Drones Tanks, we have no chance.... What liberals say.

[_ldsfaqs]

I never saw a response to my question about countries where an all-voluntary military remained loyal to a government that most of its citizens would overthrow if they just had the weapons.

Your question is a straw-man because no one has made the argument that "all" of the military would remain diligent to a fascist government if the people rose up. In fact, I can't remember if it was this thread or another, but I made that exact case that all of the military would not remain faithful to a fascist government, thus that would further add to the arms people had to stand against them. In other words, I was clearly debunking the liberal argument that the people not having tanks and guns etc. means they couldn't win, so no need to even have guns.

Also, someone please point out to me the countries which turned fascist, despite being democracies throughout their history, and explain the conditions that led to that transformation.

Well, there have been few true democracy's like America, but history is full of democracy's that fell either internally or externally. Even modern democracy's are showing signs of becoming fascist, like the UK, etc.

The one "obvious" one off the top of my head is Germany, but even that is problematic.
However, there is a problem with your question.
Other than maybe the Roman Empire, which doesn't necessarily apply either, I don't know if there are hardly ANY country's that were democracy's for very long at any point in history, without being replaced by Fascism or some ruling class. Fascism or totalitarian rule has almost always been the norm through history.

In fact, that's one of the main reasons for the things the founders did, because they KNEW Democracy's in history didn't last very long, so they tried to put in checks and balances, including the right to bear arms to STOP fascism or totalitarianism from gaining hold, and if it did it wouldn't last very long.

Thus, your question is flawed. The RULE has been fascism, and our government was set up, to try and prevent it. Thus, you remove those basic rights such as arms, you allow fascism to take hold.

[_krose]

ldsfaq:
- I am well aware that gun nuts want to completely ignore the first half of the single sentence that is the second amendment, so that's exactly what they do. The linkage of bearing arms to state militias is very inconvenient for them. It's obviously the reason you (amazingly) chose to "explain" that phrase by simply pretending it isn't there. Nice "explanation."

----------------

- Can a question be a straw man? Ha! Okay, I'll make it an easier challenge. Identify for me all the countries in the world that are currently run by fascist-totalitarian governments, that previously were open democracies, and explain how they got there. (If you try to claim a place like UK is even close to that stage, you have your head wedged even further up your butt than I thought.)

Incidentally, it always amuses me how low an opinion the American right wing has of the American people in general. They seem to believe most of us will just blindly follow some charismatic leader down the road to totalitarianism, but they (being immune to those evil charms) will have to save us all with their stockpiles of military weapons and mad fighting skills.

[_krose]

Rephrasing what I believe is krose's point...

I agree that the majority can be tyrannical. But if the majority does happen to be sufficiently tyrannical, does a minority has the right to overthrow the majority and establish a new government? If so, the concept of popular sovereignty seems to be trumped by—what—the sovereignty of the self-appointed moral minority?

Thank you for saying what I wanted to more effectively.

Also, practically speaking, it seems that a rebellion is doomed to ultimate failure if it's attempted by an unpopular minority.

[_Darth J]

Please explain how the words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," mean something other than the ability to assemble state militias, whose job would be state protection from invasion.

Here is a lengthy explanation of what you ask:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)

Out of curiosity, krose, do you consider yourself a textual originalist?

[_ldsfaqs]

ldsfaq:
- I am well aware that gun nuts want to completely ignore the first half of the single sentence that is the second amendment, so that's exactly what they do. The linkage of bearing arms to state militias is very inconvenient for them. It's obviously the reason you (amazingly) chose to "explain" that phrase by simply pretending it isn't there. Nice "explanation."

We don't "ignore" it all like you claim, thus you lie.
What we do is look at the history and context of what the word "militia" meant in those times and according to the founding fathers.

