Not the Same San Fran I used to know

[TreeFrogTrader]

No. Scalia wrote that able bodied and trained citizens are organized they able to defend against tyranny. The tyranny argument is valid within the militia context. Not the individual ownership of a gun. Obviously an individual is not able to withstand tyranny of a nation on their own.

Additionally, a tyrannical government would be without the consent of the people and therefore, not a legal government and not the American government.

As stands under American law, the individual right to bear arms is interpreted to extend in defense of life and property. Which is fine too but as Scalia wrote can obviously be limited.

No. Scalia wrote that able bodied and trained citizens are organized they able to defend against tyranny. The tyranny argument is valid within the militia context. Not the individual ownership of a gun. Obviously an individual is not able to withstand tyranny of a nation on their own.

Additionally, a tyrannical government would be without the consent of the people and therefore, not a legal government and not the American government.

As stands under American law, the individual right to bear arms is interpreted to extend in defense of life and property. Which is fine too but as Scalia wrote can obviously be limited.

Not sure what your "no" goes with. My statement that :"The Framers were not just concerned about foreign governments. They were also concerned about the ability of the citizenry to fend off the American government should it become tyrannical" is a true historical statement.
The anti-federalists had great fear about the citizenry not being armed if the national government should become tyrannical - given their recent experience with the British.

Interpretation- one way or the other of the actual language of the constitution that resulted- does not negate that just because the court has at times given greater weight to the regulated militia element and is now in a phase of giving weight to the individual liberty and self-defense elements. The fact is- just as I said- that many of the framers were concerned about the citizenry being unarmed if the government became tyrannical. It was a factor. I did not say it was the only or the controlling factor.

Scalia's ruling are subject to revision too as go forward. The lefties will want to move away from the individual liberty argument back to the militia argument to make the case that only the government should have guns. And round and round we go. Different interpretation and tea leaf reading on the Second depending on the court and political environment. So to cite Scalia only cites where we are today on not where we were with other interpretations and the past or necessarily in the future.

 

[Cuddles]

No. Scalia wrote that able bodied and trained citizens are organized they able to defend against tyranny. The tyranny argument is valid within the militia context. Not the individual ownership of a gun. Obviously an individual is not able to withstand tyranny of a nation on their own.

Additionally, a tyrannical government would be without the consent of the people and therefore, not a legal government and not the American government.

As stands under American law, the individual right to bear arms is interpreted to extend in defense of life and property. Which is fine too but as Scalia wrote can obviously be limited.

I disagree. The reading of the 2nd very clearly states a militia of the people to protect a free state from tyranny. The rebellion was made of the continental army (regulars) and local militias so the language isn't ambiguous. An armed force in the care of the state is by definition compromised in the task if they follow a figurehead which is what the redcoats were to begin with....so the intent is "if we have to do this shit again, we better be locked and loaded".

Scalia really did fuck up with ignoring the "well-regulated" part though.

edit: nvmnd; bad read, I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[Cuddles]

Walmart closing 4 Chicago stores, blaming millions in annual losses
"The simplest explanation is that collectively our Chicago stores have not been profitable since we opened the first one nearly 17 years ago -- these stores lose tens of millions of dollars a year, and their annual losses nearly doubled in just the last five years," Walmart said in a statement.

how is this relevant to the thread?

 

[Innervoice]

We are facing tyranny by inner city thugs so yeah, guns are warranted.

 

[Innervoice]

how is this relevant to the thread?

Spoiled entitled inner city thugs with no impulse control are victimizing Walmart so walmart is saying “ screw you” and closing stores in those area’s.

 

[Cuddles]

Spoiled entitled inner city thugs with no impulse control are victimizing Walmart so walmart is saying “ screw you” and closing stores in those area’s.

nowhere does it say the losses were from Walmart being "victimized" for 17 yrs.

