[annatar1914]

...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.

@wat0n , no, what the American revolutionaries are saying (and what is implicit in the documents) is that the Militia and the people have the right and the duty to restore the constitutional order should it ever fall under the threat of tyranny. It's not a self-defense issue, unless you consider it a collective self-defense one.

@late ; as for you, I'm beginning to think you unfortunately are suffering a good deal from a malady, and to reply to you would only aggravate your condition. I've seen it before.

[late]

@late ; as for you, I'm beginning to think you unfortunately are suffering a good deal from a malady, and to reply to you would only aggravate your condition. I've seen it before.

And when it's time to cough up the goods, you again have nothing.

I even provided a freaking timeline. You just kept lying.

[annatar1914]

And when it's time to cough up the goods, you again have nothing.

I even provided a freaking timeline. You just kept lying.

What a joke. I didn't think I had to do your work for you, still don't. Fact is, the South had the advantage when it came to the federal military before 1860, especially in the officer corps. The US military was expressively expansionist with regards to America's ''Manifest Destiny''. There's no question that the US military was politically involved, especially considering the numbers of officers who went on to hold office in numerous political positions based almost entire on their record in various adventures.

[late]

What a joke. I didn't think I had to do your work for you, still don't. Fact is, the South had the advantage when it came to the federal military before 1860 especially in the officer corps.

The US military was expressively expansionist with regards to America's ''Manifest Destiny''.

There's no question that the US military was politically involved, especially considering the numbers of officers who went on to hold office in numerous political positions based almost entirely on their record in various adventures.

We're not talking about the South, which tells us you still have nothing...

The country was expansionist... What you need, and do not have, is the military seeking power.

Now you are trying to use the political ambitions of former officers to justify your lie that they were pushing the government around when they were in the military.

Pure troll.

[annatar1914]

We're not talking about the South, which tells us you still have nothing...

The country was expansionist... What you need, and do not have, is the military seeking power.

Now you are trying to use the political ambitions of former officers to justify your lie that they were pushing the government around when they were in the military.

Pure troll.

@late

Yes, you're a pure troll, full of personal goading attacks when clearly checked and constantly shifting the goalposts when attempting to divert your opponent from the issues in question. You and @Pants-of-dog could give each other lessons in onanistic blather and pointless parsing. It's real simple, once again; do you or do you not support the right of the people to carry out revolution?

And if so, explain how the second amendment, since you oppose it and think it ''obsolete'', does not provide for a ready made solution to the problem of revolutionaries on the eve of a military struggle.

[ingliz]

to carry out revolution

Nobody can stop you from trying.

Does that mean you have a right to revolt? No.

In practice, a person's right to revolt extends precisely to the point where the government claims its right to stop you.

1-1=0

[Abatis]

One part that strikes me is that it says the right "shall not be infringed." This follows the language of the Declaration of Independence and other amendments in that the law doesn't grant you this right.

I agree; the wording of the 2ndA presupposes the existence of the right. It is recognizing and securing a right that was already possessed by the people and retained by them, without conditioning or qualification.

That also gets into the debate concerning what is a militia.

There are actually three militias in foundational American Constitutional theory.

First is the "people at large", those citizens capable of bearing arms, considered by Madison to be 25% of the population; a subset are those citizens "with arms in their hands". Understand, these are private citizens, the "people" that the 2nd Amendment protects. Madison said those armed citizens would outnumber (opposed was the word he used) the nation's standing army by a ratio of 17 armed citizens for each soldier (Federalist 46).

Second are those men who are deemed liable to perform militia duty under law and obligated to enroll (and provide themselves an appropriate firearm). In the Militia Act of 1792, this was "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen . . . who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years". This is the "organized" militia of Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16; nothing they do as enrolled militia members is considered a "right", it is all, every bit of it --even arming themselves-- directed by law. They are not "the people" protected by the 2nd Amendment or even the 5th Amendment; if in actual service and they commit a crime, they do not enjoy 5th Amendment protection, they are prosecuted under the UCMJ.

The third militia are "such part of" a state's militia employed in the service of the United States. It is those militia who are "governed" by Congress and has the President as Commander in Chief.

The point of this is that almost everyone interprets the second amendment how they want to interpret it, and almost no one says I agree with your interpretation; I think it should be changed (not even gonna get into courts legislating via interpretation). . . . But I feel like even a modest level of gun control is counter to the spirit of the second amendment.

