Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun May 20, 2018 8:52 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
The Left's Children's Crusade 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Beyond Genius


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 859
Thanks: 742
Thanked: 388 times in 323 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
DWill wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense. To think that so much about militias was tucked into the Constitution because the framers were concerned that their founding blueprint wouldn't work is frankly a bit ridiculous.
I'm not so sure. They had not yet gone through the degeneration of the French Republic back into tyranny, although maybe a semblance of it in the reign of terror. So they may have had a lot of faith in a Montesquieu-type process of checks and balances and division of powers. But as you know there was a variety of views within the founding group, and Jefferson, if I recall, would not agree to the Federation (rather than the Confederation) without a bill of rights. Doesn't that mean they thought press freedom, freedom of speech, etc. were part of guaranteeing responsible government? In the context of 18th century America I don't think it is far-fetched that armed civilians would be seen as helpful to liberty.

I am not about to accept the idea that we should now have civilian militias with artillery and jet fighters, which is what it would take to restrain the military if it ran amuck today. Let's be real about the times changing.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
DWill
Sat May 12, 2018 1:25 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5981
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1586
Thanked: 1701 times in 1314 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Harry Marks wrote:
DWill wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense. To think that so much about militias was tucked into the Constitution because the framers were concerned that their founding blueprint wouldn't work is frankly a bit ridiculous.
I'm not so sure. They had not yet gone through the degeneration of the French Republic back into tyranny, although maybe a semblance of it in the reign of terror. So they may have had a lot of faith in a Montesquieu-type process of checks and balances and division of powers. But as you know there was a variety of views within the founding group, and Jefferson, if I recall, would not agree to the Federation (rather than the Confederation) without a bill of rights. Doesn't that mean they thought press freedom, freedom of speech, etc. were part of guaranteeing responsible government? In the context of 18th century America I don't think it is far-fetched that armed civilians would be seen as helpful to liberty.

I am not about to accept the idea that we should now have civilian militias with artillery and jet fighters, which is what it would take to restrain the military if it ran amuck today. Let's be real about the times changing.

Jefferson wanted some rights detailed explicitly, although since he wasn't part of the convention his view might not have been decisive. On the narrow matter of what the Second Amendment says and why it was put in, I think it's important not to concede to the NRA that the reason was to legitimize opposing the government that was defined in the Constitution. The internal evidence is against this view, since it is reasonable to assume that the right to bear arms wouldn't be mentioned if militias were not seen as being vital to national defense. I'm not saying that bearing arms wasn't considered to be a right, just that it was at the service of a larger need. The Constitution also defines one of the purposes of militias as being to put down rebellions (such as Shay's Rebellion), not to foment them. Because there was no standing army for quite a while in the U.S., weapons held by citizens would be an important resource.
Militias became irrelevant with the establishment of standing armies, although the extreme right thinks that patriots should continue to form them. Blame Jefferson for some of that, with his "tree of liberty watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants" metaphor. Timothy McVeigh, on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing, wore a t-shirt with Jefferson's declaration on the back.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Mon May 14, 2018 8:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Beyond Genius


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 859
Thanks: 742
Thanked: 388 times in 323 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
DWill wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense.
Harry Marks wrote:
I'm not so sure. In the context of 18th century America I don't think it is far-fetched that armed civilians would be seen as helpful to liberty.

DWill wrote:
On the narrow matter of what the Second Amendment says and why it was put in, I think it's important not to concede to the NRA that the reason was to legitimize opposing the government that was defined in the Constitution. The internal evidence is against this view, since it is reasonable to assume that the right to bear arms wouldn't be mentioned if militias were not seen as being vital to national defense. I'm not saying that bearing arms wasn't considered to be a right, just that it was at the service of a larger need. The Constitution also defines one of the purposes of militias as being to put down rebellions (such as Shay's Rebellion), not to foment them. Because there was no standing army for quite a while in the U.S., weapons held by citizens would be an important resource.
Well, I expect you are right about what the Constitution meant. I indicated that Kinda's view "makes sense to me" to mean that I could literally make sense of it, but I should perhaps have chosen wording that would not indicate agreement. I am willing to leave the matter open, even if that gives aid and comfort to the NRA, but as I indicated I don't think it is relevant to today's world anyway. You have given another reason, with the advent of standing armies.



Mon May 14, 2018 4:02 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I Amaze Even Myself

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1871
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 59
Thanked: 650 times in 503 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Quote:
Article 1, Section 8
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


DWill is correct on militias under the Constitution. The notion that militias were constituted to overthrow a tyrannical US Government is advocated by folks who have memorized the Second Amendment, including the placement of every comma, a pseudo-understanding of the diagramming of that sentence, and a with willful ignorance of most of the Constitution. When taken in context of the whole document, that concept evaporates.



Mon May 14, 2018 9:30 pm
Profile
Years of membership
So many e-books my reader is overweight!


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 110
Location: Texas
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 43 times in 37 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Interesting comments. Yes Alinsky was a genius, but then so was Ted Bundy. Both were good at what they did, good to the point of genius. But Bundy killed fewer than Alinsky, and Alinsky's destruction will continue for who knows how much longer?

Below is an interesting video, less than a minute long. It shows an actual shooting, so be advised. The video's from a closed-circuit camera:

https://mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploa ... Robber.mp4

Note the woman, who fortunately was armed, put the bad guy down. Outlaw all guns today and punks like the one in the video will still be using them tomorrow. It's GOOD to have firearms in the hands of good people.

Leftists love to grouch about guns. And I don't know why, but they always want to disarm themselves. That's suicidal insanity, which is hard to argue with. Go ahead and disarm yourselves, Leftists. Turn in your guns. Move to Chicago, where guns are tightly controlled. Or to London. You'll be safe in those liberal havens, right?

And speaking of London, here's a disturbing article. British schools are removing analog clocks from classrooms:

Schools are removing analogue clocks from exam halls as teenagers 'cannot tell the time'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2 ... rs-unable/

It's shameful how kids are manipulated nowadays. George Soros and George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey sponsor marches not to make classrooms safe, but to outlaw guns, and the kids don't understand how they're being used. Hell, they don't even understand how to tell time. And meanwhile, Soros, Clooney and Winfrey go about their business with armed bodyguards protecting them. The hypocrisy of the Left reeks.


_________________
MikeSheedy.com


Thu May 17, 2018 10:24 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5981
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1586
Thanked: 1701 times in 1314 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
You can hype the level of threat in today's U.S if you want to, but the facts don't back up what the NRA wants us to believe: that we're all in mortal danger when we leave the house --and while we're in it,too, come to think of it. I prefer not to end up like the guy who shot his wife twice, thinking she was the burglar they both had "heard" a half hour earlier.



Fri May 18, 2018 2:45 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank