To your point, and to take it a step further, if the intent of the framers of the US Constitution was for the public to have access to armaments that would enable to them to overthrow the government, those armaments must be sufficient to overcome the US military. So we should all have the right to buy not just as many guns as we want, but also heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, howitzers, tanks, Javelins, helicopters, fighter jets, submarines, ballistic missiles…
He would likely cite the American Revolution fighting against King George. Would that make Brooks just a Redcoat or would he be a full Benedict Arnold?
Don’t give Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk ideas.
The intent of the framers was how to deal with a 20 percent non-white population in the country at its founding.
Arguably, also the white underclass. According to Howard Zinn.
Me thinks Brooks is confusing the Confucian concept of the Mandate of Heaven with the US Constitution.
It’s been a while since I read either document, but I don’t recall overthrowing the government being part of either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.
I know that if I were an elementary school teacher trying to keep my classroom safe and there was an unhinged murderer running around the school I’d like my odds a lot better if they were wielding a kitchen knife (or even a “samurai” sword!) than an AR-15.
Nobody is saying that banning guns will get rid of all guns, or that getting rid of all guns would stop all murder. We are saying that guns are the leading cause of death among children and we should fucking do something about that. Reducing the number and type of guns is proven to work.
Which was “well regulated” militias and foreign armies. And which also was before we were a country.
But yes, he’d be the redcoat.
What part of “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” screams, "use your guns to overthrow the government? The 2nd Amendment literally explains that people need guns (in the absence of a standing army or national/state guard) so they can be called up to defend against armed insurrectionists trying to take over the state.
The people cheering on 2nd Amendment extremism are the people the 2nd Amendment was designed to oppose.
We want to get out there in governance, asking 'Where on any US Agency or policy-making were guns not the most effective solution you applied?" and get a few tautological replies. Speculating here that these guys think of themselves sometime during a given term.
…subsidized maintenance, etc. etc. TBMs on the farm and golf course, whacking the dust out of erasers and intercontinental ballistic missiles at school. Thank flarb Galatians 44:54420 has a procedural for these things or I’d have no time for my Chick-Fil-A prep ritual.
Was not the Declaration of Independence literally about overthrowing government? specifically the British governance of the 13 Colonies?
The great fear of (most of) the founding fathers was that their slaves would rise up and kill them. This is no longer a concern.
This guy is such a jackass.
Sorta. It was more about self-governance. If the British had responded with negotiation, the colonies would have been fine with that. It would have been much more in their interest to avoid a big fight with a superpower.
As @DukeTrout says, it was about gaining independence from the United Kingdom, not about ending the existing government or the monarchy. The colonies might not have shed a tear if the reign of the Hanovers ended, but that wasn’t their goal.
Arguably, tax breaks for the rich.
does he not know he is “the government”?
Oh I bet he could be convinced to change his mind.
I’m still partial to a limit of “everything beyond the epidermis.” It’s not like we’re all using the same definitions for all the other words in the constitution, so why not change this one?
Unless I’m mistaken the Second is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that the Founders felt compelled to provide an explicit rationale for within the Amendment itself.
They didn’t explain why they thought it was important to protect free speech or let citizens refuse to provide quarter to troops or avoid incriminating themselves in court because the rationale behind those rights seemed self-evident. But when it came to “bearing arms” they gave an explicit reason—the need for a well-regulated militia.
Almost as if they were worried their intent might be misinterpreted if they didn’t elaborate.
Yeah, now that you mention it, why do the police get first dibs on all that old military gear…? seems very anti-2nd amendment. The citizens need it moar!
(/s if it needs saying!)
Republicans: Support our Troops! Back the Blue!
Also Republicans: We must be prepared to slaughter those jackbooted thugs at a moment’s notice!