But now you are caught in a dichotomy. If the right pre-exists the Constitution, it can't be said to be granted by the words of the 2nd Amendment thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for is existence. Accepting that you are forced to accept that altering the words or even completely removing the 2nd Amendment would not alter or extinguish the right to arms, anymore than removing Newton's law of universal gravitation from physics books would alter or eliminate gravity (too bad, think how many lives could be saved if nobody ever died from falling!).

Additionally, the second amendment doesn't take more dangerous modern firearms into account since they didn't exist.

"We the People" don't possess the right to keep and bear arms because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says we are 'allowed' to have . . . "We the People" possess he right to arms because "We the People" never conferred any power in the Constitution to allow the federal government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government* to exercise powers it was never granted.

*and now state governments, see McDonald v Chicago, (2010)

Therefore, the second amendment should be repealed or at least amended.

That attempt would bring about some interesting, enlightening debates. The first fatal one would be, do the constitutions of the states even allow their legislatures (or delegates chosen by government officials) to surrender the right to arms of their citizens to the federal government?

I believe my state (Pennsylvania) would be forced to hold its own constitutional convention to give the state government the power to even consider a proposed federal amendment relinquishing the rights of state citizens.

The PA constitution calls out the rights of the citizens before a single power is granted. Article I, Section 21 would need to be repealed and then Section 26 before the state legislature (or any delegates designated by any officer of state government) can consider surrendering PA citizen's right to arms to the federal government, repealing the 2nd Amendment.

[list=]Art I, §21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Art I, §26: "To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."[/list]

Just as a matter of politics, the thought that 38 states would ratify altering or removing the 2nd Amendment is fantasy. Iowa will (in July 2021) join the green states in the map below, becoming a "constitutional carry" state; no permit is required to carry a gun concealed for personal self defense.

[Pants-of-dog]

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

As long as we agree that many of the founding fathers saw this amendment as way of stopping revolutions against tyranny.

[Abatis]

The amendment does include the term "well-regulated". Lack of gun control goes against that term and is, arguably, against the amendment as well as undermining the moral citizens' rights to bear arms.

You effectively want to have the phease "well-regulated" removed from the amendment, and apparently you are in favour of mob rule.

As used in the 2nd Amendment, the term "well regulated" is only a descriptor of the militia's expertness and cohesion as a fighting force -- AKA, the Art of War. The term "well regulated" has no association with "being under regulations", that is a modern misconstruction, applied to the phrase in service of a political agenda.

While Congress certainly is empowered (Art. I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16) to write regulations for the state militia's organization, training, command structure etc., and those regulations, if implemented and practiced could result in a "well regulated militia", it isn't simply the regulations that make the militia so.

In the 2nd Amendment, the term "well regulated" can be removed and replaced by, "properly functioning and in operational order and condition" and no change to the 2nd Amendment's meaning or the understanding (of the people of the time) would result.

.

[Abatis]

I also believe that the order of the amendments is significant. The first and second amendments aren't the first and second amendments by chance; they represent the most fundamental rights.

The numbering is a product of Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments and his desire to insert the new amendments into the Articles and Sections they modified and Madison specified precisely their placements between specific clauses. Madison's insertion order was dictated by the outline and order of the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment was actually the fourth article of amendment out of 12, when transmitted to the states for ratification. The states declined ratifying the first and second articles and the third and fourth moved up to become the 1st and 2nd Amendments (and so on) upon ratification. Congress rejected Madison's insertion proposal and the Amendments were of course tacked on at the end, becoming the 10 provisions of the Bill of Rights.

In contrast, amendments nine and ten are like "catch-alls."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were authored by Madison and codified Federalist argument in opposition to adding a bill of rights to the US Constitution. The Federalists (which Madison was) believed adding a bill of rights was dangerous and absurd because the Constitution was a charter of specific powers with the people retaining everything they did not confer to the government.

The Federalists argued, why declare things shall not be done when no power was granted to allow the government to act against those interests?

The Federalists also argued it was impossible to list all the rights of the people and the simple attempt to do so was dangerous because the government, in the future, might think that those specific listed rights listed, were the full complement of rights possessed by the people . . . That whatever wasn't excepted out, was thrown into the control of government.

Of course he Federalists "lost" that argument and a Bill of Rights was added, but the 9th and 10th Amendments stand as an affirmation of Federalist conception of the nature of rights under the Constitution. They are rules for constitutional interpretation and application:

AMENDMENT IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Abatis]

The American Constitution, in fact, is based on a fiction - that a thing we can call "natural law" exists, and that it grants certain inalienable "rights" to individuals.

That statement is a giant discontinuity. The principle of unalienable rights is that there are certain rights that a human can not surrender to the care and control of another human. Saying that a government can "grant" you an un/inalienable right, is logically and philosophically incoherent.

