Yep. The common myth is that 2A is for defence against tyranny, but it’s clearly about having people armed and trained to be ready to fight if they’re needed against an invading nation. That’s what the military was in the day: militias, not standing armies.
2A is broken and shouldn’t apply to the modern day, but that doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter why we are allowed to have weapons, just that we are and we should defend against those trying to intrude on the rights of others.
Militia is army in Latin, but in the day it already meant how people generally understand it now.
Also you are notoriously wrong about “not standing armies”, people were recruited and served for many years. Of course militaries were scaled up and down depending if it was wartime. Mandatory conscription and mobilization were a new tendency that, in some sense, led to WWI.
I think I want to play “Victoria” again.
2A is broken and shouldn’t apply to the modern day, but that doesn’t really matter.
Yes! Glad you understand that.
There’s a dialectic law with constitutional rights - if they are not on paper, then someone might say they don’t exist. If they are on paper, then someone might say they are given by that paper and exactly as much as written and intended.
Rights just exist, they are a transcendent object that can’t be defined or limited by laws.
I’ve been called a sovcit for saying that, despite it being pretty logical that if rights are limited and defined by law, then over time you’ll have fewer and fewer rights and not vice versa.
Rights just exist, they are a transcendent object that can’t be defined or limited by laws.
I don’t think rights exist in any meaningful way unless enforced / people agree to follow them. They’re just norms in a nicer suit. There’s no external referee that’s going to stop the game because “your rights are being violated”.
That and the 2a isn’t necessary for resistance. Been done in places without it obviously.
And yes, seems most of them seem quite happy with the current situation. Funny that.
Yep. The common myth is that 2A is for defence against tyranny, but it’s clearly about having people armed and trained to be ready to fight if they’re needed against an invading nation. That’s what the military was in the day: militias, not standing armies.
2A is broken and shouldn’t apply to the modern day, but that doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter why we are allowed to have weapons, just that we are and we should defend against those trying to intrude on the rights of others.
Militia is army in Latin, but in the day it already meant how people generally understand it now.
Also you are notoriously wrong about “not standing armies”, people were recruited and served for many years. Of course militaries were scaled up and down depending if it was wartime. Mandatory conscription and mobilization were a new tendency that, in some sense, led to WWI.
I think I want to play “Victoria” again.
Yes! Glad you understand that.
There’s a dialectic law with constitutional rights - if they are not on paper, then someone might say they don’t exist. If they are on paper, then someone might say they are given by that paper and exactly as much as written and intended.
Rights just exist, they are a transcendent object that can’t be defined or limited by laws.
I’ve been called a sovcit for saying that, despite it being pretty logical that if rights are limited and defined by law, then over time you’ll have fewer and fewer rights and not vice versa.
I don’t think rights exist in any meaningful way unless enforced / people agree to follow them. They’re just norms in a nicer suit. There’s no external referee that’s going to stop the game because “your rights are being violated”.