View Single Post
Old 04-08-2013, 03:53 PM   #230
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
To the extent that there have been struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, those have not been due to armed individuals. It's been the result of armed, organized, and well-trained groups. No such groups exist in the U.S., and they won't sprout spontaneously if needed.
I think we had this argument before, and if I remember right, credible estimates put insurgency strength in Afghanistan as something like 10-15,000. Insignificant. If the federal government decided to go house to house taking weapons in the United States, you'd have far more current and former military-trained fighters alone who would take up arms. Many States themselves would likely resist as well, as would many of their local arms of law enforcement.

The federal government could order such a thing. But they have no realistic means to carry it out.

Quote:
FYP.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would probably give you two different responses if you asked them about "foundational principle," and Ben Franklin a third still. The Founders weren't some monolithic bloc sharing the same opinions on all subjects anymore than politicians today are. For anyone to appeal to "foundational principle" or the "intent of the Founders" is nothing more than self-serving rhetoric; it's not historical.
Please. "They didn't agree 100% on absolutely everything, therefore whatever I want their document to say, it can say"

You might not find a single Constitutional topic on which there was more agreement than the importance of an armed populace as a check on their government. If you've found citations to the contrary, please feel free to share. I've asked for this before and have yet to see a single example.

In the meantime, as I've said before, you no longer have any basis to call Separation of Church and State a Constitutional principle. That was thrown out one time by exactly one founding father, while there was far wider disagreement on what exactly freedom of religion really meant in practice.


Quote:
Carte blanche? No, and neither do you (and, more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court). The problem is, the Founders had something different in mind when discussing "arms" in the 18th century. For anyone to try and pretend to know what the opinions of the Founders would be regarding arms in the 21st century is ludicrous. They formulated 18th century solutions to their 18th century problems. The constitution isn't Holy Writ; it's chock full of anachronisms. That's why Jefferson said the constitution should be ripped up and rewritten every 20 years.
Which is why core principles matter as much (if not more) as literal interpretation.

The 2nd Amendment was written as a check on federal power. It's absurd to then argue that the supposed supremacy of federal power renders the issue moot. In the context of the clear intent of the Constitutional contract that joins our States, the 2nd Amendment is needed now more than ever. Any effort to further encumber it should be resisted.
  Reply With Quote