Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + +
Talk:Second Amendment (view source)
Revision as of 02:34, November 28, 2016
, 02:34, November 28, 2016→Second Amendment question regarding the French Revolution: The Second Amendment does not grant the right for citizens to possess firearms - that right already pre-exists.
:::Lacking the time to go watch a video just now, I'll just post my response to the first part also. 1990'sguy is as far as I know, entirely correct. The second amendment provides citizens with the right to have and bear arms. It does not speak to how they are to be used, so other laws apply. Murder is clearly illegal, but self defense is legal, well, in most states. Separate laws apply to execution, also. Without any other laws, I suppose public execution by shotgun could be considered legal, (although if looking at founding documents, that would be denying the right of life) but those laws very tightly restrict capitol punishment. Besides, the culture wouldn't allow public execution. During the French revolution it was applauded only because the peasants had so much hate for the leaders. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 21:30, 27 November 2016 (EST)
:::Lacking the time to go watch a video just now, I'll just post my response to the first part also. 1990'sguy is as far as I know, entirely correct. The second amendment provides citizens with the right to have and bear arms. It does not speak to how they are to be used, so other laws apply. Murder is clearly illegal, but self defense is legal, well, in most states. Separate laws apply to execution, also. Without any other laws, I suppose public execution by shotgun could be considered legal, (although if looking at founding documents, that would be denying the right of life) but those laws very tightly restrict capitol punishment. Besides, the culture wouldn't allow public execution. During the French revolution it was applauded only because the peasants had so much hate for the leaders. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 21:30, 27 November 2016 (EST)
::::The Second Amendment does not give anything. The Founders lived through fake government-manufactured "rights" and instead focused on recognizing rights already pre-existing. That is, God given unalienable rights.
::::[[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]], There may not be something that states what you are looking for. More specifically, there may not be anything '''in English'''. You haven't made it clear though why you need this.(Unless I'm reading what you typed wrong) The Jacobin government, Robespierre's Terror, The Committee of Public Safety, whatever you want to call it(Including the later Jacobin/Napoleonic government that followed the French Revolution) - that's the very kind of government a second amendment is intended to guard against. That's the difference you are looking for. The French Revolutionaries, almost exactly like today's socialists, communists, or progressives, proclaim to be the guardians of the people all the while they are the greatest oppressors anybody can or will ever see.