Once this fiction is allowed, then it becomes possible to construct an entire legal system and governing framework upon it. And that system works remarkably well, despite being founded on ideas which actually don't make very much sense when examined on their own merits. The idea of "natural law" and "inalienable rights" is a useful fiction, akin to what Plato called "noble lies".

In the real world, of course, one's "right to life" is guaranteed not by some putative "natural law" or 'Supreme Being', but by the state apparatus; and is ultimately enforced by physical violence, or the threat thereof.

The realization of un/inalienable rights is not universal. While it is argued they exist in every person, they are not enforced for everyone, in every situation, everywhere. While you are correct that one's unalienable right to life is enforced by a threat or real use of force, you misapply who is applying / threatening the force.

"We the People" have contractually bound the government to treat our rights as un/inalienable and only the people enforce the contract and own the rights of the contract's dissolution.

So I'll just lay out my understanding of the entire concept, do with it what you will . . .

There are no un/inalienable rights between individuals (master / slave or criminal / victim) nor are there un/inalienable rights in natural events (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.). Nor are they at all applicable to life forms incapable of reason (AKA, animals) . . . The concept of un/inalienable rights has a very limited and specific application . . .

The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the Lockean principle that ALL power originally resides in the people coming together and choosing to form a government. This is actualized in the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. The people empower government by surrendering certain powers in a limited, delegated fashion and they retain everything not conferred.

This established the principle that government cannot legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.

The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life or property of another. This is the basic principle that condemned Monarchy as an illegitimate form of government (see the Declaration of Independence).

Un/inalienable rights is a concept focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care of his life, liberty or fruits of his labor. Unalienable also denotes legitimacy of action for government because no legitimate government would ever accept such a surrender by a citizen.

Inalienable really has nothing to do with whether a particular right can be violated by government . . . Of course it can, that's a given. The concept again is centered on legitimacy; when an inalienable right is violated, that government is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment, -- it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else -- thus it has lost its legitimacy to govern.

That illegitimate government is then subject to the people's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and government can no longer claim the protections of the contract (prosecuting sedition and treason). The people's next move is to retake the powers originally conferred -- by force if necessary (a right recognized and codified in the 2nd Amendment).

"Un/inalienable rights" is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Once the government's powers have been established (and strictly limited) by a constitution, un/inalienable rights become relatively inactive because their status has unalterably been codified.

The only concern is whether they are being violated and the only enforcers of violations are the people and the only remedy is the people rescinding consent to be governed by the usurpers . . . By voting first, and then more extreme measures when the government becomes entirely corrupt.

In the final analysis, one must understand that "un/inalienable rights" is utterly meaningless if there isn't a government being established to NOT surrender rights to. The concept has zero significance if the people do not have inherent rights and the inviolate right to choose which ones to surrender or retain.

It makes no sense to apply the term or use it in the context of people living under say, a monarchy or dictatorship or other authoritarian rule . . . It is at its core a refutation of all authoritarian rule and an affirmation of the right of human self-determination.

Even more nonsensical is a modern enlightened socialist/collectivist discussing the term -- only for the purpose of denying the existence of un/inalienable rights (well DUH) . . .

.

[Abatis]

I've always found this debate between jus naturalists and jus positivists to be pretty silly. Yes, if the state apparatus does not protect you then you effectively don't have a right to life or security, . . .

You actually don't, at least in the way nanny-state supporters pretend!

It is a fundamental principle in American law that government has no duty to protect any individual citizen. You have no right to be safe or be kept safe (even if say the police know of an imminent threat to your life) or even more ludicrous, to "feel" safe.

The only exception to that rule is when government action has removed your ability to act on your own behalf (in self defense). Government is responsible for your "safety" if you are in some sort of custodial condition like involuntary care or arrest / detainment.

We will need to see how this lack of duty to protect shakes out in New York City with the city ending qualified immunity. The city could be opening itself up to being sued by every crime victim suffering harm at the hands of criminals . . .

Back to your original statement, for now, your "right to life" is an immunity for you claim when defending your life, to kill another person in justifiable self defense.

Whether the right becomes an enforceable right against government for failing to protect you, I guess we will find out. What a Pandora's Box that will be!

.

[wat0n]

You actually don't, at least in the way nanny-state supporters pretend!

It is a fundamental principle in American law that government has no duty to protect any individual citizen. You have no right to be safe or be kept safe (even if say the police know of an imminent threat to your life) or even more ludicrous, to "feel" safe.

