Philosophy Now Forum

Your both just blowing it your of your arses with this cobblers about an armed citizenry holding off a committed military to preserve your 'democracy'. As unless they train as a militia they'll just be fodder, take a look at what your military does to nations where the citizens are heavily armed. I guess the idea arose from the American revolution but you ignore that those citizens were pretty much all ex-British redcoats and could fight as such against the British Army, even then they'd likely have lost if it wasn't for the French keeping the British Navy and Army occupied elsewhere and providing the trained artillery and the munitions and, along with the Spanish, supplying the funds to fight. Face facts, its just fun to have the feeling of power a gun gives one and the main driver is the myth of wild west and the cowboy and 'gunslinger'.

Instead of SHOUTING try addressing what I said boob.

Arising_uk wrote:Instead of SHOUTING try addressing what I said boob.

If Hitler was afraid of an armed citizenry, no prospective tyrant should feel safe.

bobevenson wrote:If Hitler was afraid of an armed citizenry, no prospective tyrant should feel safe.

Hitler was talking about subjects not citizens but I agree that an armed citizenry can cause great problems to the tyrant but if in America it ever occurred that a totalitarian govt appeared and had the support of the military your armed citizens would be dead meat as by and large they are a bunch of yahoo's with guns and not a well regulated militia.

bobevenson wrote:When Williams talks about demagogues, he is talking about a wide range of people, not just politicians. However, it is ironic that he mentioned President Obama since Obama taught Constitutional law, apparently with little or no knowledge of the background and events leading to the Second Amendment.

I would imagine Obama is talking about events after the Second Amendment. In other words, subsequent ruling handed down by SCOTUS particularly in relation to "District of Columbia versus Heller". Williams appears to support Originalism when interpreting the Constitution; more than likely "original intent". Having said that, Originalists and Pragmatists support the Fourteenth Amendment in relation to due process due.

bobevenson wrote:Obama's remarks about the Second Amendment stand on their own, and are ridiculous, especially coming from a former Constitutional Law professor.

It's the accepted legal interpretation of the Second as it stands at the moment. Originalists such as Williams disagree. Textualists would definitely disagree with Obama.

I don't think it's a good idea to confuse Bob with facts, Gingko. He doesn't really do facts.

Hi Leo,
District of Columbia versus Heller and subsequently, McDonald versus Chicago provide the background to interpreting the 2nd. I'll find a link.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Obama's remarks about the Second Amendment stand on their own, and are ridiculous, especially coming from a former Constitutional Law professor.

It's the accepted legal interpretation of the Second as it stands at the moment. Originalists such as Williams disagree. Textualists would definitely disagree with Obama.

Hey, if people want to amend the Constitution, do it. However, changing what the founding fathers had in mind requires a trip to their psychiatrist!

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Obama's remarks about the Second Amendment stand on their own, and are ridiculous, especially coming from a former Constitutional Law professor.

It's the accepted legal interpretation of the Second as it stands at the moment. Originalists such as Williams disagree. Textualists would definitely disagree with Obama.

Hey, if people want to amend the Constitution, do it. However, changing what the founding fathers had in mind requires a trip to their psychiatrist!

Bob, that's why the Founders included the amendment process in the Constitution...so it could be changed if required.

Does your precious 'amendment' (that most yanks probably can't even read) cover rocket launchers? I mean, every red-blooded yank should have one of those in the garage. God, how much longer do we have to wait for those super-volcanoes to do their thing?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Does your precious 'amendment' (that most yanks probably can't even read) cover rocket launchers? I mean, every red-blooded yank should have one of those in the garage. God, how much longer do we have to wait for those super-volcanoes to do their thing?

I'm not an American, but I can tell you that the Second Amendment is the single most regulated piece of legislation for the reason(s) you point out.The the right to arms doesn't mean a right to any type of weapon. Rocket launchers are banned.

If we are to respect any 'constitution' as fixed, does this not also "dictate" how all people from then on are to permanently accept regardless of changing societies? The OP seems to be defending that "originalist" position yet should this not extend to an even earlier constitution by Britain? In other words, what comes 'first' is an insufficient justification for maintaining the original interpretations of the American Constitution AND it acts without respect to the changing demographics who represent the democratic people's right to affect change in law. Thus, the latter re-interpretation should hold our present values unless you deny the democratic processes.

And as others have said here to compare, if we use the definitions of the 'original' drafters of the 2nd Amendment, then either we have to accept they could only reference the type of actual 'arms' they knew OR we have to interpret this to mean any kind of 'arms' which does include things like rockets, nuclear arms, or explosives.

And, again noted by others here, if we the people ARE the government, would it not be contradictory to presume that some subset minority who might find it 'necessary' to overthrow a government they perceive to be illegitimate represent themselves as the totalitarian ones for revolting in such a democracy?