Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

[Daedalus X]

In another thread a member made the following claim.

You continue to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. The 2d amendment was not created to facilitate armed rebellion against the very country the Constitution created. As it says itself, it was created so a 'well regulated militia' could protect the State.

Question for debate, why did the founders create the second amendment?

[2ndRateMind]

Best wishes to you as well and try to remember to be rational. The above about quoting was once again not.

Just laying down a marker. Accuracy in quoting is an ordinary academic courtesy. And what I actually said was:

Or is the truth, as I suspect, that Americans love their guns more than they love each other's children?

There is a significant difference between a question seeking to solicit information, and a statement seeking to impart it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This has gone on long enough...
Do you think Americans love their guns more than they love each other's children? Remember what you asked and that you noted that you do in fact suspect it (bolded above) to be a true statement.

Well let's just say, I have grounds to think that, and I have explained them, and you have not even attempted to rebut the points. Yet.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Many countries have high gun ownership but the killing of children with guns is rare. For example Switzerland, high gun ownership but I could not find a single mass shooting of children.

Precisely. Maybe the Swiss love each other's children more than you do, or maybe it's just that they are trained better during their national service that, as part of the civil miltia, they are expected to be better disciplined than your civilians are.

I think that we agree on this point, it is not the guns that are the problem but rather it is the failure to love.

We don't have guns in private hands (apart from hunting rifles and shot guns, under strict license), but we still have a nation. The defense of yours does not depend on an armed rabble, but on a professional, federal military.

How can you say you still have a nation, you have the same situation as in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Over the last three years your nations went from liberal democracies to full Nazi. If these nations had more guns the police would not have trampled down all these harmless people.

That really is a stupidly ridiculous slur. I suggest you do some more reading around Nazi Germany. Over here, police actions are heavily regulated, and there are methods of redress available to the private citizen should they overstep their legitimate powers, without actually killing any of them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Many countries have high gun ownership but the killing of children with guns is rare. For example Switzerland, high gun ownership but I could not find a single mass shooting of children.

Precisely. Maybe the Swiss love each other's children more than you do, or maybe it's just that they are trained better during their national service that, as part of the civil miltia, they are expected to be better disciplined than your civilians are.

I think that we agree on this point, it is not the guns that are the problem but rather it is the failure to love.

Each nation is different of course. In your case, I suspect it's both. But you are welcome to persuade me otherwise, if you can.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Daedalus X]

This doesn't work. The American government is already as corrupt as a government can possibly be. As corrupt as the Venezuelan government at least. You can't just shoot the government to get rid of it, and if they want you in jail they will arrest you and you will be in jail.

Guns protecting people from the government would entail armed militias with military-grade weapons that were independent of the government, or at very least the Federal government.

I disagree, just look at how freaked out the government got after January 6, 2020. The insurrectionists were armed with a few clubs (flag poles), bear spray, fire extinguishers etc, yet the government called out 26,000 national guardsmen armed with "fully automatic assault weapons of war". They are afraid of the people as it should be.

They are afraid that the people will find out how corrupt the government is and on that day there will be torches and pitchforks in the streets and a new government will replace the old. It would mean that the corruption gravy train will end, so the deep state is employing the best of psychological warfare on the population to keep them in the dark as they work to remove the arms from the people.
This deep state is even afraid of our own military, they don't know which side the military will side on if the corruption is exposed.

This is not to say that the deep state is not a formidable force, they can pick off the leaders of any movement that is anti-government. Just look at what they do to people like Trump, Lindel, Flynn, Guliano etc. As long as we don't have a functioning press, the people will believe anything that the powers that be want them to believe.

[Daedalus X]

That really is a stupidly ridiculous slur. I suggest you do some more reading around Nazi Germany. Over here, police actions are heavily regulated, and there are methods of redress available to the private citizen should they overstep their legitimate powers without actually killing any of them.

I would echo your suggestion about reading more around Nazi Germany, there are too many similarities to ignore.

In line with what you say, in most western democracies police actions are heavily regulated, that is when the powers that be, want police actions to be heavily regulated. But what happens when the powers don't want to restrain their powers?

There is a canary in the coal mines, his name is Julian Assange. If they can do this to an innocent man then nobody in society is safe from the brutality of the state.



There are thousands of more stories out there. The police and the state have all the power they need to put a tyrant on the throne. (or did they already)

[2ndRateMind]

That really is a stupidly ridiculous slur. I suggest you do some more reading around Nazi Germany. Over here, police actions are heavily regulated, and there are methods of redress available to the private citizen should they overstep their legitimate powers, without actually killing any of them.

I would echo your suggestion about reading more around Nazi Germany, there are too many similarities to ignore.

No, there really aren't. Have you seen 'Schindler's List'? It's a true, if dramatised, story. If you haven't seen it, watch it, and then tell me whether there is any similarity at all between Nazi Germany, and the present day UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

In line with what you say, in most western democracies police actions are heavily regulated, that is when the powers that be, want police actions to be heavily regulated. But what happens when the powers don't want to restrain their powers?

They take their case to the people, and the people decide. That's the way things are done in democracies. On such an important matter, any government that ignored that convention would rapidly find itself out of office. And, incidentally, our police owe their allegience to the king, not the government, who merely pay for them (out of the people's taxes, which could be withheld, if necessary) and set policy and priorities. If push ever came to shove, and things got really bad, King Charles has the final say. And he seems to be a decent enough chap to rely on as a backstop. It's never happened; please God it never will. But these are some of the 'checks and balances' in our unwritten constitution.

Best wishes, 2RM.

PS Assange was not innocent. By publishing as he did, illegally, he recklessly endangered lives, and compromised US security interests. And then he ran away and hid like a coward in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, rather than making his case before judge and jury in court. As for this alleged CIA plot to kill him, Wikipedia has:

In March 2017, WikiLeaks published a series of documents which detailed the CIA's electronic surveillance and cyber warfare capabilities, after which senior CIA officials discussed and ruled out potentially kidnapping or assassinating Assange.

You really shouldn't believe everything you find on the interweb.
2RM.

[Daedalus X]

No, there really aren't. Have you seen 'Schindler's List'? It's a true, if dramatised, story. If you haven't seen it, watch it, and then tell me whether there is any similarity at all between Nazi Germany, and the present day UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

Similarity at all? The camp in Australia is just bigger and more high tech than Auschwitz .

They take their case to the people, and the people decide. That's the way things are done in democracies. Any government that ignored that convention would rapidly find itself out of office. And, incidentally, the police owe their allegience to the King, not the government, who merely pay them and set policy and priorities. If push ever came to shove, and things got really bad, King Charles would have the final say. And he seems to be a decent enough chap to rely on as a backstop.

Bold is mine.
But that is exactly what I am saying, the western democracies will soon be out of office. Here is three reasons why democracies fail, and I feel that way back in the 1830's Alexis de Tocqueville was one of the first to see the flaw in our western democracies. It is not that complicated but you can read about it here.

https://fee.org/articles/democracys-road-to-tyranny/

As for King Charles III, many people do not think he was such a good chap. We may never know one way or the other, there are some areas that the press dare not investigate.

PS Assange was not innocent. By publishing as he did, illegally, he recklessly endangered lives, and compromised US security interests. And then he ran away and hid like a coward in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, rather than making his case before judge and jury in court. As for this alleged CIA plot to kill him, Wikipedia has:

In March 2017, WikiLeaks published a series of documents which detailed the CIA's electronic surveillance and cyber warfare capabilities, after which senior CIA officials discussed and ruled out potentially kidnapping or assassinating Assange.

You really shouldn't believe everything you find on the interweb.

I agree, we should not believe "everything" on the web, but the talk about the assassination of Assange was never disputed.

Assange was a whistleblower and only worked to expose the criminal organization we know as the United States Intelligence Community. Can you name even one person whose life was endangered?

[Purple Knight]

This doesn't work. The American government is already as corrupt as a government can possibly be. As corrupt as the Venezuelan government at least. You can't just shoot the government to get rid of it, and if they want you in jail they will arrest you and you will be in jail.

Guns protecting people from the government would entail armed militias with military-grade weapons that were independent of the government, or at very least the Federal government.

I disagree, just look at how freaked out the government got after January 6, 2020. The insurrectionists were armed with a few clubs (flag poles), bear spray, fire extinguishers etc, yet the government called out 26,000 national guardsmen armed with "fully automatic assault weapons of war". They are afraid of the people as it should be.

I disagree that the government is afraid. I think they wanted to show overwhelming force to preclude the possibility of rebellion. Not necessarily because they think they can lose, but more probably because either way a lot of people will get hurt.

They are afraid that the people will find out how corrupt the government is and on that day there will be torches and pitchforks in the streets and a new government will replace the old. It would mean that the corruption gravy train will end, so the deep state is employing the best of psychological warfare on the population to keep them in the dark as they work to remove the arms from the people.
This deep state is even afraid of our own military, they don't know which side the military will side on if the corruption is exposed.

This is not to say that the deep state is not a formidable force, they can pick off the leaders of any movement that is anti-government. Just look at what they do to people like Trump, Lindel, Flynn, Guliano etc. As long as we don't have a functioning press, the people will believe anything that the powers that be want them to believe.

Everybody knows already and nobody can do anything about it. This is mainly because lethal force is probably immoral unless you're protecting somebody's life. So corruption is accepted because the alternative is basically to murder thieves. That's what they are, in the worst case, if nothing they do is legitimate. They simply steal wealth. A lot of it, but that's all they do. And is killing justified for mere theft? I don't know anybody saying yes to that.

[2ndRateMind]

No, there really aren't. Have you seen 'Schindler's List'? It's a true, if dramatised, story. If you haven't seen it, watch it, and then tell me whether there is any similarity at all between Nazi Germany, and the present day UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

Similarity at all? The camp in Australia is just bigger and more high tech than Auschwitz .

You haven't watched that film yet, have you? I really suggest you do. It will give you some perspective on the Nazis you currently appear to lack.

They take their case to the people, and the people decide. That's the way things are done in democracies. Any government that ignored that convention would rapidly find itself out of office. And, incidentally, the police owe their allegience to the King, not the government, who merely pay them and set policy and priorities. If push ever came to shove, and things got really bad, King Charles would have the final say. And he seems to be a decent enough chap to rely on as a backstop.

Bold is mine.
But that is exactly what I am saying, the western democracies will soon be out of office. Here is three reasons why democracies fail, and I feel that way back in the 1830's Alexis de Tocqueville was one of the first to see the flaw in our western democracies. It is not that complicated but you can read about it here.

https://fee.org/articles/democracys-road-to-tyranny/

That's all just right leaning propaganda. Not all the poor are lazy, indolent and feckless, though doubtless some are. Not all the rich work hard, though doubtless some do. The subtext of the article is to encourage all the rich to think all their wealth is legitimately theirs, and that they should not succour the poor. This is quite contrary to Jesus' teachings on wealth.

The article is right about one thing, though. Freedom and equality are in tension. They always have been, and they always will be. The French Revolutionaries sought to reconcile them in their slogan: Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!. The idea being that brotherhood (they were a bit chauvenist in those days) could resolve the problem, which is perhaps not that far removed from the reasonng behind Jesus' Seccnd Great Commandment: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

As for King Charles III, many people do not think he was such a good chap. We may never know one way or the other, there are some areas that the press dare not investigate.

No, I won't let you get away with defamation by innuendo. If you have a specific allegation, and some evidence, take them to the press. They have the resources to investigate, and if they find there is merit in the story, you can be quite sure they will publish. It's how they sell their papers and make their money. If you have no such allegation, don't spread unsubstantiated rumour.

PS Assange was not innocent. By publishing as he did, illegally, he recklessly endangered lives, and compromised US security interests. And then he ran away and hid like a coward in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, rather than making his case before judge and jury in court. As for this alleged CIA plot to kill him, Wikipedia has:

In March 2017, WikiLeaks published a series of documents which detailed the CIA's electronic surveillance and cyber warfare capabilities, after which senior CIA officials discussed and ruled out potentially kidnapping or assassinating Assange.

You really shouldn't believe everything you find on the interweb.

I agree, we should not believe "everything" on the web, but the talk about the assassination of Assange was never disputed.

Assange was a whistleblower and only worked to expose the criminal organization we know as the United States Intelligence Community. Can you name even one person whose life was endangered?

No, of course I can't. These people are working to protect the US, it's interests, it's citizens, and their collective interests. Necessarily that work is done in secret, or their lives would be very short.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Dupe