[Pants-of-dog]

It should be quite clear, don't you think? You're barking at the wrong tree here. Furthermore, it's also clear from both the contemporary records and the US military history of the early 19th century that the 2nd Amendment did have real-world military relevance going well beyond simply race relations between Americans and even between Americans and Indigenous living outside the US (as it was defined at the time). And it's also known that it even had real-world military relevance after, since the armed populace of the US was one factor that deterred Mexico from joining Germany in waging war against the US during WWI.

If you are not going to clearly write out your argument, I am not going to put it any more effort than you have.

[Rich]

I do feel I want to give some support to the spirt if not the letter of what @Pants-of-dog is saying. Both dark skinned African slavery and the infiltration, domination and ethnic cleansing of indigenous lands were very much privatised affairs, needing little input from the Federal or State governments. A powerfully armed citizenry was extremely valuable for both of these endeavours.

[wat0n]

I do feel I want to give some support to the spirt if not the letter of what @Pants-of-dog is saying. Both dark skinned African slavery and the infiltration, domination and ethnic cleansing of indigenous lands were very much privatised affairs, needing little input from the Federal or State governments. A powerfully armed citizenry was extremely valuable for both of these endeavours.

Only to some extent, in practice there was both Federal and State intervention in both affairs.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, federal and state authorities intervened to help the extermination, massacre, ethnic cleansing, slavery et cetera.

[annatar1914]

@late , you're so full of shit it's unreal, a lot of slander and blather to distract from your simple unwillingness to be honest and answer my question; do you believe in the people's right to revolt against tyranny, yes or no?

1) First, the American military has never been involved in a coup. You keep trying to move the goalposts... The South attacked us at the beginning of the Civil War. Defending yourself is not political. You're still lying.

Deciding to fight back when the South did attack is a political decision. Most forts in the South were surrendered without a shot, while Fort Sumpter was not. Personal attacks will not lend weight to your position.

2) We went over this, Washington had Steuben turn his fighting force into an army. Militias are no match for a determined army.

Steuben made a regular fighting force a better one, but it remains a fact that they weren't Militia. And, you might want to rethink your attitude on Militia if you were to look at history, at Afghanistan for example.

3) As I pointed out already, the militias were intended to serve a number of purposes. The primary one was to slow down an invader long enough to raise an army. If you had actually studied the history, the way the Founding Fathers reversed themselves, after we had a government to protect, is startling. That doesn't negate what they said earlier, but it puts it in an entirely different context.

Wrong. The primary aim of the Militia is to overthrow a tyrannical regime, revolution.

4) You may have noticed, I am not shy.

You aren't shy, but you have a habit of debating in bad faith by stooping to personal attacks.

If I wanted to talk about ending the 2nd, I would. That there is no chance of that happening would not deter me. This will eventually be resolved in court.

Again, quite wrong.

Only force determines questions of force, ultimately.

[late]

1) Deciding to fight back when the South did attack is a political decision. Most forts in the South were surrendered without a shot, while Fort Sumter was not.


2) Steuben made a regular fighting force a better one, but it remains a fact that they weren't Militia. And, you might want to rethink your attitude on Militia if you were to look at history, at Afghanistan for example.

3) Wrong. The primary aim of the Militia is to overthrow a tyrannical regime, revolution.

4) Only force determines questions of force, ultimately.

1) A military attack is an act of war. You can call that political, but it's still war. Last time I looked, there weren't many cannon inside Congress... The underlying issue is the recent coup. Earlier, when the head of the Pentagon appeared at an inappropriate suppression of dissent, he apologised to the entire country. They have a tradition of staying out of politics as much as is possible.

2) George Washington wrote: In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”

Washington fought an uphill battle for military order until Friedrich, Freiherr von Steuben arrived at General Washington’s encampment at Valley Forge on February 23, 1778."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... r-problems

Steuben turned a military force into a proper army. You are playing dumb word games there, or you don't know what you're talking about.

You brought up Afghanistan. If Afghanistan was next to Maryland, and we brought the full might of the military to bear, they would be annihilated, and it would not take long...

3) You are lying here, because I had already posted this: " early Americans agreed that they had a right to arms, but in discussing that right, gave different understandings of its purposes and value. Many saw it as enabling a fundamental natural right of self-defense,: some saw it as enabling a militia system,43 and some saw it as ensuring an armed citizenry that-whether enrolled in militia units or not-would serve as a counterbalance to government abuses.44 The relative balance of these views follows a timeline. Prior to the Revolution, natural rights and self-defense overwhelmingly dominated the conversation.45 From 1775 to the framing of the Constitution, when conflict and state-building were the issues of the day, natural rights, militia, and armed people were all in play.46 By the framing of the Bill of Rights and in the following decades, natural right and self-defense returned to dominance."
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=wmborj

4) We have had Rule of Law for well over two centuries.

