Why the fervor over the 2nd ammendment but not the 1st?, take 2

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by ec451, May 25, 2020.

  1. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    After all this time ghrit posted to the previous (long ago locked) thread so here is my response. everything in quotes are from their post.

    Couple things stand out. You don't want of [to] out anyone, yet you as [ask] a very specific question regarding talking up arms against the government.

    This is the classic case of assigning a straw man to your opponent so you can claim victory when the strawman falls. Yawn.

    If you have not seriously thought about what it would take for you to take up arms against the government (i.e. be willing to shoot someone) then your claim that the possible need to do so is why you keep arms, seems invalid to me. Given that whatever this situation might be you would likely be met with overwhelming force it really equates to what the government would have to do in order for you to risk your life, or possibly your family’s lives to oppose it. It is an extremely difficult question, but if that is a key part of your basis for gun ownership it seems to me to deserve to be answered. This is not about specific people, places, institutions, etc. but just in general. Taxes too high? Regulation too overreaching? Property seized via eminent domain? People conscripted into an unsupported war? All these things have happened or are happening with no armed opposition.

    What major push back to the government HAVE been (at least somewhat) successful? Civil rights come to mind and not by force of arms.

    .. you evidently intend to mimic a lamb and do what you're told without questioning the authority of whoever it is that orders you about.

    Again, the strawman. You not only know nothing of me, but completely disregard the impact of propaganda on the public. Information is the weapon of choice in our age, not guns. The “do what you’re told” implies some level of resistance, but compliance in spite of that. This is not how propaganda works. You first convince the public that they WANT to do whatever, then they do so willing.

    Back to school laddie, you didn't get the core curricula, learned COBOL instead of civics. You really do need to read the Federalist Papers.

    Again, with the schoolyard name calling (doesn’t it get tiresome?). Doing so only convinces me that you can offer no other defense of your position. I have never said I’ve read (the entirety) of the Federalist Papers (I seriously doubt anyone here including you has either). I have read bits and pieces over the years and while they are interesting historical documents their authors were totally ignorant of the role of information and propaganda in use today or of the character of today’s civilization (how could they be otherwise?).

    In 46 Madison makes the case that an armed citizenry would be the last defense against what he outlines as a basically unimaginable result. Here is they lead into that

    That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. …

    Then he goes on to say that even in this case the military would be no match for an armed public due to the public outnumbering the military. I think this is false for several reasons. First the way that such unimaginable events would occur is not by complacency of the public but by convincing the public to act against their own self interests. It’s the post truth world. This is the essence of propaganda. Given that why would there then be some armed uprising? The public was in favor of these actions.

    Secondly comparing the total number of armed members of the population against the total size of the military is silly. Such conflicts would take place on a much smaller scale where the public would likely be wildly out gunned in any one encounter.

    Third it relates such a conflict to the society of 200 years ago not the vastly interconnected one we have today. Merely cutting off services to any uprising group would likely be all that would be needed to quash the rebellion.

    But again, the key reason this is no longer relevant is the role of information. For example, no matter what your view of our current President you cannot deny that a (if not the) central theme of his administration is controlling the narrative regardless of facts. Even if your response would be that he does so only due to the press constantly making up news and being all against hm (which I think is ludicrous) my point is still made. It’s all about information.

    Lastly Madison basically says that despite the need for an armed public being unimaginable we might as well have one. i.e. there is little or not cost. But now we see there IS a cost. i.e. gun deaths. So if the purpose is really unimaginable then is the cost worth it?

    The thread is locked, so start another one if you care to.

    I'm actually not happy you've not been back, but I understand it. Nobody likes stepping in a basket of biting snakes

    Hardly an apt analogy. I didn’t come back as it did not seem there was any appetite for an actual discussion (it wasn’t my posts that got the previous thread locked) so to each their own. But since you asked here is a new thread. Given the likelihood of being vastly outnumbered I can not ensure a response to every post but will come back now and then to see what's here.
  2. duane

    duane Monkey+++

    In my humble opinion, the 2 nd amendment was never about using firearms to overthrow a government. As set up, there were 3 coequal separate branches of government, one selected by the people as a whole, president, one selected by states, the senate and equal partner, the house, selected by the people in separate districts in the state, the terms of office were such to allow rapid change, 2 years in house, but prevent mob rule by having longer terms for president and senate. Then a 3 rd branch, the supreme court, was set up to be selected by the president and with consent of the state and have a long term and hopefully independent check on the legislative and executive branches and to keep the limits in the constitution.
    Given the founding fathers experiences with government, they expected that at some time in the future some group or political organization would subvert the voting process and achieve control of the government, they thus set up an alternative to the political system to prevent this from becoming permanent. The alternative was the 2 nd and although it was not designed to be used lightly, it was meant to be a balance against vote fraud or the loss of the right to vote and it was always an additional check built into the system, as was the 1 st to prevent the government from brain washing the voters and outlawing any differing viewpoints. All of the 10 amendments can be broken down in this same manner, not designed to be used every day, but to insure that the government is both subject to control and to protect the rights of the individual. Seeing as how about 20 people in the house are now writing the laws that come from the house and can at least in theory with the new system of voting, pass them in the house as well, perhaps once again show the wisdom of those who insisted on the 10 amendments to the Constitution be passed before it was the law of the land and not just a bunch of old white men keeping the (fill in yhe blank) down.
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  3. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    Interestingly the last of the Federalist papers (84 and 85) argue that a Bill of Rights is not needed (happily many did not agree).
    Though the constitution was the law of the land once ratified in 1788. The bill of rights was ratified in 1791.
  4. Wildbilly

