Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Telconi]

I hate to be rude new guy but that's a lot of incorrect information.

Telling me I'm wrong accomplishes nothing until you tell me what I got wrong specifically, and enlighten me to the truth.

Anyway, as a sidenote to my above manifesto, I will concede this: While a "well regulated militia" as I believe the founding fathers intended is not currently necessary, that could change relatively soon; President Trump's tenure in the White House has kept us constantly on the verge of the Second American Civil War, and if we cross that line, the Left will need a Second Amendment Militia with which to fight that war, or it will be doomed to end in disaster. As soon as that war is over, however, the need for such a militia will once again evaporate.

Quite the contrary, a safety mechanism doesn't become worthless the moment it isnt presently in operation.

To say a militia is unnecessary due to a present lack of civil war is like saying I should take off my seat belt because I'm not currently crashing.

[The South Falls]

I'll bet some guy will be just cutting at your grip for a while in your house.

That last point is valid.

My most complex grip is held in place by two screws. The simplest is literally a rubber ergo grip that's slip on/off. Easy thing to tamper with once you steal it and walk out of the home with it.

That would require much planning, and just busting into a house would give you ~5 minutes to do something if the homeowner is awake.

[Paddy O Fernature]

My most complex grip is held in place by two screws. The simplest is literally a rubber ergo grip that's slip on/off. Easy thing to tamper with once you steal it and walk out of the home with it.

That would require much planning, and just busting into a house would give you ~5 minutes to do something if the homeowner is awake.

And?

Entire gun stores have been emptied out in less time then that. Again, as previously stated, that's an easy thing to tamper with once you steal it and walk out of the home with it.

[Norskhavn]

Telling me I'm wrong accomplishes nothing until you tell me what I got wrong specifically, and enlighten me to the truth.

Anyway, as a sidenote to my above manifesto, I will concede this: While a "well regulated militia" as I believe the founding fathers intended is not currently necessary, that could change relatively soon; President Trump's tenure in the White House has kept us constantly on the verge of the Second American Civil War, and if we cross that line, the Left will need a Second Amendment Militia with which to fight that war, or it will be doomed to end in disaster. As soon as that war is over, however, the need for such a militia will once again evaporate.

Quite the contrary, a safety mechanism doesn't become worthless the moment it isnt presently in operation.

To say a militia is unnecessary due to a present lack of civil war is like saying I should take off my seat belt because I'm not currently crashing.

I should clarify that "on the verge" of a civil war was a bit of an exaggeration. The threat isn't immediate yet. When you get in your car, you are in no immediate danger of any kind until you start the engine and put your foot on the gas. At present, we're in the car, with the doors closed and locked, but the keys are not yet in the ignition

Beyond that,the worth of a safety mechanism is diminished whenever there is another, better one in place.If you have both a traditional seatbelt and a five point harness on the same seat, you use the harness.

[snip]

I'm not sure how that refutes anything I said.

I maintain that the stated purpose of the second amendment is important to this debate. I won't argue that that second amendment was meant only to apply to members of a militia. I know that's not the case. My argument that its stated purpose, to lay the framework for the creation of a militia, specifically with the security of the nation in mind, is, in the present day and age, of questionable validity.
The Second Amendment would be much more defensible if its reasons for upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms were different, for instance, For self Defense, or for any of the reasons stated in the legislation and court cases cited in the post you linked, E.G. that "...Standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty..."

And if you intend to use Copeman v Gallant against me, well, that's pretty weak. In my opinion, Preamble should restrict the effect of purview, and I'm pretty sure that this thread is as much about what ought to be as it is about what is.

[The South Falls]

That would require much planning, and just busting into a house would give you ~5 minutes to do something if the homeowner is awake.

And?

Entire gun stores have been emptied out in less time then that. Again, as previously stated, that's an easy thing to tamper with once you steal it and walk out of the home with it.

Bust in, and walk out, nobody notices?

[Telconi]

Quite the contrary, a safety mechanism doesn't become worthless the moment it isnt presently in operation.

To say a militia is unnecessary due to a present lack of civil war is like saying I should take off my seat belt because I'm not currently crashing.

I should clarify that "on the verge" of a civil war was a bit of an exaggeration. The threat isn't immediate yet. When you get in your car, you are in no immediate danger of any kind until you start the engine and put your foot on the gas. At present, we're in the car, with the doors closed and locked, but the keys are not yet in the ignition

Beyond that,the worth of a safety mechanism is diminished whenever there is another, better one in place.If you have both a traditional seatbelt and a five point harness on the same seat, you use the harness.

[snip]

I'm not sure how that refutes anything I said.

I maintain that the stated purpose of the second amendment is important to this debate. I won't argue that that second amendment was meant only to apply to members of a militia. I know that's not the case. My argument that its stated purpose, to lay the framework for the creation of a militia, specifically with the security of the nation in mind, is, in the present day and age, of questionable validity.
The Second Amendment would be much more defensible if its reasons for upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms were different, for instance, For self Defense, or for any of the reasons stated in the legislation and court cases cited in the post you linked, E.G. that "...Standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty..."

And if you intend to use Copeman v Gallant against me, well, that's pretty weak. In my opinion, Preamble should restrict the effect of purview, and I'm pretty sure that this thread is as much about what ought to be as it is about what is.