You also still ignore the fact that if the "right to bear arms" statement actually referred to the "militia" it would have said "the right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't say that, it changes the subject to the PEOPLE. The people make up militias, and that's who's rights is not to be infringed up. It has NOTHING to do with one must "be in" a militia in order to bear arms. And even if it's implying that, remember what militia meant and means. It's made up of people, gathered together for a goal and those people primarily brought their OWN arms.

by the way, the word militia still has that traditional meaning if one looks around the world all the "militias" doing this or that, which are simply people organized loosely together under a common goal to fight against someone. Most of them have NOTHING to do with the "state" they are in, or defending the state. Again, proving your argument false.

----------------

- Can a question be a straw man? Ha!

Of course, and the fact that you don't know that or at least don't check before opening your mouth shows how dumb you are.

A question can be a straw-man if it's based on a false premise, a.k.a. straw-man.

Okay, I'll make it an easier challenge. Identify for me all the countries in the world that are currently run by fascist-totalitarian governments, that previously were open democracies, and explain how they got there. (If you try to claim a place like UK is even close to that stage, you have your head wedged even further up your butt than I thought.)

Heck I don't know that off hand. But I know there are a few. But again, "democracy's" historically have been "short lived" thus your question is flawed.

Although, I did find a list at wikipedia of country's that have been under fascism and were democratic at some time, google it.

Incidentally, it always amuses me how low an opinion the American right wing has of the American people in general. They seem to believe most of us will just blindly follow some charismatic leader down the road to totalitarianism, but they (being immune to those evil charms) will have to save us all with their stockpiles of military weapons and mad fighting skills.

It's happening right now..... Obama shouldn't have been re-elected given what's known about him and his buddies around him, but he was. We only have a low opinion of about half the country, the dark side of humanity.

No one has said we are "immune" to evil charms, but it's far less likely that we follow evil leaders.

It's happened many times before we've had to save yours and other's butts.

WWII just to start.... You guys were against the war.

[_krose]

faqs:
Do you use the same abusive, hate-filled, name-calling style when you argue with people face to face? I'm guessing it's just when you are protected by anonymity and distance, which allows cowards to act the part of an abrasive ass without the danger of being punched in the face every day because of calling someone "stupid" or a "moron."

Sadly, I suspect that those who are abusive from a safe distance are also more likely to abuse others who can't fight back, such as children and pets.

[_krose]

Here is a lengthy explanation of what you ask: <link>

Scalia believes that the "security" phrase includes the whole country, not individual states. I don't have a problem with that (I used the term "state militias" because the militias in question were run by the states). How ldsfax separates the government away from the country is still beyond me.

Heller is an interesting ruling. It was another of those 5-4 decisions, which tells me that the court is one pasta-induced heart attack away from ruling that the second amendment should be interpreted as only applying to arms for militias.

Four justices sided with the DC law that essentially banned handguns, and required rifles (which must all be registered) to have trigger locks when stored in homes. And since there are unlikely to be any more conservative justices nominated for a long time (due to Republicans doggedly appealing only to the shrinking demographic of older white males, and therefore assuring future Democratic presidents), you have to wonder how long the Scalia interpretation will hold up.

Still, even with Scalia (et al) striking down the DC law and enshrining a right to use handguns for self protection, his opinion was practically asking for other legal limits on the second amendment, far from what the NRA leaders and their ilk are claiming. He was certainly okay with requiring all guns to be registered and licensed. In fact, the remedy ordered was for the city to allow Mr. Heller to register his pistol.

As he wrote at the end:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.

Suck on that, Wayne LaPierre (who claims that simply requiring more background checks is a horrible violation of the sacred amendment) and ldsfax (who claims the sacred amendment is being violated because rights are being "infringed" more every day)!

[Guest]

Here is a lengthy explanation of what you ask: <link>

Scalia believes that the "security" phrase includes the whole country, not individual states. I don't have a problem with that (I used the term "state militias" because the militias in question were run by the states). How ldsfax separates the government away from the country is still beyond me.

Heller is an interesting ruling. It was another of those 5-4 decisions, which tells me that the court is one pasta-induced heart attack away from ruling that the second amendment should be interpreted as only applying to arms for militias.

