Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the 2nd Amendment Really Intended as a Safeguard from Tyranny? (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Talk about strawmen (0+ / 0-)

    Who said anything about having or not having a right to own guns? See that's the problem with this debate. Too many people think it's a choice between absolute gun rights or no guns at all.

    This isn't a discussion about WHETHER the 2nd Amendment exists but WHY it exists.

    And yes, as obtuse as you're being about it you ARE parsing the difference between an uprising and rising up against tyranny.

    The second amendment does not protect armed uprisings, but it was intended to protect the right to own the hardware necessary for an armed uprising.
    This is nonsense. You're equivocating the difference between having the weapons IN ORDER to have an uprising and the uprising itself? That's like saying that the freedom of speech is about the right to have a mouth but not say anything IF IT means that it's the right to turn against a tyranny.

    And no, I didn't "make it up." You did when you started parsing when you said, "we the people" get to determine it. Were they people in the Whiskey Rebellion?

    Was Timothy Mcveigh a perosn?

    That's the issue. When you say it's about the right of the people to rise against tyranny you advocate anarchy, and even I'm not that liberal.

    •  Your getting the people you are screaming (0+ / 0-)

      at confused.

      Simmer down.

      If you think people rising against tyranny is anarchy, I suppose that would be tyrannical?

      •  Screaming? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        congenitalefty

        I'm not screaming, I'm discussing. Just because you're reading it as screaming doesn't mean I'm screaming.

        Ergo, no simmering is needed.

        I think that suggesting that anyone, at anytime, can revolt against what they view as tyranny is anarchy, yes. What would you say is the difference?

        People forget this is a democratically elected government. The "people" speak on election day.

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
      Who said anything about having or not having a right to own guns? See that's the problem with this debate. Too many people think it's a choice between absolute gun rights or no guns at all.
      Non-responsive.
      This isn't a discussion about WHETHER the 2nd Amendment exists but WHY it exists.
      yet if you don't like the answer, you pretend it's something else.
      And yes, as obtuse as you're being about it you ARE parsing the difference between an uprising and rising up against tyranny.
      Show me where I did that.  Take as much time as you need.
      This is nonsense. You're equivocating the difference between having the weapons IN ORDER to have an uprising and the uprising itself? That's like saying that the freedom of speech is about the right to have a mouth but not say anything IF IT means that it's the right to turn against a tyranny.
      18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

      Your absurd case is darn close to reality.  I can own a megaphone, but I can't use it to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government.  

      Let's talk, for example, emergency rescue radio beacons.
      The whole point of the thing is to set out a signal to let rescuers know where you are and that you need help.

      Do I have a right to own such a device? YES, it's a form of speech that falls under the first amendment, particularly because it's necessary for survival.

      Do I have a right to use such a device whenever I feel like it?  NO.  Summoning the coast guard and police to respond to a false emergency does not have protection under the first amendment.

      So yes, I certainly can separate a right to own a tool and the supposed right to use that tool, even if the tool has only one use.

      And no, I didn't "make it up." You did when you started parsing when you said, "we the people" get to determine it. Were they people in the Whiskey Rebellion?
      That wasn't me.  I think that was Anne.
      Was Timothy Mcveigh a perosn?
      I emphatically deny that anyone has a right to take up arms against our government.  Or, in other words, I affirm that governments have the just power to crack down on people trying to overthrow them.
      That's the issue. When you say it's about the right of the people to rise against tyranny you advocate anarchy, and even I'm not that liberal.
      But I didn't say that.  If there is a right to actively pursue, or even speak in favor of, the violent or nonviolent overthrow of governments, tyrannical or otherwise... it's not in the first or second amendments, or anywhere else in US law.

      the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:16:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You emphatically deny it (0+ / 0-)

        But then you openly advocate it WHEN YOU SUPPORT the notion that the 2nd Amendment is to safeguard against tyranny.

        My absurd case is intentionally absurd because it illustrates the absurdity of your own position.

        You can keep SAYING there's a difference, but logically there's not. You can't say that it's OK to arm yourself against the government, but not do anything else. It's preposterous.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site