0
29

[–] YouKnowItIKnowIt 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

The citizens were supposed to be the military, the 4th branch of government

0
13

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

That's correct. They actually didn't want a standing army. Or at least a minimal army. It's one of the reasons the US was unprepared to contribute to WWI and WII. As a result of those conflicts, and especially Perl Harbor, US policy changed to maintain a large fighting force and standing army.

0
21

[–] YouKnowItIKnowIt 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Federal reserve, world war to enslave other nations, and a standing army in our country in just a few years. not a coincidence

0
2

[–] SexMachine 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yep. The national guard didn't even exist until after WWI

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The actual goal is to protect yourself from threats foreign and domestic. The rule of measure by which that protection can be afforded is force parity with the nation's military capability. Otherwise it is impossible to achieve the stated goal. As such, I angled the post in the direction of the unit of measure; which is a viable threat to the military. If you do this, then every other goal is achieved and protected.

0
1

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wait the (((media))) is now the 4th branch of the government and the corporations are above any of the branches and the (((lobbyist))) are way up there as well... we are fucked.

0
9

[–] Professor_de_la_Paz 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

At the intersection of goodness, liberty, and reality, lays the Second Amendment.

Very well said!

0
7

[–] tendiesonfloor 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee every other Amendment.

0
6

[–] shadowwolf225 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

One of the exceptions to the US Constitution is that rights may be infringed when and only when it's for the greater good.

I really need a citation on that. In the constitution itself because otherwise it does not supersede anything in the constitution as the us constitution is the "supreme law of the land" therefore anything contradicting is null and void from inception and was never law.

Watch the doublethink goats. "The greater good" is just another way of saying "what the government thinks is right."

Pretty sure it's the "greater good" idea that got us into this mess in the first place. There is no "greater good" than individual liberty. Full stop.

0
3

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You're right, that's been a seriously slippery slope. It's been a while since I've read on the topic. It has to do with constitutional limitations and legal standards.

So for example, free speech has limits. Claiming that solicitation of assassination is protected as free speech is not the case. At least not as current interpretations allow. The constitutional argument is that free speech has limitations. That limitation ends at speech which solicits or invokes action. More commonly the example is yelling, "fire" in a theater. Technically actually is legal, so long as the statement is supported by fact and not explicitly intended to create a panic and potential mass injuries. Another example, as it relates to the Second Amendment, is that violent felons no longer retain their Second Amendment rights.

I will add that the general rule of interpreting constitutional freedoms is that your rights end where another's rights begins. That is the normal and accepted rule of thumb; without regard as to what SCOTUS may rule or declare. Which does fit well within the precept of "the greater good."

Now then, I will happily admit that, AFAIK, these are SCOTUS interpretations. And as such, may be fundamentally flawed and therefore invalid. There certainly are debates of such positions to be made. I will be the first to admit I've not been shy of making such statements. In fact, I make such statements in OP here.

Now if you're asking me to do homework on Constitutional law, repeating what I have repeatedly done many years ago, I will make a plea of laziness and encourage others to do this homework for themselves. As I see this nothing as goodness, even if they reach a different conclusion. At the least I hope you'll agree that these are in fact a platform for much of SCOTUS' constitutional rulings; be them good, bad, or indifferent. IMOHO, simply educating people on the basics and prompting others to further their own education on their constitutional rights is a significant win. Because AFAIK, this is simply not taking place within the public space or public education.

0
5

[–] HillBoulder 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Didn't they have cannons and all kinds of artillery back then that you were allowed to own? It wasn't just muskets with bayonets if I'm not mistaken.

0
13

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

That's correct. Everything from the equivalent of battleships, to canons, to rocket artillery, and mortars, were all privately owned at the time. Many a canon was purchased by a town and kept in one of the upstanding citizen's barn - for example.

It used to be that military members could become wealthy. It's why it used to be considered prestigious to be a military officer. This was because of "spoils of war." Basically you used to be able to keep anything you obtained from the enemy. While obviously this included obvious items of wealth (gold, silver, art, jewels (not diamonds), etc.), but this also included arms.

Much of the violence created by the US government as a result of Prohibition, was committed by arms commonly available, but which were also brought home from WWI. Because of the violence created by the government via Prohibition, it was used as an excuse to begin the restrictions on firearms. As such, the spoils of war doctrine began to change. With it, over time, came prohibitions against ownership of items like machine guns, grenades, and mortars. So on and so on crawled the slippery slope.

0
3

[–] HillBoulder 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Well thanks for that. Battleships!!! I can picture my destroyer docked in lake Michigan waiting to strike.

0
4

[–] hwong 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

....and remember... Those first "ten" amendments are considered "natural rights" These are rights that are self evident to the universe and natural rights for just existing as a human. They were only codified into the bill of rights for administrative purposes. No one, through any law can take them away from you.. and any attempt is "unjust" .... Source -8th grade civics class-

0
4

[–] Bananazz 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And then you have cities like Chicago and NY where only criminals have arms. Could the citizens of these cities technically file a class action lawsuit for violation of the constitution?

0
6

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Yes. And I like the fact that you said arms. Arms really is an important word to understand. Forgive me while I soapbox further.

Arms includes things like uniforms (the buttons reference). Which includes things like bullet proof vests. This is why the word, "arms", is so very important to understand. Contrary to leftist groupthink, arms has never meant, "rifle", or, "musket." Arms has always meant things like wagons, and horse, and powder (explosives), uniforms (of which buttons were a historical requirement).

Something else that many people don't realize is that the federal government has legally defined encrypted as an arm. Which means that all forms of encryption are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. As such, any and all who attempt to restrict and/or undermine the citizenry's use of encryption are by definition violating our constitutional rights and directly attacking the Second Amendment.

To further explain this, how effective can a militia be if they are forbidden from carrying troop transports? What if they are not allowed to use encrypted communication? What if more than 200 rounds of ammunition became illegal? What is storage became illegal? This is the point of "arms." It explicitly affords force parity and prohibits the government's ability to prevent the militia from obtaining parity.

This is why the word, "arms", is so very important. This is why it means any and all physical and logistical means of warfare.

0
3

[–] alphasnail 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's not practical for the average citizen to own tanks, fighter jets, and battleships. The best thing we can do is have overwhelming force in numbers. Everyone must be armed with high caliber semi-auto or full-auto rifles and be considered extremely dangerous if threatened. Do your part and get a gun. Arm yourself, arm your family, and arm your friends.

0
4

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's not practical for the average citizen to own tanks, fighter jets, and battleships.

Yes, I believe I made that case. The case was made for the large items. But it is practical for things like body armor, machine guns, grenades, and grenade launchers. The point being, that while owning a tank isn't practical for most individuals, there are many arms which are and are constitutional to do so; albeit illegal by unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if counties, townships, or militia groups want to purchase such items, which used to be commonly done, it is perfectly constitutional to do so. Keeping in mind that towns can in fact be owned by individuals.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)