Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "" video.

"Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Chairman Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns, and I am here to tell you, federalist, 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN, IF YOU TRY TO NOT PASS THE SECOND AMENDMENT" - Based Anti-federalists
7
@swirvinbirds1971 "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government" - Elbridge Gerry
4
@swirvinbirds1971 Then why was the second amendment not "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of defending a free State, shall not be infringed."?
4
Then why did they only codify the right of the people to own and bear arms?
2
@swirvinbirds1971 I'll explain it as such: The Second Amendment was a safeguard against the government, I repeat, the government from infringing upon the individual's right to keep and bear arms. It was not a ban on proprietors making rules for what people were allowed to do with firearms, if they were allowed at all, on their own property. If it was, they would have specified as such.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 How is it an act of force to prevent the state from passing laws against the ownership of a particular kind of property?
2
@swirvinbirds1971 I should specify that, in the words of John Locke, "every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property." This is the principal the classical liberal Jefferson believed him. Hence, this is why it is an act of force to enslave someone, but not an act of force to prevent someone from taking your property, even if it is a particular class of it.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 Militias can be private. The Roof Koreans for example. I changed it so it only specified the militia. The people under this text does not have right to keep and bear arms, but the Militia does.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 A militia is a a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. The "roof Koreans" were a ad hoc armed service, raised from the Korean population of LA, to supplement the police because the LA riots were too out of hand for them. It's not really infringement if you use your property to violate other people's property rights. And again, if it really is the defence of the state, why is only group whose right to bear arms is codified is the people?
2
@swirvinbirds1971 Nope, militias can exist outside the United States. Well then why did it not exclusively or also specify "the militia"? The Confederate States didn't use the 2nd Amendment to take up arms against the government, the excuse they used was that their most important domestic institution, slavery, was under threat by the United States government.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 They are two clauses. The first clause justifies the second clause. The first clause does not give the Militia the right to own and bear arms, it only justifies why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. A more appropriate question is why would the Whisky Rebellion invoke the Second Amendment, when it was over taxes, not gun rights? Why would the founding fathers think that criminals should be able to own guns when punishment could include stripping someone of their right to their property?
2
@swirvinbirds1971 Whoa hold up mate. You mean "Now do we use militia today for defense of a free State?", don't you? Remember the founders were talking about a tyrannical government from either within or without. They clearly also think the people are the militia, otherwise they would have given the militia the rights, not the people.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 None of those rebellions was on the basis of gun rights however. I suppose, if there were a democratic coup in North Korea, you would be OK if it was put down because the North Korean State decided it wasn't legitimate.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government" -Elbridge Gerry
2
@swirvinbirds1971 Because the founding fathers were A) British subjects, albeit disgruntled ones and B) When they decided to stop being British subjects, they looked to Locke for justification, because Locke had justified our own revolution. Surely this is what the founders would've meant? The second amendment is important because we can still all agree that besides being a proven way to counter violent crime, we still think that it is important to overthrow tyrannical governments. Think about it, just because the founders had, by todays standards, unsavoury opinions on homosexuals, does that mean freedom of expression isn't sacred? Or trial by jury?
2
@swirvinbirds1971 They had a right to rebellion against a tyrannical government. The Federal government had just imposed a tax on whisky, which they later repealed. The government did not become tyrannical in the course of rebellion.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 Just checking your consistency.
2
@swirvinbirds1971 Were mesures against freedom of speech implemented durong the rebellion? Was the individual right to bear arms restricted during the rebelion? Was habeas corpus suspended? American nationalism received a boost during the rebellion because of how Washington dealt with it without becoming tyrannical.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 No they weren't.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 A) We are speaking about the Whisky Rebellion not the Civil War which happened some 72 years after the Second Amendment was added. B) Did Congress use these powers?
1
@swirvinbirds1971 No, because it was the one you brought up.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 armed rebellion isn't. I never said it was. What I am saying for the purposes of protecting against a tyranncial government (justificative), the right of the people to own and bear arms will not be infringed (operative)
1
@swirvinbirds1971 No, that is the reason for having the right to kep and bear arms.
1