Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[-TheLastAmerican]

My scholarship on the history of the Second Amendment is sketchy, but I have read that one key reason it was added to the Constitution was that armed militias were deemed necessary to keep potential slave rebellions in check. In states like South Carolina, there were as many slaves as free whites, and the fear of rebellion was reasonable. However, I doubt the "right to bear arms" was extended to slaves. NOr do I know whether automatic firearms were widely available before the 1960s.

Personally, if I want arms to bear, I'm gonna get me a flame thrower, like in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".

By the way, we don't need to get 2/3 of the states to ratify a new amendment -- we just need to change local laws and have a Supreme Court that finds them Constiutionally sound.

If you are interested in a good read on the origins and basis of The Second Amendment, this would be a good start: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol28/iss3/5/

Question: Will you be as cavalier when WE change laws and WE have a Supreme Court that upholds them?

The article really is a good read.

[Ecurb]

I haven't read your article yet, and I don't know who "we" are. However, I support man "activist" Supreme Court decisions, including (of course) Brown vs. the Board of Education. It would not be outrageous for the Supreme's to interpret the Second Amendment in such a way to allow bans of nuclear warheads, flame throwers, hand greanades, and automatic firearms. Of course the bans would still need to be legislated by states, cities, etc.

I admit that this would limit the efficacy of the teenage soldiers in "Red Dawn".

[-TheLastAmerican]

I haven't read your article yet, and I don't know who "we" are. However, I support man "activist" Supreme Court decisions, including (of course) Brown vs. the Board of Education. It would not be outrageous for the Supreme's to interpret the Second Amendment in such a way to allow bans of nuclear warheads, flame throwers, hand greanades, and automatic firearms. Of course the bans would still need to be legislated by states, cities, etc.

I admit that this would limit the efficacy of the teenage soldiers in "Red Dawn".

Fortunately, WE, have never had to worry about Civilians developing their own nuclear weapons sine the cost of doing so puts such a lame idea out of the reach of even a George Soros or Wild Bill Gates - however, a Law Abiding Citizen CAN own a flamethrower, and even a fully automatic "machine gun" that has a mind of its own and can go off on a get-even-spree all by itself, believe it or not!

I hope the article doesn't upset you further than I already - maybe you should avoid it.

[Ecurb]

I doubt the article will upset me. But second amendment rights are not particularly important to me, so I may not read it. Personally, I've never joined any militias, so I don't need much firepower to go about my day.

[-TheLastAmerican]

I doubt the article will upset me. But second amendment rights are not particularly important to me, so I may not read it. Personally, I've never joined any militias, so I don't need much firepower to go about my day.

The article will annihilate the suggestion the The Second Amendment had anything to do with keeping the Black Man down in South Carolina, or any other State at the time. English Common Law and the disarming of Parliament and Serfs by Kings that had the mandate of heaven is where The Second Amendment comes from.

The People were The Militia - there was no National Guard.

But you can change all of this by repealing The Second Amendment rather than stewing over it or devising nefarious means to oppress other People's Rights.

[Ecurb]

The article will annihilate the suggestion the The Second Amendment had anything to do with keeping the Black Man down in South Carolina, or any other State at the time. English Common Law and the disarming of Parliament and Serfs by Kings that had the mandate of heaven is where The Second Amendment comes from.

The People were The Militia - there was no National Guard.

But you can change all of this by repealing The Second Amendment rather than stewing over it or devising nefarious means to oppress other People's Rights.

Here's an interesting article: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi ... text=jcred

I've never "stewed" over the Second Amendment, and don't intend to start now. If cowards feel the need to protect themselves with firearms, that's fine with me. Personally, I've never been so fearful -- but I know many of my fellow citizens are.

[-TheLastAmerican]

Here's an interesting article: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi ... text=jcred

I've never "stewed" over the Second Amendment, and don't intend to start now. If cowards feel the need to protect themselves with firearms, that's fine with me. Personally, I've never been so fearful -- but I know many of my fellow citizens are.

So you will read that article you like but avoid the article you do not like? That sound like cowardice to me.

[Ecurb]

Actually, I didn't read either article.

[-TheLastAmerican]

Actually, I didn't read either article.

I have read both - long ago.

[Sy Borg]

It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

[-TheLastAmerican]

It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

Is the human that would revoke your Rights, take your belongings, force you to do things that you do not want to do, or worse, more virtuous than the human that has the means to tell you no, you will not? Or, do we live in a adolescent fantasy wherein there are no bad humans, except those morons that you disagree with?

It also says much more about a society wherein far too many of its people hold the egomaniac/despotic belief that if "everyone" would just do what they say, there would be no need for anyone to defend themselves.

Why frightens you about being unable to oppress a human that disagrees with you, without risk?

[Sy Borg]

It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

Is the human that would revoke your Rights, take your belongings, force you to do things that you do not want to do, or worse, more virtuous than the human that has the means to tell you no, you will not? Or, do we live in a adolescent fantasy wherein there are no bad humans, except those morons that you disagree with?

It also says much more about a society wherein far too many of its people hold the egomaniac/despotic belief that if "everyone" would just do what they say, there would be no need for anyone to defend themselves.

Why frightens you about being unable to oppress a human that disagrees with you, without risk?

The only ones revoking my rights, taking my belongings or forcing me to do what I don't want to do are untouchable with little people's guns. The only people I've known who would be safer with a gun are small time crims.

US paranoia appears to be so extreme that many Americans cannot even imagine living in a peaceful society. You seem to think that a peaceful civil society where guns are not needed is Shangri-la. It's actually quite common in more civilised western nations.

[-TheLastAmerican]

The only ones revoking my rights, taking my belongings or forcing me to do what I don't want to do are untouchable with little people's guns. The only people I've known who would be safer with a gun are small time crims.

US paranoia appears to be so extreme that many Americans cannot even imagine living in a peaceful society. You seem to think that a peaceful civil society where guns are not needed is Shangri-la. It's actually quite common in more civilised western nations.

Are you saying that you literally believe there are Shangri-las, somewhere on Earth, but you do not want to go live there? I am not suggesting that you should "go live there," I just want to understand your point better.

[-TheLastAmerican]

Also, if the untouchables can do whatever they want to us little people, are you suggesting we just bend over and take it, because that is the more virtuous action?

[-TheLastAmerican]

PS. The Taliban just beat the Unites States, with AK 47's.