On 8/28/2021 11:40 AM, S K wrote:
One would think this is a no-brainer - but second amendment enthusiasts claim that armed revolution is explicitly permitted and that the weapons private citizens can possess cannot be restricted in any way.
I wonder if you're really understanding what 2nd Amendment enthusiasts mean.
The Constitution is quite explicit:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html
So an _attempted_ armed revolution would constitute a crime, punishable
by imprisonment or death and forfeiture of all property owned by the
traitor. [I think that if the traitor owns property along with one or
more other persons, only his portion of the property would be forfeit.
But under "civil forfeiture" the government might be able to take
complete ownership if the property was linked to the rebellion in any
way, e.g., people met in his house to plan, or armaments were stored on
the property.]
But if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights, each of the first
eight amendments are there because of things that England had done to
the colonists (see below)
So, yeah, the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says: people have a
right to arms with which they can fight an enemy. And, if necessary to
fight the government if it becomes tyrannical as happened in 1773-76.
Of course, if you launch a revolution and fail, you have committed
treason, with all the punishments thereof. But if you launch one and
succeed, you aren't a traitor, you're the new government. That's the way
things have always worked.
* Forcing people to worship at an authorized church (CoE or perhaps Presbyterian--scottish Calvinist)
* Forbidding people to speak against the Governor imposed by England
* Ditto for printed material
* Forbidding gatherings (at which opposition to the government might be discussed)
* Forbidding petitions against the tyrannies imposed by the Governor
* Forbidding people from owning firearms, or restricting them to certain types.(1)
* Forcing colonists to accept soldiers in their homes and feed them,
without compensation.
* Searching people's homes and persons without a good reason
* Forcing people to stand trial on trumped up charges, without first
showing that there was at least some evidence against them. (hence the
Grand Jury requirement in the 5th amendment)
* If someone was charged with a crime, and the jury found him not
guilty, the Governor would order them to be tried again until he got the
result he wanted.
* Forcing people to testify against themselves or be imprisoned for
Contempt of Court
* Taking people's property without payment
* Keeping people in jail indefinitely without a trial, or having a trial
by judge only with no jury (and the judge beholden to the Governor for
his continuance in office)
* Arresting people and holding them in jail without even telling them
what they were charged with.
* Trying someone in a court far away from where they lived and where the alleged crime occurred.
* Bringing affidavits from witnesses into evidence, without the
opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine them.
* Trial by judge in civil cases, no jury (again, the judge being
dependent on the Governor for his office and salary)
* Denying people bail, or setting bail at a level that was impossible
for the defendant to post.
* subjecting people to arbitrary (and often torturous) punishments
*
(1) Based on Oliver Wiswell, a historical novel by Kenneth Roberts, told
from the PoV of a loyalist aka "Tory", it appears that this restriction
is part of why England lost the Revolutionary War. The loyalists obeyed
the law and turned in their muskets. The Sons Of Liberty and other pro-revolution groups did not. So the loyalists didn't have much in the
way of arms to resist the SOL etc. The loyalists depended on the British generals to order that arms be dispensed to them, but many of the
generals had a low opinion of the loyalists and were reluctant to arm
them. (They also seem to have had a reluctance to actually engage the
enemy, something that Lincoln complained of in all his generals before
he got Grant.)
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)