The only exception to that rule is when government action has removed your ability to act on your own behalf (in self defense). Government is responsible for your "safety" if you are in some sort of custodial condition like involuntary care or arrest / detainment.

We will need to see how this lack of duty to protect shakes out in New York City with the city ending qualified immunity. The city could be opening itself up to being sued by every crime victim suffering harm at the hands of criminals . . .

Back to your original statement, for now, your "right to life" is an immunity for you claim when defending your life, to kill another person in justifiable self defense.

Whether the right becomes an enforceable right against government for failing to protect you, I guess we will find out. What a Pandora's Box that will be!

.

Indeed, the government has no duty to protect any specific individual but the idea goes beyond just that. There is the general idea that the Government is expected to create the conditions so that the law - such as those barring most homicides - is upheld. Just because there is no specific duty to any individual it doesn't mean there is no duty to defend the lives of the public at large.

[Potemkin]

That statement is a giant discontinuity. The principle of unalienable rights is that there are certain rights that a human can not surrender to the care and control of another human. Saying that a government can "grant" you an un/inalienable right, is logically and philosophically incoherent.

I did not say that the government grants these "inalienable" rights, but that the concept of "natural law" does so. And, as a matter of historical record, humans can and do surrender these supposedly "inalienable" rights to other humans. In times of famine, people can and do sell themselves or even their entire family into slavery, to avoid starving to death.

The realization of un/inalienable rights is not universal. While it is argued they exist in every person, they are not enforced for everyone, in every situation, everywhere. While you are correct that one's unalienable right to life is enforced by a threat or real use of force, you misapply who is applying / threatening the force.

If most people had to enforce their inalienable rights themselves, then half the population of the USA would immediately become the slaves of the other half.

"We the People" have contractually bound the government to treat our rights as un/inalienable and only the people enforce the contract and own the rights of the contract's dissolution.

The people cannot legally dissolve that contract. If, say, a referendum were held in which 67% of the electorate voted to abolish the American Constitution, could they legally do so? I would suggest not. The Constitution, being the cornerstone of the American legal system, cannot therefore itself legally be abolished. That would require another revolution, and revolutions by definition are illegal acts.

So I'll just lay out my understanding of the entire concept, do with it what you will . . .

There are no un/inalienable rights between individuals (master / slave or criminal / victim) nor are there un/inalienable rights in natural events (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.). Nor are they at all applicable to life forms incapable of reason (AKA, animals) . . . The concept of un/inalienable rights has a very limited and specific application . . .

The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the Lockean principle that ALL power originally resides in the people coming together and choosing to form a government. This is actualized in the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. The people empower government by surrendering certain powers in a limited, delegated fashion and they retain everything not conferred.

This established the principle that government cannot legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.

The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life or property of another. This is the basic principle that condemned Monarchy as an illegitimate form of government (see the Declaration of Independence).

Un/inalienable rights is a concept focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care of his life, liberty or fruits of his labor. Unalienable also denotes legitimacy of action for government because no legitimate government would ever accept such a surrender by a citizen.

Inalienable really has nothing to do with whether a particular right can be violated by government . . . Of course it can, that's a given. The concept again is centered on legitimacy; when an inalienable right is violated, that government is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment, -- it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else -- thus it has lost its legitimacy to govern.

That illegitimate government is then subject to the people's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and government can no longer claim the protections of the contract (prosecuting sedition and treason). The people's next move is to retake the powers originally conferred -- by force if necessary (a right recognized and codified in the 2nd Amendment).

"Un/inalienable rights" is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Once the government's powers have been established (and strictly limited) by a constitution, un/inalienable rights become relatively inactive because their status has unalterably been codified.

The only concern is whether they are being violated and the only enforcers of violations are the people and the only remedy is the people rescinding consent to be governed by the usurpers . . . By voting first, and then more extreme measures when the government becomes entirely corrupt.

In the final analysis, one must understand that "un/inalienable rights" is utterly meaningless if there isn't a government being established to NOT surrender rights to. The concept has zero significance if the people do not have inherent rights and the inviolate right to choose which ones to surrender or retain.

It makes no sense to apply the term or use it in the context of people living under say, a monarchy or dictatorship or other authoritarian rule . . . It is at its core a refutation of all authoritarian rule and an affirmation of the right of human self-determination.

Even more nonsensical is a modern enlightened socialist/collectivist discussing the term -- only for the purpose of denying the existence of un/inalienable rights (well DUH) . . .

.

You've just reiterated a description of the American constitutional arrangement, which presupposes the very ideas which I am disputing.

[Abatis]

I did not say that the government grants these "inalienable" rights, but that the concept of "natural law" does so.

