Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
Subj: Re: Italy has a gun culture but no mass shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2022 at 12:30:33 pm EDT (Viewed 107 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Italy has a gun culture but no mass shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 at 05:10:37 pm EDT (Viewed 143 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

      The argument their guns can protect them from the government is so ridiculous I question the validity of the source (it has to be a joke). I mean, unless the people starts to own tanks, war ships, fighter jets and nukes, I don't see how they can even be relevant at all.






    Quote:

    This is one of those areas where originalism would lead us astray. The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about states' rights. It's highly plausible that they intended the 2nd Amendment to do exactly what it says - allow for state militias - with the underlying assumption that these militias would stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny. But how relevant is that today? In our world today, the federal government has control of an army so formidable that it would slaughter any number of "minute men" armed with semi-automatic rifles.


I mean maybe? The fear in general at the time was that of a standing Federal Army. That was feared so that the President would not be a king and just rule with force.

Around the Revolutionary war, before and somewhat after, all states had militias. This was their national guard of sorts. They had to be called up and put together to make an army to fight the British in the first place and one of the many flaws was states did not always want to do this or to keep their men in place in the Federal army. Which made a mess that states could recall their own troops.

One could look at it as a way to avoid Federal tyranny I guess, but it seems clearer to me that it had more to do with practical need at the time.

There was no standing army except what could be called up from state militias. Given that states were not giving their militia's weapons, nor was the Federal government, the members had to have their own guns to use. At least by and large.

So, they worked it into the Constitution that people needed their guns in order to serve in the militia so their ability to do so should not be taken from the.

However, it makes no sense outside of the serving in the state militia context and became pointless once there was a standing army. Since weapons were then provided.

The battle over a standing army was for sure state's rights vs federal power, but it was also a natural extension of the failed Articles of Confederation where each state saw itself more as a country and this led to failed coordination that nearly doomed the Revolutionary War in the first place.

I just do not agree with the premise that the 2nd Amendment in and of itself is a direct check on federal power as much as it is a practical solution to ensure that there was an army to call upon when there was need. At least given the wording and situation of the day. If we want to construct an originalist picture.

As courts of that period even indicated that it was the militia aspect that was important and not the individual as such.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software