    Wildbilly Monkey++

    To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, "we were force fed a lot of shit by England before we declared our independence and war". The Founding Fathers then listed the insults and abuses. I would hope that any future Rebels would show as much restraint and caution before taking up arms. The reason that no group has ever done so is proof that our system of government, with all of its checks and balances, and legal redresses, works...maybe not as fast as some people would like, but it works.
    As far as the ability of the armed populace to engage the regular military...you don't! Going into a stand-up fight with the regulars, reserves and the guard is suicide, they are better armed, trained, led, supported, and supplied. You fight them where they ain't! You attack soft targets, and by the time the military show up you are long gone! The military might position a tank at a crossroads, but if all the action is miles away the tank will leave. Take out transformers and power lines, and leave bobby-traps for the repair crews, shoot-up some tractor-trailer trucks on the highways, mine a river channel, derail or shoot-up a train, down a few planes, knock-out a pipeline, etc. etc.. If someone were to destroy a handful of large transformers in this country we would be in the dark for years, millions would die, and America would cease to exist. Modern civilization is fragile, and easily destroyed...hence Preppers!
    I for one would enjoy a return to a smaller and simpler government, when the only agent of the Federal Government that most people would see is the mail-man. Fewer services= Fewer/Lower taxes.
  5. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    I knew they would make a go at the 1st at some point, but I didn't know how or in what form it would come.
  6. Wildbilly

    Wildbilly Monkey++

    Banning protests is a start! Banning worship services and telling us how we are going to be allowed to worship in the future is another! Banning free speech on social media is another! Protest anyway! Worship as you please! Time to bring back newsletters, newspapers, and magazines....the REAL written word!
  7. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    I haven't been to a church in 25 years, but if it will piss off a liberal it might be worth going.
    3M-TA3 likes this.
  8. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    Wrt protests and gong to church, are you saying there is nothing the states (this is the states not the feds) can do relative to gatherings to stem a pandemic? In a future hypothetical where the case could be made there was no pandemic, that would be grounds for legal action against the state I'd say. But with 100,000 dead and counting I don't see that case now.

    Wrt social media, what banning of free speech are you referring to? Twitter, facebook, et al are private companies. I think their tolerance for posting falsehoods is in fact way too high (they have been a major factor in various "ethnic cleansing" activities around the world) but in any case they are free to set their own rules. No newspaper is required to post any letter to the editor you might write. So far, it's the same thing. If you don't like their rules, don't use their platform.
  9. Wildbilly

    Wildbilly Monkey++

    There are limits to the power of both the Federal and State governments, for ANY reason. Don't want to get sick and die...just don't get sick. Those at risk need to accept some responsibility for their health, and those that are willing to take the risk should be allowed to do so.
    Social media exists only because the government allows them to use publicly own infrastructure, they maybe private companies but the government can regulate them or pull the plug. As I said, like minded people should consider older forms of communication that doesn't involve social media.
  10. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    The more people that are spreading the virus the harder it becomes to "just don't get sick". I think you are greatly oversimplify the situation where people that are infected often do not even know it. It also is not just you (not you personally) that is at risk. If the medical system is overwhelmed everyone is at risk (from any issue). So in an idealized world each being responsible for their own risk would be good, but we don't live in an ideal world.

    What infrastructure would that be? and you did not answer my question of "Wrt social media, what banning of free speech are you referring to?"
    So far social media has been categorized like the printer of a newspaper, not the newspaper publisher. You can't sue the printer, only the publisher. I think that is wrong and that they should be more responsible for the content on their site but I'm not sure how to draw the line. But in any case I don't see that they have been banning speech but going too far in allowing anything, no matter how obviously false.
  11. Wildbilly

    Wildbilly Monkey++

    All forms of electronic media ( radio, TV, cell and smart phones, internet companies, etc.) use frequencies that are controlled by, allocated, and leased from the Federal Government. The government giveth and they can damn well taketh away! The time is long past when the government needs to step in an regulate the social media companies to protect the rights of ALL the people not just the ones that are currently PC.

