimate arguments made in Scalia’s writeup in Keller that do in fact argue for individual rights to bear arms, but that’s a separate discussion).

I was only pointing out that no matter what way you want to slice it, if you’re within the realm of mainstream 2nd amendment interpretations, everyone agrees that it was designed as a check on the Federal government. Whether that be through States forming militias to enforce their own sovereignty, or through individuals bearing arms, it kind of did have the intent of defending against potential tyranny of the Federal government’s military power.

Although that’s a far cry from saying, “it’s cool for any whacko who wants to, to take up arms and attack the Capitol” which was obviously not their intent.

I’m referring to the Establishment of Troops act, which the First Congress passed on its last day in session, that officially created the US military as a standing army.

I believe that at the time in 1789, the American army officially consisted of around 800 troops. It was the original First American Regiment from the old Continental army, which was part that didn’t get disbanded, and in 1989 it was renamed the Regiment of Infantry after Congress passed the Establishment of Troops, and then they were reorganized in 1791 into the first and second infantry regiments.

7235

The contrast between Trump’s behavior on June 1 and January 6 is telling. Last summer, he was enthusiastic about using force to put down his political opposition and he relished the chance to do it again. When his supporters were the ones causing mayhem, however, Trump reportedly watched “with pleasure.”

Very little is otherwise known about Trump’s mindset on January 6 and his involvement in the events that led to the violence that resulted in five deaths, 140 injured police officers, and $1.5 million in damage to the U.S. Capitol. More than 460 arrests have been made in connection to the attack, and the ensuing trials will presumably take years to complete.

Sixteen Oath Keepers have been charged with federal conspiracy, among other offenses, for their actions that day. Prosecutors have started discussing plea deals with some Oath Keeper members, which will presumably lead to more information about who else was involved in their activities. Absent an independent commission or the creation of a serious congressional investigation, that may be the only hope of finding out how high and wide the planning for this entire operation went.

7236
7237

So Bolton has no actual insight into what Trump actually did, but it’s apparently news that this is what he thinks Trump did. In other words: this is just fan fiction.

7238

People who were in the room basically said as much though.

Bolton is just running with those stories to give himself airtime.

7239

I just saw that interview and I’m not sure why I care what Bolton has to say about anything Biden is doing.

7240

Buy My Book Bolton? no idea

7241

It gives us all an excuse to gaze upon that beautiful mustache.

7242

Word.

7243

and…

7244

Yeah local NPR has been covering it extensively.

A recent development shows that 5 days before the incident he had been messaging with the group and coordinated with them, telling them how he was going to let them in. Once that came out, he was done.

7245

Good on the Oregon Legislature’s Republicans* for doing the right thing here.

*usually a bunch of fatheads. They’re still totes “just asking questions” or worse about the Presidential election of 2020.

7246

So where am I going wrong in the following:

The 2nd was established to try and prevent a central army that could be used by despots to do British things, but the language was too broad and now we’re here.

7247

I don’t think it’s an issue of language but of interpretation. There are interpretations of the language that would allow for reasonable regulation of firearms but the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, following the arguments of the very extreme gun lobby, have put us into a bad position. The overall problem is a political problem, really, not a legal one.