• Is armed revolution againt the federal government prohibited by the con

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 28 11:40:04 2021
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 28 21:51:04 2021
    According to Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org>:
    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.

    That's not what the 2nd amendment actually says or means, although
    there are certainly plenty of people who wish it did and pretend it
    doesn't include the first part: "A well regulated militia, being
    necessary to the security of a free State".

    The history of the 2nd amendment is surprisingly thin but the best
    explanation I've seen is that the southern states used state militias
    to fight slave rebellions. They worried that northern abolitionists
    would outlaw state militias and leave them with no way to keep slaves
    under control. Hence the language about well regulated state militias.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sun Aug 29 07:50:40 2021
    On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:51:07 AM UTC-4, John Levine wrote:
    According to Barry Gold <bg...@labcats.org>:
    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.
    That's not what the 2nd amendment actually says or means, although
    there are certainly plenty of people who wish it did and pretend it
    doesn't include the first part: "A well regulated militia, being
    necessary to the security of a free State".

    The history of the 2nd amendment is surprisingly thin but the best explanation I've seen is that the southern states used state militias
    to fight slave rebellions. They worried that northern abolitionists
    would outlaw state militias and leave them with no way to keep slaves
    under control. Hence the language about well regulated state militias.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    Many people claim to see a right to armed revolution in the constitution:

    https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/

    "The Second Amendment Guarantees the Right of Revolution

    Turns out, that’s precisely the right question to ask. The Second Amendment, after all, doesn’t recognize our right to hunt deer or protect ourselves from criminals. Owning guns certainly makes doing those things easier, but it’s not why the
    Founders bothered to codify gun rights. They were getting at something else—the right of revolution.

    Simply put, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the means to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 30 17:38:24 2021
    According to S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>:
    The history of the 2nd amendment is surprisingly thin but the best
    explanation I've seen is that the southern states used state militias
    to fight slave rebellions. They worried that northern abolitionists
    would outlaw state militias and leave them with no way to keep slaves
    under control. Hence the language about well regulated state militias.

    Many people claim to see a right to armed revolution in the constitution:

    https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/

    "The Second Amendment Guarantees the Right of Revolution ...

    There was a well organized right wing effort starting in the 1960s to
    rewrite the history of the 2nd amendment from what everyone had
    understood for two centuries (see above) to an "insurrectionist" reinterpretation about individual gun ownwership unrelated to militias
    or regulation. It was amazingly successful, culminating with the
    bizarrely ahistorical Heller vs DC in 2008 in which five supreme court
    justices decided that 200 years of history was wrong.

    The Federalist Society was right in the middle of this project so it's not surprising they'd
    publish stuff like that.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Tue Aug 31 07:43:58 2021
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:sgjg2t$8rm$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>:
    The history of the 2nd amendment is surprisingly thin but the best
    explanation I've seen is that the southern states used state militias
    to fight slave rebellions. They worried that northern abolitionists
    would outlaw state militias and leave them with no way to keep slaves
    under control. Hence the language about well regulated state militias.

    Many people claim to see a right to armed revolution in the constitution:
    https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/

    "The Second Amendment Guarantees the Right of Revolution ...

    There was a well organized right wing effort starting in the 1960s to
    rewrite the history of the 2nd amendment from what everyone had
    understood for two centuries (see above) to an "insurrectionist" >reinterpretation about individual gun ownwership unrelated to militias
    or regulation. It was amazingly successful, culminating with the
    bizarrely ahistorical Heller vs DC in 2008 in which five supreme court >justices decided that 200 years of history was wrong.

    The Federalist Society was right in the middle of this project so it's not >surprising they'd
    publish stuff like that.


    Of all the amendments to the Constitution, this is perhaps the most
    ambiguous and poorly written. It definitely needs to be rewritten and clarified, but I doubt we would ever get 3/4 of the states to agree on any revision (not too mention the 2/3 vote by the states or Congress needed just
    to submit).

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)