Could you be slightly less pathetic? All you're really doing here is repeating idiotic lies.

[annatar1914]

1) A military attack is an act of war. You can call that political, but it's still war.

''War'', as Von Clauswitz said, is ''the continuation of politics by other means'', or even more delightful, Lenin's paraphrase; ''Politics is the continuation of war by other means''. Had the Federal Army refused Lincoln's command to resist the Southern takeover of Federal property in the South and indeed, to not oppose the secession of the states, there would have been little that President Lincoln could have done.

Last time I looked, there weren't many cannon inside Congress... The underlying issue is the recent coup. Earlier, when the head of the Pentagon appeared at an inappropriate suppression of dissent, he apologised to the entire country. They have a tradition of staying out of politics as much as is possible.

That's how you're framing your story of course, that ''it'' was a ''Coup'', but then you weren't of the same thinking when it came to your fake ''Leftists'' in ''Antifa'' and ''BLM'' I'm sure when they were engaged in insurrection and sedition last summer....Anyway, it's a dodge against having to say whether or not you can affirm a right (or even duty) for a people to ever rebel, because if you said ''yes'' or ''no'' for that matter, you know what would happen next, don't you?

2) George Washington wrote: In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”

Yes, Washington frequently complained about the Militia, but again, they weren't his Continental Army troops either...Those mentioned by him as ''other troops''.

Washington fought an uphill battle for military order until Friedrich, Freiherr von Steuben arrived at General Washington’s encampment at Valley Forge on February 23, 1778."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... r-problems

Steuben turned a military force into a proper army. You are playing dumb word games there, or you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about (having come from a long history of military service in my family), which is the fact that Von Steuben (who in keeping with the 'pop history' of today you're a huge fan of, right? ) wasn't the miracle worker with the men at Valley Forge you're making him out to be, Washington himself was. And again, the Continentals weren't Militia, most of them were at home during that time, many enlistments having expired, etc...

You brought up Afghanistan. If Afghanistan was next to Maryland, and we brought the full might of the military to bear, they would be annihilated, and it would not take long...

Bullshit. Proximity, all other things being equal, would not change the military dynamic. Ask the British about that, them having the Afghans as neighbors to British India and all...

3) You are lying here, because I had already posted this: " early Americans agreed that they had a right to arms, but in discussing that right, gave different understandings of its purposes and value. Many saw it as enabling a fundamental natural right of self-defense,: some saw it as enabling a militia system,43 and some saw it as ensuring an armed citizenry that-whether enrolled in militia units or not-would serve as a counterbalance to government abuses.44 The relative balance of these views follows a timeline. Prior to the Revolution, natural rights and self-defense overwhelmingly dominated the conversation.45 From 1775 to the framing of the Constitution, when conflict and state-building were the issues of the day, natural rights, militia, and armed people were all in play.46 By the framing of the Bill of Rights and in the following decades, natural right and self-defense returned to dominance."
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=wmborj

You can quote that all you like (which really isn't germane to the discussion or to the specific point I'm making about the Militia and the Second Amendment) and make personal attacks, it doesn't change the facts. And the fact is that you still haven't stated honestly and with some decent courage whether or not you support or oppose the right of the people to engage in revolution, a straight yes or no... None of the things mentioned in your quote are exclusive of one another, for one thing.

4) We have had Rule of Law for well over two centuries.

Yes, and the Second Amendment/Militia is part of that ''rule of law'', or rather, the restoration of the rule of law should a foreign or domestic enemy ever try to enslave the people, in any land, anytime. Again, do you support the people's right of revolution, yes or no?

Could you be slightly less pathetic? All you're really doing here is repeating idiotic lies.

What is ''pathetic''? What are '' idiotic lies'', exactly? You're wrapped up a little tightly in personalizing your exchanges with other people here, it appears. Perhaps you should rather try to actually prove where I am wrong, instead of just dogmatically affirming it or anathemizing me...

[ingliz]

do you support the people's right of revolution, yes or no?

Of course not. No government can.

[annatar1914]

Of course not. No government can.

@ingliz ;

Are you a government?

Is @late , a government?

I'm asking persons if they support the people's right to engage in revolution. Either one supports it or one does not.

But the fact is, when you read the text;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The meaning is clear when you focus on the bolded part, that the US Constitution being an American revolutionary document does indeed enshrine the right of the people (personally armed and organized in a Militia) to overthrow ''tyranny''.

It's more radical a document than most people realize, or want to realize that is.

[Pants-of-dog]

The founding fathers did not support a universal right to revolution against tyranny.

This is why they added the “well regulated militia” bit: to put down slave insurrections.