 

[UsualName]

I disagree. The reading of the 2nd very clearly states a militia of the people to protect a free state from tyranny. The rebellion was made of the continental army (regulars) and local militias so the language isn't ambiguous. An armed force in the care of the state is by definition compromised in the task if they follow a figurehead which is what the redcoats were to begin with....so the intent is "if we have to do this shit again, we better be locked and loaded".

Scalia really did fuck up with ignoring the "well-regulated" part though.

So obviously I disagree with Scalia’s opinions. However, his rulings are the law of the land and whether we like it or not it is the Supreme law of the land.

 

[UsualName]

Not sure what your "no" goes with. My statement that :"The Framers were not just concerned about foreign governments. They were also concerned about the ability of the citizenry to fend off the American government should it become tyrannical" is a true historical statement.
The anti-federalists had great fear about the citizenry not being armed if the national government should become tyrannical - given their recent experience with the British.

Interpretation- one way or the other of the actual language of the constitution that resulted- does not negate that just because the court has at times given greater weight to the regulated militia element and is now in a phase of giving weight to the individual liberty and self-defense elements. The fact is- just as I said- that many of the framers were concerned about the citizenry being unarmed if the government became tyrannical. It was a factor. I did not say it was the only or the controlling factor.

Scalia's ruling are subject to revision too as go forward. The lefties will want to move away from the individual liberty argument back to the militia argument to make the case that only the government should have guns. And round and round we go. Different interpretation and tea leaf reading on the Second depending on the court and political environment. So to cite Scalia only cites where we are today on not where we were with other interpretations and the past or necessarily in the future.

A couple of issues is why I said no. To be fair the point I made about militias was to differentiate that the second amendment has now been expanded beyond militias to an individual right to self defense beyond the security of a free state. It’s an important legal distinction.

The second point was technically the American government cannot be tyrannical because a government without the consent of the people would not legally be the American government. To expand on this, because we went through this with Trump’s attempt to usurp the consent of the people, had Trump prevailed in turning over the election then he would have actually been a tyrannical government and not the American government which would have legally been led by Biden, even if Biden were not in control of the government.

Even further, just because you disagree with the American government, which has the consent of the people, it is not tyrannical.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The second point was technically the American government cannot be tyrannical because a government without the consent of the people would not legally be the American government.

Okay, you are getting repetitive. I got that point the first time around, or rather I got the point you were trying to make.

You are making a legal argument as to why a large number of the anti-federalist framers had no basis for classifying certain potential American governments as tyrannical or have the need or perceived need to rise up against them.

The fact of the matter is that they did and that they had plenty of experience with the Brits to fear that central American government could become tyrannical- or that it was not an impossibility anyway- and that they should preserve the means of rising up against that by providing for an armed citizenry.

You dont like that. And you don't think they had a legal basis for that reaction. But that is neither here nor there. I merely stated that many of them did. And that is a historical fact. Your not liking it does not alter history. You can argue that court decisions did not seize upon that as one the foundations of certain 2nd amendment ruling and I do not argue against that. But, again, that does not make my statement about the anti-federalist position and concern about tyrannical governments go away. My statement stands.

This is a lot of 2nd amendment for a San Francisco thread. Some is okay but not a full replay of the other 2nd amendment threads.

 

[Cuddles]

A couple of issues is why I said no. To be fair the point I made about militias was to differentiate that the second amendment has now been expanded beyond militias to an individual right to self defense beyond the security of a free state. It’s an important legal distinction.

The second point was technically the American government cannot be tyrannical because a government without the consent of the people would not legally be the American government. To expand on this, because we went through this with Trump’s attempt to usurp the consent of the people, had Trump prevailed in turning over the election then he would have actually been a tyrannical government and not the American government which would have legally been led by Biden, even if Biden were not in control of the government.

Even further, just because you disagree with the American government, which has the consent of the people, it is not tyrannical.

problem is, the military would have abdicated their "foreign and domestic" oath and sided w/the oppressor, hence the need for a citizens' militia.