The current crop of left wing debaters is weak

[SuburbanFarmer]

Maybe you are literally illiterate. Like, can you read OK?

I suggested you read about the wheeling and dealing of the 1787 convention; especially since your "argument" is obviously ignorant of what agreements were made there. I'm trying to suggest something you might actually enjoy--it is fascinating history.

The militia was intended as our initial standing army against foreign invasion - not to overthrow the government.

The intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with revolution, we've just decided to make it that way.

I'm really not interested in reading through the documented arguments of Constitutional framers, and the chances of me reading the same material as you, and coming to the same conclusion are nearly zero.

I'll accept that a number of the Framers no doubt intended to provide the ability to rise up against tyranny - this is already known. But the wording of the document is clearly not there solely for that purpose. I'd imagine that there was lengthy discussion, and this was the compromise that was reached.

[doc_loliday]

Same. But I still hold out hope for some mild form of socialism to save us from the tech revolution.

Socialism saves nothing.

Conservatism and the right did have and does have good ideas about improving the situation of everybody, it can look at the things from the collective viewpoint. Yet this has been totally sidelined especially in the US by this worship of anything can be said to worship of individualism by turning a blind eye on cronyism, widespread corruption, monopolies and totally unchecked corporatism.

Yet that doesn't mean that socialism and answer. It's never an answer. Socialism just makes everything worse.

The problem is that anything that isn't in favour of the rich elites is nowdays called socialism. And ignorant people believe the ludicrous rhetoric.

These days going against corruption, cronyism and monopolies is labeled to be socialist. That's the fucking problem.

The principle problem is that the democrats aren't fighting corruption, cronyism, and monopolies. They aren't bringing forth any ideas or solutions that don't revolve around identity politics. Those things will never accomplish the things the party supposedly stands for.

Bernie tried to fight these things, but he was an actual socialist, so the label was apt.

[Smitty-48]

Technically, the Second Amendment is inherently revolutionary, and the associated purpose of the Well Regulated Militia, would be to stave off a counterrevolution.

The militia was intended as our initial standing army against foreign invasion - not to overthrow the government.

The intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with revolution, we've just decided to make it that way.

You didn't decide anything, you took it from the English Bill of Rights, the English put it in because of James II attempting to disarm the protestants in the Glorius Revolution, the right to bear arms in defense against a tyranny.

Wasn't your standing army, was state militias, you know, like South Carolina's, when they incited a second revolution...

[SuburbanFarmer]

Technically, the Second Amendment is inherently revolutionary, and the associated purpose of the Well Regulated Militia, would be to stave off a counterrevolution.

The militia was intended as our initial standing army against foreign invasion - not to overthrow the government.

The intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with revolution, we've just decided to make it that way.

You didn't decide anything, you took it from the English Bill of Rights, the English put it in because of James II attempting to disarm the protestants in the Glorius Revolution, the right to bear arms in defense against a tyranny.

Wasn't your standing army, was state militias, you know, like South Carolina's, when they incited a second revolution...

Ah. So the intent of the Constitution is dictated by where the ideas came from? That could lead to some very interesting historical debates in SCOTUS. At least, it would be more interesting to listen to.

And I'm curious how many soldiers of the Continental Army remained on active duty once the war was over... where were they stationed, exactly?

[Smitty-48]

The militia was intended as our initial standing army against foreign invasion - not to overthrow the government.

The intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with revolution, we've just decided to make it that way.

You didn't decide anything, you took it from the English Bill of Rights, the English put it in because of James II attempting to disarm the protestants in the Glorius Revolution, the right to bear arms in defense against a tyranny.

Wasn't your standing army, was state militias, you know, like South Carolina's, when they incited a second revolution...

Ah. So the intent of the Constitution is dictated by where the ideas came from? That could lead to some very interesting historical debates in SCOTUS. At least, it would be more interesting to listen to.

And I'm curious how many soldiers of the Continental Army remained on active duty once the war was over... where were they stationed, exactly?

The intent of the Second Amemdment is the right to bear arms in defense against a tyranny, same as it was in the English Bill of Rights, where the Founders took it from, for the same purpose. The state militia's were to defend the states, under command of the states, seperate from the army.

You see, the individual right to bear arms is to ensure that the population cannot be disarmed by a crown, the state militias provide them with a seperate state military, should they need to defend themselves from such a tyranny as an organized force.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You didn't decide anything, you took it from the English Bill of Rights, the English put it in because of James II attempting to disarm the protestants in the Glorius Revolution, the right to bear arms in defense against a tyranny.

Wasn't your standing army, was state militias, you know, like South Carolina's, when they incited a second revolution...

Ah. So the intent of the Constitution is dictated by where the ideas came from? That could lead to some very interesting historical debates in SCOTUS. At least, it would be more interesting to listen to.

And I'm curious how many soldiers of the Continental Army remained on active duty once the war was over... where were they stationed, exactly?

The intent of the Second Amemdment is the right to bear arms in defense against a tyranny, same as it was in the English Bill of Rights, where the Founders took it from, for the same purpose. The state militia's were to defend the states, under command of the states, seperate from the army.

You see, the individual right to bear arms is to ensure that the population cannot be disarmed by a crown, the state militias provide them with a seperate state military, should they need to defend themselves from such a tyranny as an organized force.

...and now that that ability has been completely circumvented for a century, how long shall we keep tearing ourselves apart over it? None of my neighbors have an advanced SAM site in their backyard, and I can't even buy a WWI tank.

The British populace could claim the same level of freedom, as they continue to retain the right to keep swords. It's irrelevant, it's makes no sense, but sure - you're free, little fella.

The people were allowed to keep and bear arms, because

1 - Life was nearly impossible without them, in 18th century North America
2 - The states didn't have the means nor desire to maintain large armories, when they could count on citizens to just bring their own weaponry when called.
3 - It was a convenient nod to the idea of a future revolution, but was never a "hallowed principle" of the Constitution.

Again, "shall not be infringed" was out the window a century ago. Bill Gates is not allowed to purchase a missile launcher. John Travolta owns a fighter jet, but not with weapon mounts.

[Martin Hash]

The answer to this question is so OBVIOUS... Until there's a Constitutional Convention to overrule the Right. If enough of The People want to take away a Right, they can. What's your problem with that solution?

[Fife]

I'm really not interested in reading through the documented arguments of Constitutional framers

[DBTrek]

I'm really not interested in reading through the documented arguments of Constitutional framers

Sucks to your framarrr.

[Speaker to Animals]

I'm really not interested in reading through the documented arguments of Constitutional framers

That's a gem right there.