Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to recognize the right of citizens to militarily overthrow the federal government AT WILL.
Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to recognize
the right of citizens to militarily overthrow the federal
government AT WILL.
However, some scholars think the Second Amendment was created to protect
the right of slaveowners to have guns to put down slave revolts, which
did occur from time to time.
According to Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org>:
However, some scholars think the Second Amendment was created to
protect the right of slaveowners to have guns to put down slave
revolts, which did occur from time to time.
Although a lot of gun absolutists seem not to have read it, the
Second Amendment starts:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, ...
The bits about well-regulated and the security of the state give
us a rather strong hint that they weren't thinking about random
people doing armed overthrow.
But I admit that the past decades of 2A court decisions have
thoroughly ignored that part.
According to Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org>:
However, some scholars think the Second Amendment was created to protect
the right of slaveowners to have guns to put down slave revolts, which
did occur from time to time.
Although a lot of gun absolutists seem not to have read it, the Second Amendment starts:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
The bits about well-regulated and the security of the state give us a rather strong hint
that they weren't thinking about random people doing armed overthrow.
But I admit that the past decades of 2A court decisions have thoroughly ignored that part.
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org>:
However, some scholars think the Second Amendment was created to
protect the right of slaveowners to have guns to put down slave
revolts, which did occur from time to time.
Although a lot of gun absolutists seem not to have read it, the
Second Amendment starts:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, ...
The bits about well-regulated and the security of the state give
us a rather strong hint that they weren't thinking about random
people doing armed overthrow.
But I admit that the past decades of 2A court decisions have
thoroughly ignored that part.
At the time it was written, all militia/military members supplied
their own firearms. So the amendment makes sense in context. But in
today's world it makes very little sense.
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org>:
However, some scholars think the Second Amendment was created to
protect the right of slaveowners to have guns to put down slave
revolts, which did occur from time to time.
Although a lot of gun absolutists seem not to have read it, the
Second Amendment starts:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, ...
The bits about well-regulated and the security of the state give
us a rather strong hint that they weren't thinking about random
people doing armed overthrow.
But I admit that the past decades of 2A court decisions have
thoroughly ignored that part.
At the time it was written, all militia/military members supplied
their own firearms. So the amendment makes sense in context. But in
today's world it makes very little sense.
My older brother told me 60 years ago that the courts decide what
they want to, and then figure out how to explain it. I was 15 and
idealistic and still am. and it's taken me 60 years to almost
agree with him.
I should let him know that he's almost convinced me.
S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:
} Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to
recognize the right of citizens to militarily overthrow
.....the federal government AT WILL.
How does that square with Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid
and Comfort. Does the second amendment overrule Art3Sec3?
} Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to recognize the right of citizens to militarily overthrow
.....the federal government AT WILL.
How does that square with Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Does the second amendment overrule Art3Sec3?
...
Revolution? It works like this. If you're successful, you're a hero. The
(or a) founder of the country. If you're unsuccessful, you're a traitor: that's treason and you get the hot shot or the gallows or whatever.
The people who signed the Declaration of Independence knew this: That is
why they pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
That is why Benjamin Franklin is believed to have said, "We must all
hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
{The attribution is disputed}
On 9/4/2022 7:43 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
...
Revolution? It works like this. If you're successful, you're a hero. The
(or a) founder of the country. If you're unsuccessful, you're a traitor:
that's treason and you get the hot shot or the gallows or whatever.
The people who signed the Declaration of Independence knew this: That is
why they pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
That is why Benjamin Franklin is believed to have said, "We must all
hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
{The attribution is disputed}
History Is Written by the Victors
https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/history-is-written-by-the-victors-quote-origin.html
Excerpt:
In 1891, Missouri Sen. George Graham Vest, a former congressman for the >Confederacy who was still at that late date an advocate for the rights
of states to secede, used the phrase in a speech, reprinted by the
Kansas City Gazette and other papers on the next day, Aug. 21, 1891. In
all revolutions the vanquished are the ones who are guilty of treason,
even by the historians, Vest said, for history is written by the
victors and framed according to the prejudices and bias existing on
their side.
And it looks like the original quote is "Treason doth never
prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it
Treason. John Harington "https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_harington_173129
Wikipedia has 10 by that name, all British politicians
I forget who said this, but some conservative in the 60's wrote a book
by the name,_None dare call it treason_
micky<misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
And it looks like the original quote is "Treason doth neverI guess treason and revolutions are just different sides of the same
prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it
Treason. John Harington
"https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_harington_173129
Wikipedia has 10 by that name, all British politicians
coin.
On 9/4/2022 11:28 PM, micky wrote:
I forget who said this, but some conservative in the 60's wrote a book
by the name,_None dare call it treason_
John A. Stormer.
Have you considered searching?
Gold's 8th law: GIYF/WIYF/SIYF. And in
this case AIYF.
And, btw, that book was about the "Communist Conspiracy", and presumably
the reaction to McCarthyism. Some pretty stupid laws got enacted back then.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 335 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 148:17:21 |
| Calls: | 7,411 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,670 |
| Messages: | 5,613,100 |