    If you are at risk you need to isolate, wear masks, social distance, and wash your hands long and often. Chances are you won't get sick! If your foolish neighbor wishes to go to a ball game, restaurant, movie or bar...sent the family a card and some flowers! If your other neighbor is willing to risk going to work let him!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2020
  12. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    Radio Frequency Spectrum is indeed licensed. But that has nothing to do with social media. You can access social media sites via your smart phone, but that service is provided by your cell carrier not the social media site. And again, what free speech have they banned that you are objecting too?
  13. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    You simply ignored what I said. The mask is primarily to prevent the wearer from spewing contaminated droplets into the environment where others might pick them up, not to prevent the wearing from inhaling the virus. If the virus spreads rapidly the medical system is overwhelmed and then you get some ordinary acute problem and the ER can't help you as they are overflowing with covid-19. i.e. it isn't just YOUR risk.
    3cyl likes this.
  14. Wildbilly

    Wildbilly Monkey++

    The mask also prevents you from touching your own face with your own dirty fingers, because no matter how often you wash your hands you will touch something nasty and then your face! Oh! and don't forget the goggles. There was a fear that the CCP Virus could overwhelm the medical system, but that never came close to happening...the hospitals came close to closing due to a lack of business caused by government interference, not the pandemic. Hospitals here in Alabama lost $ 730 million in business, and like hospitals everywhere had to lay-off doctors, nurses and support staff! That will NOT be happening again! Even in hard hit NYC the emergency hospitals and the hospital ship were hardly needed, as hospitals had plenty of empty beds and red-ink!
  15. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    Yes a mask can help prevent you from touching your face (and yes you have to not rub your eyes as well) as long as you wash your hands well before you take it off. That is ONE of its purposes. And your point would be?

    It's true that hospitals mostly were able to cope (though there were some local shortages of PPE and exhausted staff, NY has had to use refrigerated trailers for the dead, etc). That is BECAUSE of the lockdown and social distancing. Claiming that "oh look it was all overhyped" is the prevention paradox. We took pretty drastic steps (though not early enough) to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed and it worked. So they prepared for the worst and we avoided that. That is exactly how things should go. Of course hospitals are suffering in this environment, as are lots of businesses. Claiming that in the next pandemic (this one is far from over and yes there will be others) we will just let it run ("this will not be happening again!") is to ignore the basic facts of what has and is happening.

    And you again ignored " what free speech have they [social media] banned that you are objecting too?"
  16. Wildbilly

    Wildbilly Monkey++

    Try posting a message on Facebook, Google, or any other social media that questions the " current established dogma" be it climate change, race, politics, or anything. You might get away with it, but if someone is offended or the computers detect certain words, you are banned! I know that these are private companies, but the laws need to be changed to protect the rights of individuals. It would be like the utility company refusing you service because they don't approve of you or like you! Granted the individual has alternatives like wood fires, generators, septic tanks, and water wells, but regulations prevent them from doing this. That is what we need, protections from the abuse of powerful tech companies.
  17. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    We thought the 1st was safe since a generation of liberals rallied for free speech.
    Now that they control the majority of the media, all of a sudden people they don't agree with don't need free speech.
  18. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    We thought the 1st was safe since a generation of liberals rallied for free speech.
    Now that they control the majority of the media, all of a sudden people they don't agree with don't need fr
  19. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    I'm guessing that you are just repeating things you have read because 2 secs searching finds Climate Change LIES
    and "posting on Google" doesn't even make any sense.

    As for the validity of man made global warming, yes it's clearly true. Here's how science works. You publish a theory based on what data you can observe. Unless there is amazingly good supporting evidence (the only case I can think of is the accelerating expansion of the universe but there are certain to be others) you will be met with a lot of skepticism. Anything challenging the status quo runs into this. And such skepticism is warranted. But if over the years more and more data from new sources and new methods from more scientists in more diverse fields continue to show support, eventually it gets accepted That is just what has happened with climate change since it was proposed in the 70s. Now there just is no doubt. It isn't "dogma", its the overwhelming scientific consensus based on decades of observation. Science doesn't work on "dogma". Any process involving humans will be fraught with bias, greed, ego, money, politics, etc. But the whole point of science is to weed all that out over time, and if you look at our civilization's progress since science was invented, its worked pretty well.

    I'm not at all sure what role regulation should play in social media, but I think the sites need to be more proactive about taking down posts that are designed to inflame and can not be verified. I think that is similar to the ban on free speech if it is an imminent incitement to violence. Social media is the propagandists dream machine. If we can curtail such uses of it while keep the good parts we should. How to do that, I have no idea.

    "It would be like the utility company refusing you service because they don't approve of you or like you!"
    I don't think its like that at all If you violate whatever rules a site has then they remove your post. It isn't about them not liking or approving of you its about what you post.
  20. ec451

    ec451 Monkey

    I think this is just a classic far right talking point that has little validity wrt the media.

    Where it IS a worrisome factor is college campuses. The practice of only allowing guest speakers favoring one political view (left leaning at present) is a bad thing, though not a great deal worse than having such unchallenged speakers in the first place. College should be a time where students learn how to think, how to decide what is BS and what is supported by the facts. For any topic that largely boils down to opinion, it should always be in the form of debate, not just a speech.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary