So? The person upthread never claimed the Second Amendment makes insurrection “legal,” only that it makes it possible by keeping the populace armed. Why are you making a strawman argument?
They are arguing that the fundamental purpose 2nd amendment is to allow the overthrow the sitting government. To make it a legally protected right of the citizenry to take back a supposedly tyrannical government by lethal force and war. That is false.
People are quick to forget the second amendment exists for situations like this.
“being necessary to the security of a free State” being the key point here.
the right cry foul saying they need to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Then literally elect an outspoken tyrant. Neo-liberals […] forgot why the second amendment exists. […] If it came down to it, toe to toe, left vs right, they’d get slaughtered.
some people are wholly convinced Trump is going to go full on fascist. […] To those people, y’all need to rethink your stance on arms. If it’s coming and you want to stop that freight train? That’s war.
How do you interpret all that if not that the 2nd amendment exists to overthrow/incite war with a tyrranical government?
How do you interpret all that if not that the 2nd amendment exists to overthrow/incite war with a tyrranical government?
It does exist to do that. To make it possible. But you kept arguing that it existed to make it “a legally protected right,” which is a different thing.
How many times do I have to explain to you that “possible” and “legal” are not equivalent before you finally get it?
What is the purpose of the bill of rights in the constitution? To establish a set of legally protected rights. If the 2nd amendment exists, as they said, for this exact purpose, then it exists to give people that right. It doesn’t. It was to allow small trained militias to be formed to protect the homefront from outside threats. Not to destroy the nation they had literally just formed.
So? The person upthread never claimed the Second Amendment makes insurrection “legal,” only that it makes it possible by keeping the populace armed. Why are you making a strawman argument?
They are arguing that the fundamental purpose 2nd amendment is to allow the overthrow the sitting government. To make it a legally protected right of the citizenry to take back a supposedly tyrannical government by lethal force and war. That is false.
He never said anything like that. You’re reading your own interpretation into it and then objecting to that.
How do you interpret all that if not that the 2nd amendment exists to overthrow/incite war with a tyrranical government?
It does exist to do that. To make it possible. But you kept arguing that it existed to make it “a legally protected right,” which is a different thing.
How many times do I have to explain to you that “possible” and “legal” are not equivalent before you finally get it?
What is the purpose of the bill of rights in the constitution? To establish a set of legally protected rights. If the 2nd amendment exists, as they said, for this exact purpose, then it exists to give people that right. It doesn’t. It was to allow small trained militias to be formed to protect the homefront from outside threats. Not to destroy the nation they had literally just formed.