In other words, the language of the Second Amendment does not have the obvious meaning that you ascribe to it.

Four justices sided with the DC law that essentially banned handguns, and required rifles (which must all be registered) to have trigger locks when stored in homes. And since there are unlikely to be any more conservative justices nominated for a long time (due to Republicans doggedly appealing only to the shrinking demographic of older white males, and therefore assuring future Democratic presidents), you have to wonder how long the Scalia interpretation will hold up.

Sounds like you have a solid grasp of how vertical stare decisis works.

Still, even with Scalia (et al) striking down the DC law and enshrining a right to use handguns for self protection, his opinion was practically asking for other legal limits on the second amendment, far from what the NRA leaders and their ilk are claiming. He was certainly okay with requiring all guns to be registered and licensed. In fact, the remedy ordered was for the city to allow Mr. Heller to register his pistol.

Because it's just the NRA and miscellaneous gun nuts who think the Second Amendment reflects a fundamental right to self protection, right?

Oh, well, at least we can trust the police with guns.

You didn't really answer, krose, but can you name an area of civil rights law other than the Second Amendment where you believe textual originalism is the way to go?

How about abortion? Do you feel that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose? If so, do you feel you can demonstrate that right using the same analysis you are applying to the Second Amendment?

Or how about same-sex marriage? Do you feel that a right to marry at all, let alone a right to same-sex marriage, can be derived from the Constitution using the analysis you are applying to the Second Amendment?

Or is the Second Amendment special?

As he wrote at the end:

Antonin Scalia wrote:
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.

Suck on that, Wayne LaPierre (who claims that simply requiring more background checks is a horrible violation of the sacred amendment) and ldsfax (who claims the sacred amendment is being violated because rights are being "infringed" more every day)!

That's right. Much like every advocate of expansive free speech is a member of NAMBLA and every advocate for marriage equality is hedonistic bathhouse patron who wants to destroy civilization, everyone who thinks Americans have an individual right to possess firearms belongs to the looniest fringe of the NRA.

[_krose]

Out of curiosity, krose, do you consider yourself a textual originalist?

Definitely not. I like what Judge Easterbrook wrote in his foreword to Scalia’s own book:

“The older the text, the more distant that interpretive community from our own. At some point the difference becomes so great that the meaning is no longer recoverable reliably.” When that happens, Easterbrook continues, the courts should “declare that meaning has been lost, so that the living political community must choose.” The “living political community” in Heller consisted of the elected officials, and the electorate, of the District of Columbia.
(from Richard Posner's book review)

I believe the second amendment is the worst, and should be dumped. It has been the cause of untold bloodshed in this country. Times change, and some things should change with the times. I do find it interesting that the Cheney-ite neocons who created Iraq's new constitution did not include a right to firearms.

[_Darth J]

Out of curiosity, krose, do you consider yourself a textual originalist?

Definitely not.

Then why are you explicitly applying textual originalism to the Second Amendment?

I like what Judge Easterbrook wrote in his foreword to Scalia’s own book:

“The older the text, the more distant that interpretive community from our own. At some point the difference becomes so great that the meaning is no longer recoverable reliably.” When that happens, Easterbrook continues, the courts should “declare that meaning has been lost, so that the living political community must choose.” The “living political community” in Heller consisted of the elected officials, and the electorate, of the District of Columbia.
(from Richard Posner's book review)

What you just quoted is completely inconsistent with your proposal that the first clause of the Second Amendment necessarily precludes an individual right to bear arms.

I believe the second amendment is the worst, and should be dumped. It has been the cause of untold bloodshed in this country. Times change, and some things should change with the times. I do find it interesting that the Cheney-ite neocons who created Iraq's new constitution did not include a right to firearms.

Then what you're talking about is amending the Constitution, not construing it as is, and you're strongly suggesting that constitutional construction should be result-driven.