That doesn't help your position. In natural law, when a human is in the original unaltered "state of nature", all rights are possessed by him and can be exercised without limitation because there is no governing force placed on him, nor any consideration for the rights of others. This is the purest state of inherent, unalienable rights and it is the essence of having complete liberty. The primary consideration is self-preservation and the power to pursue and enforce that is framed only by necessity, and is without any limits but one's strength, ability and wits.

When going solo no longer works, when the benefits of combination for mutual defense is recognized and deemed necessary, humans come together and decide to enter/form society. At that point, some of those natural, unlimited inherent rights must be surrendered because now the rights of the others in that society must be respected and one can no longer act with complete autonomy.

Your statement, "The American Constitution, in fact, is based on a fiction - that a thing we can call "natural law" exists, and that it grants certain inalienable "rights" to individuals", remains incoherent. It can't be contested that those rights exist in a state of nature without any need to be "granted". The debate is found in whether the principles of the society being established and the assignment of its powers, (the US Constitution), recognize those rights retained by the members of society and is bound to preserve them.

In the case of the US Constitution, that question is answered in the affirmative.

And, as a matter of historical record, humans can and do surrender these supposedly "inalienable" rights to other humans. In times of famine, people can and do sell themselves or even their entire family into slavery, to avoid starving to death.

But the principle of legitimacy is not preserved in that situation. The governing force is limited because no human possesses the absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life, liberty or property of another.

If most people had to enforce their inalienable rights themselves, then half the population of the USA would immediately become the slaves of the other half.

That is a description of the state of nature; self preservation / protection of rights is the reason why humans enter/form society, for mutual defense. But, as the familiar declaration states, when that society (government) "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".

The people cannot legally dissolve that contract. If, say, a referendum were held in which 67% of the electorate voted to abolish the American Constitution, could they legally do so? I would suggest not. The Constitution, being the cornerstone of the American legal system, cannot therefore itself legally be abolished. That would require another revolution, and revolutions by definition are illegal acts.

SCOTUS back in the earliest period of the nation, spoke of the people being the only entity that, because we gave the Constitution life, possesses the right to give "the death-doing stroke":

"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void." -- VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

You've just reiterated a description of the American constitutional arrangement, which presupposes the very ideas which I am disputing.

Correct. Thank you for acknowledging that I represented the foundational doctrine of the US, even if you dispute it as universal truth. I wanted to establish that we were operating under the same understanding of the principles being discussed and to place it in a single statement for the benefit of all for discussion.

[Abatis]

Indeed, the government has no duty to protect any specific individual but the idea goes beyond just that. There is the general idea that the Government is expected to create the conditions so that the law - such as those barring most homicides - is upheld. Just because there is no specific duty to any individual it doesn't mean there is no duty to defend the lives of the public at large.

That's fine and dandy but your position was, "if the state apparatus does not protect you then you effectively don't have a right to life or security, . . . "

That is an absolutely true statement, that government has chosen to declare its "protection" is fulfilled with a general obligation to society at large, either with judicial decisions or expressly in statute, means that "you", as an individual, effectively don't have an enforceable right to life or security, . . .

California's Government Code §845 is exemplary:

"Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

My primary reason for pointing out this often overlooked principle is law, is anti-gun people often argue incorrectly, that my right to own a gun is trumped by their "right to be safe".

.

[ingliz]

it is the Right of the People

In practice, 'it' is bollocks!

In a revolution, you are lucky if 30% of the population rises. So any government will argue it has a legitimate right of collective self-defense to protect the other 70% from the People.

[Beren]

Who wants gun control in America? They're arming up rapidly, especially Black Americans.

Americans bought a record number of firearms last year. An estimated 5 million people bought their first ever gun between March and August, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade organization, and that number continued to climb throughout the year. Black Americans saw the highest increase in new gun owners of any demographic, the NSSF found, with gun ownership in the group up by a staggering 58.2%.

They seem to prefer Kalashnikovs.

[Beren]

[Potemkin]

In practice, 'it' is bollocks!

In a revolution, you are lucky if 30% of the population rises. So any government will argue it has a legitimate right of collective self-defense to protect the other 70% from the People.

In reality, about half the population neither rise up nor try to defend the status quo; instead they do nothing except wait to see who will win and then side with them. Lol. This means that about half the population (or even more) don't count when you do the calculus of revolution and reaction; they can be safely ignored. And 'The People' are whichever small faction wins the civil war. This world belongs to those who actually pick up their guns and do something. When the dust settles, those who did nothing then have to do what they say. Lol.