No, were very much driving down the highway of being a fucking country. We've been doing it for 250ish years,

Well sure, but since laser guns dont exist yet, we have to arm our militia with firearms. Thus firearms remain the best mechanism available.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And?

Entire gun stores have been emptied out in less time then that. Again, as previously stated, that's an easy thing to tamper with once you steal it and walk out of the home with it.

Bust in, and walk out, nobody notices?

After hours robberies are a very real thing ya know.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Maybe they should've used their firearms more liberally and not drink the gun control Kool-Aid.

You mean murder police officers?

It's not murder if it's to protect your property and rights.

[The South Falls]

Bust in, and walk out, nobody notices?

After hours robberies are a very real thing ya know.

yea. The point you make is valid depending on the house and the homeowner. Plus, burglars are human too. They slip.

[Paddy O Fernature]

After hours robberies are a very real thing ya know.

yea. The point you make is valid depending on the house and the homeowner. Plus, burglars are human too. They slip.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe I remember reading in one of either Big Jims or WRA's posted studies on another thread that most firearms stolen during home invasions was during after hours with the home owner away from the residence.

[The South Falls]

yea. The point you make is valid depending on the house and the homeowner. Plus, burglars are human too. They slip.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe I remember reading in one of either Big Jims or WRA's posted studies on another thread that most firearms stolen during home invasions was during after hours with the home owner away from the residence.

No idea if you're wrong, so I digress for the moment.

[Norskhavn]

In that time, we've been in a situation which called upon the people to form a militia, rather than relying upon the standing army, exactly once, and then, only because their cause was in opposition to the state. They formed their militia only when the time was right. It's moot that they were on the wrong side of history, because under slightly different circumstances, the tables would've been flipped.

This time, if the time has come to form a militia, it has only just. In my opinion, the threat of another civil war is real, but not yet sufficiently urgent to invoke the second amendment.
In addition, the foreign threats we face today that would invoke the second, are already contained by our armed forces to the extent that a militia would be pointless.

Against our biggest domestic threat, the car is parked, the engine is cold, and the keys are in our pocket.

Against foreign threats, we're already wearing a five point harness, rendering our seatbelt pointless.

[Telconi]

In that time, we've been in a situation which called upon the people to form a militia, rather than relying upon the standing army, exactly once, and then, only because their cause was in opposition to the state. They formed their militia only when the time was right. It's moot that they were on the wrong side of history, because under slightly different circumstances, the tables would've been flipped.

This time, if the time has come to form a militia, it has only just. In my opinion, the threat of another civil war is real, but not yet sufficiently urgent to invoke the second amendment.
In addition, the foreign threats we face today that would invoke the second, are already contained by our armed forces to the extent that a militia would be pointless.

Against our biggest domestic threat, the car is parked, the engine is cold, and the keys are in our pocket.

Against foreign threats, we're already wearing a five point harness, rendering our seatbelt pointless.

You do understand the government is governing as we speak right?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Second amendment should serve its original purpose and the military reduced to a small cadre while national defense is handled by a citizen militia.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Second amendment should serve its original purpose and the military reduced to a small cadre while national defense is handled by a citizen militia.

Okay but only if the other countries do too.

[Salus Maior]

Second amendment should serve its original purpose and the military reduced to a small cadre while national defense is handled by a citizen militia.

Citizen militia won't be a match for a professional army.

[Valrifell]

Second amendment should serve its original purpose and the military reduced to a small cadre while national defense is handled by a citizen militia.

Citizen militia won't be a match for a professional army.

Nations don't invade each other anymore, anyway.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Citizen militia won't be a match for a professional army.

Nations don't invade each other anymore, anyway.

>Looks at Georgia, Iraq

[Valrifell]

Nations don't invade each other anymore, anyway.

>Looks at Georgia, Iraq

Much*

[Telconi]

Citizen militia won't be a match for a professional army.

Nations don't invade each other anymore, anyway.

Of course not, there totally aren't ongoing invasions literally right now...

[United Muscovite Nations]

Nations don't invade each other anymore, anyway.

>Looks at Georgia, Iraq

Georgia was invaded because it invaded its neighbor, which it had a ceasefire with.

[Telconi]

>Looks at Georgia, Iraq

Georgia was invaded because it invaded its neighbor, which it had a ceasefire with.

So two invasions...

[United Muscovite Nations]

Georgia was invaded because it invaded its neighbor, which it had a ceasefire with.

So two invasions...

It's a little complicated. Basically, Georgia thought it could get away with it because South Ossetia was an unrecognized country, but they forgot that their ceasefire with South Ossetia involved a joint Russo-Georgian peacekeeping force, and when they invaded South Ossetia, they killed Russian peacekeepers.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So two invasions...

It's a little complicated. Basically, Georgia thought it could get away with it because South Ossetia was an unrecognized country, but they forgot that their ceasefire with South Ossetia involved a joint Russo-Georgian peacekeeping force, and when they invaded South Ossetia, they killed Russian peacekeepers.

So two invasions.

>Looks at Georgia, Iraq

Much*

What's the measure of "much?"

[Telconi]

It's a little complicated. Basically, Georgia thought it could get away with it because South Ossetia was an unrecognized country, but they forgot that their ceasefire with South Ossetia involved a joint Russo-Georgian peacekeeping force, and when they invaded South Ossetia, they killed Russian peacekeepers.

So two invasions.

Much*

What's the measure of "much?"

There isnt one, any amount amounts to "not much" because he has a vested interested in there not being "much"