If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is, as gun owners so often

File: Capture.jpg (21KB, 516x157px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 516x157px

>>34367965
Where does it say that? Hell, according to the constitution the government shouldnt have an army...but it does...welcome to world of 'people lie and the government doesnt make sense but takes your dollars to do so'.

>>34368221
Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.
>To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

>>34368956
Because, and this may surprise you, Lincoln was kind of a tyrant

>>34368956
>post president
>post law aiming to limit executive power
>ignores the fact the CS didnt give a shit about words on paper.

>>34369045
The Constitution said Congress had the authority to suppress insurrections, Congress authorized the President to do so, there was an insurrection, and the President suppressed it. Sounds Constitutional to me.
>>34369184
How does the insurrection limit executive power? It authorizes the Pres to enforce the law.

>>34369202
Don't see how the South succeeding is an insurrection. They only fought back when there succession wasn't tolerated by the North. There's a reason Southerners referred to it as "The War of Northern Aggression".

>>34369233
The Constitution doesn't allow states to secede. It claims to be the "supreme law of the land." The South tried to use secession as a form of political blackmail to make the North give them what they wanted. Lincoln had the foresight to know that would be a problem in the long run.

>>34369202
>How does the insurrection limit executive power?
Seriously? You dont see how an act that forces a president to rely on local and state forces as limiting federal power?

>>34369233
Also, only a minority of people in the South even supported secession, and they often had to repress dissent from Southern Unionists. So you can't even justify secession on grounds of self determination.

>>34369279
That's exactly what Lincoln did. He asked the states to send 75,000 troops, which many of them did.

>>34369045
One of the worst we had.

>>34369302
What >>34369045 said. He was a horrible president. Wanna talk about Maryland? Wanna talk about legal slavery in the north AFTER the war?
>He asked
that's the point nigger

t. bitter resident of the state that did what texas threatens to do.

>>34369342
I agree the Lincoln had a horrible record on civil liberties, but so does EVERY wartime president. Jeff Davis also suppressed any internal dissent he feared would undermine the war effort. So did Wilson. So did Roosevelt. So did Bush and Obama.

>>34367965
>If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is, as gun owners so often assert, to enable the people to rebel against the government,
Because its enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?

>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

>>34368956
The best example of this being invoked would be the Whiskey Rebellion, not the Civil War. A militia, not an established army, was called up to quell the insurrection.
>>34368221

>according to the constitution the government shouldnt have an army
The only limit made by that clause is the length of budget, not the length that the army may exist. The founders knew that wars can last more than two years, hell the Revolutionary War went from 1775 to 1783. The only thing this clause forces is the military budget to be renewed every two years at least (and it is renewed every year in practice).

>>34369361
Those all very poor examples and are often rightly criticized as well

>>34369233

>the south
>succeeding

oh, anon....

>>34367965
He was a goofy looking motherfucker, no wonder Mary Todd was the best the president could do. The structure of the nation was such at the time that reliance on the state supply of troops and arms was viable. WWI demonstrated that the continental US needed to centralize executive power to function and counter international threats in the modern era. Due to the sheer size of the country, state authority with local guards and militias are still useful. It's a silly myopic argument to anyone with historical knowledge that extends past "in my grandpappy's day" or WWII. If states had actually allocated funds to education like a normal country it wouldn't still be an argument.

>>34369375
Philosophically, I agree with that argument, the Lockean idea that arbitrary oppression should not be tolerated. Unfortunately, however, it has no legal basis in the Constitution, which is fundamentally an authoritarian document.

>>34368956
So, is the Militia against or in support of the insurrection?

>>34369535
If unalienable rights, which are also enumerated in the declaration of independence, are recognized in case law then so must be the right to institute new government

>>34369586
Obviously against it, if they are the ones suppressing it.
>>34369623
As far as I know, there is no case law supporting that. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, it's all well and good to say the people have the right to replace the government when they need to, but practically speaking, the whole population is never unanimous about anything. So the question then becomes how many people have to support replacing the government in order to do so? 3%? 10%? 50% 75%?

>>34369586
Both. The few times a militia was called up to quite or put down a rebellion, they would usually pick from either a neighboring state or the other side of a state. As said before, the best example of militia being called in to put down a rebellion would be the whiskey rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

>>34367965
>the Constitution explicitly authorize the government to crush insurrections?

Where?

>>34369722
Here: >>34368956

>>34368956
That's a law, not the Constitution.

>>34369682
>Obviously against it, if they are the ones suppressing it.
And yet, the Militia is necessary for the security of a FREE state?

>>34369730
>Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.
Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15 is where it is found in the Constitution. Look it up. The statute was passed in 1807 pursuant to the Constitution.

>>34369682
>>34369682
>no case law supporting unalienable rights
If unalienable rights have no authority in case law, then they really aren't unalienable right?

Legal standing isn't something of pure objectivity. Remember the Founding Fathers were considered criminals by the British Parliment, should they have stopped because they didnt have any legal standing against the Britsh?

>>34369774
Suppressing insurrections is actually mentioned as a good thing in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, the Founders thought that a "free state" whatever that's supposed to mean, had the authority to forcibly suppress rebellions.

>>34367965
>why does the Constitution explicitly authorize the government to crush insurrections?

This shouldn't be surprising. The government would find a way to rationalize crushing insurrections even if it weren't codified. That's the way things were for millennia beforehand and the founders knew it. The 2nd amendment is the answer to this tendency, not the other way around.

>>34369798
>If unalienable rights have no authority in case law, then they really aren't unalienable right?
I don't know of any right the Court has said was unalienable. Most of the time, the Court says that certain state interests override individual rights. I certainly don't agree with that, but it's the nature of judicial activism.

>>34369798
>Legal standing isn't something of pure objectivity. Remember the Founding Fathers were considered criminals by the British Parliment, should they have stopped because they didnt have any legal standing against the Britsh?
It depends on whether the question is one of law or morality. Certainly, the Revolution was a criminal act at the time. Morally, I am inclined to say that the Revolution was at least partly justified, given how brutal the British Empire was at the time.

>>34369828
The militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is an instrument of state power, not rebellion. You have to remember that at this time, states were under threat of invasion by native tribes and rebellion by slaves. Militias served to crush them both. There are plenty of good reasons why the people should be allowed to own firearms, but the 2nd Amendment isn't one of them.

>>34369838
>but it's the nature of judicial activism.
Its also the nature of the people to fight against oppression

>depends on whether the question is one of law or morality
The two arent mutually exclusive. the world isn't black and white and to simply look at whether rebellions are objectively right by a certain measurement is wrong.

>given how brutal the British Empire was at the time
A lot, if not all, of loyalists would have disagreed

>>34369920
>Loyalist

It's pronounced "traitor" anon.

File: PitchCapping.jpg (26KB, 250x365px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 250x365px

>>34369920
>A lot, if not all, of loyalists would have disagreed
And they would have been wrong. Just a few decades after the American Revolution, the Irish fought a war for independence of their own. The British tortured the Irish in ghastly ways, including by melting hot tar onto their heads so they could tear their scalps off.

>>34369858
>but the 2nd Amendment isn't one of them.
Ok, we should repeal it then.

>>34369971
You don't need to repeal it. Since there's no militia to speak of anymore (the National Guard doesn't count), it really doesn't make a difference whether you have a 2nd Amendment or not. States that want gun control will still find ways to enact it, and the courts are too lazy to do anything about it.

>>34369993
>Since there's no militia to speak of anymore
there is in the strictly legal sense as decided by court precedence

>>34370085
Yeah, but practically speaking, a bunch of fat /k/ommandos and even fatter fudds are extremely unlikely to be called up to serve as minutemen. The standing army has kinda taken that role over since WW1.

>>>/pol/

>>34369957
>potato niggers
>people

>>34367965
>then why does the Constitution explicitly authorize the government to crush insurrections?
Because it was influenced by (((Hamilton))), the same honorary kike that put down the Whiskey Rebellion, ending the American dream

should have strung him up from a tree

>>34369338
Woodrow Wilson was worse.
Sedition act of 1918.

Lincoln paved the way for evil men like Woodrow, though.

>>34370345
The Irish helped build America, and we might not have gotten a trans continental railroad without them.

The Irish are easily more human than the British "people", and their views on tyranny and rebellion coincide with our own.

File: consider the following desu.jpg (139KB, 1448x916px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1448x916px

Because, simply put, there are good rebels and bad rebels. If a bunch of Muslims start an insurrection in America so they can enact sharia law, then I'd expect the government to fight them. And if/when i end up having to revolt against the government, I'd expect it to fight me as well. Nobody in their right mind expects the government to simply lie over and die when a revolution rolls around.

It's not unusual or strange that the government has the right to fight rebels. What is revolutionary is that the people have the right to fight back.

Does anyone really expect the government to say "Ok, you can have control of the nation now, because the Constitution told us we have to?" Inherent in government is the callous disregard for any limit on its power. It's near impossible to actually get the government to abide by reasonable and simple restrictions of its power, such as "Congress shall not establish a religion, nor prohibit the free excersise thereof," so would the government ever abide by a restriction like "Congress shall relinquish control of the government to whatever group screams and threatens the most?"

File: 1479590797145.png (36KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 429x410px

>>34370345
>British "people" still thinking they are welcome on /k/
Do it again, Provos!

>>34367965
There is nothing in the language of the 2A that specifies arming the citizenry to oppose a tyrannical government. That rhetoric comes from The Federalist Papers.

The right of the individual to bear arms is a holdover of common law for the purpose of self-defense. That's why it's referred to as "The" right instead of "A" right (as in, it was an existing right before the Constitution, and isn't granted by the Consitution itself. The Constitution just protects it)

This thread's pretty civil, nice work everyone.

>>34370162
>extremely unlikely to be called up
I think you're misunderstanding what scenario the militia would play, it's essentially everyone (militia) + NG + standing army = military. If tanks are rolling through your hometown and you decide to turn Main St. into a long motherfucking IED then, legally, you have every right to do so because you're part of the Constitutionally-recognized militia. Anyone who wants to hold you accountable for that and still maintain the guise of legality has to treat you like a POW, because you're acting as what you are: local militia defending his home.

It's a legal recognition for a natural phenomena, if the occupying force does actually have legit court proceeding you can flat-out say that you're a United States Citizen, a member of the Militia, and therefore obligated to ensure the safety and security of a Free State.

You're legally no different than any rifleman in uniform.

>>34372411
But that's assuming an invading or insurrectionist force will honor our legal system. which has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

If anything, it just covers your ass if the US Gov wins the war and someone has evidence that you may or may not have fought ungentlemanly in defense of your nation, should the administration in power after the fact try to make you a scapegoat.

>>34372552
to add: This would be immensely important in a situation like post-WWII Yugoslavia, where many factions playing both sides of power had a credible claim to the continuity of government. That's why the American Midwest is home to the Cetnik diaspora, after all.

>>34372552
>that's assuming an invading or insurrectionist force will honor our legal system
>snowballs chance in hell of happening
Congratulations, you've completely miss the point.

No, invasions rarely work out if the local population doesn't agree that it's okay that foreigners with guns have a real good reason to be there. Every single time the USA has put troops on the ground we've cited legal reasons for it, the Soviets did it, Nazi Germany did it, even Imperial Japan had legal mumbo jumbo supporting it's decision to go into China. Otherwise you're Genghis Khan, you're a barbaric piece of shit, ergo nobody should support your presence and the local insurrection balloons out of control.

There's a reason why Iraqi Army soldiers weren't sent to Gitmo despite resisting the 2003 invasion, they had every legal right to defend themselves. Insurgents? That's different, they had no legal right. They're not enemy soldiers, they're not subject to the same rules that the USA agrees to when we go into fight. This is an internationally-recognized set of rules, violating them constitutes a war crime and yes it would make everyone's lives harder.

So no, there isn't a "snowballs chance in hell."

>>34372605
>where many factions playing both sides of power had a credible claim to the continuity of government
I must also add that when we went into that part of the world nobody was treated like dirt and summarily executed for being a partisan. Instead they were enemy soldiers despite the complete lack of authority some of the factions had for being there, even though we didn't recognize their legal justification for doing ____ we still recognized that they recognized their justification.

We also legally prosecuted people for war crimes, and you know what? Nobody said boo about it precisely because it was done like that.

>>34371980
>>34372007
>hurr durr if you don't like the Irish you're obviously British
Or maybe we're Americans sick of plastic fucking paddies harping on about their stupid heritage and using it as a shitty excuse to get plastered on St. Paddies day. Then they turn around and support the IRA and affiliated terrorist groups without even reading into the fact that these groups are essentially communist. You soulless ginger fucks are a detriment to my country.

File: 1484516517365.jpg (12KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x200px

>>34372835
Oh of COURSE Nigel, why would you ever lie? It's not like you did to France, Poland and India all during the same war, causing the destruction of the former two or anything!
Except you did and you aren't human, you're a tiny chin beady eyed pink skinned hobgoblin.
>Implying I get drunk on St. Patrick's Day
>Implying that even Socialism isn't preferable to British tyranny

>>34367965
>as gun owners so often assert
Anyone who does is ignorant. It's a strawman used by anti-gun. And because their rights are being successfully attacked by the anti-gun people, these ignorant folks have a knee-jerk reaction to try and defend against the logical fallacy.