[wat0n]

That also doesn't follow from the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves in the backdrop of Shays' rebellion. Sam Adams was particularly harsh.

[Pants-of-dog]

For writings from the founding fathers that supports my point, Madison is the best example.

[wat0n]

And actually, it's not just writings but their actions too. Washington worked hard to get the US Constitution written and for the founding of the Federal Government, and as POTUS put down the Whiskey Rebellion using military force. A rebellion that had nothing to do with slavery, by the way.

Seriously, what are you talking about @annatar1914?

[late]

''War'', as Von Clauswitz said, is ''the continuation of politics by other means'', or even more delightful, Lenin's paraphrase; ''Politics is the continuation of war by other means''. Had the Federal Army refused Lincoln's command to resist the Southern takeover of Federal property in the South and indeed, to not oppose the secession of the states, there would have been little that President Lincoln could have done.

You are a really good liar, but...

That's still not the army making a decision to get involved in the politics of the situation.

There was a long slide towards war before Lincoln became president. The military had nothing to do with that. Part of that was a political fight between slavers and abolitionists that just kept growing in intensity. The only thing the military did, that I know of, was abandon Fort Moultrie.

So, instead of shoveling more crap at me, and the gang, how about you produce what political actions the military took before the war...

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/po ... civil-war/

[late]

And actually, it's not just writings but their actions too. Washington worked hard to get the US Constitution written and for the founding of the Federal Government, and as POTUS put down the Whiskey Rebellion using military force. A rebellion that had nothing to do with slavery, by the way.

Seriously, what are you talking about @annatar1914?

I think it was the 1980s... A former business major looked at Alexander Hamilton's books. He was double book keeping, and the real books showed a pattern of actions designed to stir rebellion. That stayed hidden for over 200 years.

Speaking of rebelling, Shay's Rebellion is one of my favorite moments in American history. The Boston Burghers were basically bleeding the state dry to benefit themselves.

Washington, and the other kids likely knew that. But their only thought was to put down the rebellion. So much for taking care of the people that had served under him...

[annatar1914]

You are a really good liar, but...

That's still not the army making a decision to get involved in the politics of the situation.

There was a long slide towards war before Lincoln became president. The military had nothing to do with that. Part of that was a political fight between slavers and abolitionists that just kept growing in intensity. The only thing the military did, that I know of, was abandon Fort Moultrie.

So, instead of shoveling more crap at me, and the gang, how about you produce what political actions the military took before the war...

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/po ... civil-war/

@late , They did a lot more than abandon Fort Moultrie. In fact, I believe fewer states would have succeeded in their secession drives had the US military been less hand-in-glove with the Slave Power, including their then commander in chief, Pres. James Buchanan.

Ah, what's the use with such scoundrels, being that if you folks believed in much of anything, it's that your side should have the weaponry and your enemies should not, if possible?

To ask the question is to answer it. The divide is too great, your fear and hatred of the masses is too great.

[annatar1914]

The founding fathers did not support a universal right to revolution against tyranny.

This is why they added the “well regulated militia” bit: to put down slave insurrections.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[annatar1914]

And actually, it's not just writings but their actions too. Washington worked hard to get the US Constitution written and for the founding of the Federal Government, and as POTUS put down the Whiskey Rebellion using military force. A rebellion that had nothing to do with slavery, by the way.

Seriously, what are you talking about @annatar1914?

@wat0n ,

It's really simple; the revolutionaries wanted control over the direction of the revolution, and the Federalist faction won out and carried out a coup-de-etat against the 'Articles of Confederation'. Still, founders like Jefferson knew that they had to retain the potential for carrying out popular revolution in the future as a contingency.

Therefore, the second amendment.

[wat0n]

I think it was the 1980s... A former business major looked at Alexander Hamilton's books. He was double book keeping, and the real books showed a pattern of actions designed to stir rebellion. That stayed hidden for over 200 years.

Speaking of rebelling, Shay's Rebellion is one of my favorite moments in American history. The Boston Burghers were basically bleeding the state dry to benefit themselves.

Washington, and the other kids likely knew that. But their only thought was to put down the rebellion. So much for taking care of the people that had served under him...

...Because it was regarded as necessary to be able to have a functioning country. After all, those problems arose precisely because the States had no obligation to actually pay the soldiers what they were owed.

@annatar1914 the Federalists didn't carry out a coup, they were proven right by the developments of the time. Jefferson, the Democrat-republicans and most Americans believed having a standing army in peacetime would lead to tyranny, hence how the 2nd Amendment was worded. It doesn't imply it recognizes a right to overthrow the existing constitutional order.

[late]

To ask the question is to answer it.

Hardly, you didn't answer my question, and after all that crap, concluding you can't is a certainty.

But you really are a very good liar.