Why wasn't the Prague Spring used as an argument against the Gun Control Act of 1968? Why did no one challenge it as violating the Second Amendment?
I’d imagine because Czechoslovakia was not subject to the Second Amendment.Why did no one challenge it as violating the Second Amendment?
Exactly this. If gun control and racism wasn't so established in terms of republican democrat I would expect the black lives matter movement to encourage black people to arm themselves for self defense against the police.I am not a regular participant in US gun-control debates, but I am familiar with the argument alluded to in this OP, ie. an armed citizenry has the power to rise against tyranny.
I do wonder how popular that argument is with politicicans, though, especially given that pro-gun politicians also tend to be law-and-order types. If you're the kind of guy whose main campaign theme is "More laws! More police!", do you really want to simultaneously be sending the message that the people have the right to shoot back?
Really? I thought the Founding Fathers added it so people could defend themselves against Indian attacks and their new Government could avoid paying for a real army.At the end of the day no one wants to encourage armed rebellion even though its a purpose of the second ammendment.
Really? I thought the Founding Fathers added it so people could defend themselves against Indian attacks and their new Government could avoid paying for a real army.
They did not add it, its a roll over from the English Bill of Rights, foolishly extended to Catholics and Baptists and suchlike.
In countries with a written constitution unless there is a law allowing something it is prohibited.
Why wasn't the Prague Spring used as an argument against the Gun Control Act of 1968?
Why did no one challenge it as violating the Second Amendment?
No offence, but is this some sort of weird joke ?
Don't troll.English Bill of rights
All Protestants have the right to bear arms for defence. These the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
2nd amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
My emphasis Its a pre existing right, of Englishmen, that shall not be infringed see also US v Cruickshank
The English bill goes way beyond preventing the monarch, its subjects the Monarch to Parliament and ofc it asserts that the rights therein are ancient rights and privileges'.
Now Under English Law Parliament can amend the law as it sees fit and the US congress cannot but thats just another bit they screwed up.
Then Such tyranny must be avoided at all costs. though I would expect most US citizens would be surprised to know they were forbidden to do things unless a law allowed for it.
New Priority bipartisan bill Bill for the promotion of recreational sexx, which will cause riots particularly over the Epstein Clauses but without it you are never getting laid again.
Congress Must ACT
JFKWhy wasn't the Prague Spring used as an argument against the Gun Control Act of 1968? Why did no one challenge it as violating the Second Amendment?
DO NOT drag one of the Hot Button current political issues out of Chat. 100% chance you will be unhappy with the resultLet's take the absurdity of the OP argument at face value and go full Nixon on it:
Let's say that civilians having military surplus rifles on the back of their skodas would have stoped the Soviet tanks.
Then why do we need all those expensive nukes to deter the soviet threat?
Why do we deploy all those expensive forces in Europe to stop a Soviet attack? Hell, let's just give every (West) German a surplus KAR98 and a box of surplus 7,92mm ammo and they'll take care of the Reds themselves.
The people who argue for the right to bear arms as a defence of freedom are usually the same that argue for a strong military and a strong police force. It's better for them to avoid actually discussing actual situations where their ideas could be tested.
Wasn't Malcolm X called a dangerous radical for mentioning the 2nd amendment in "The Ballot or the Bullet"?JFK
MLK
RFK
Start killing national political leaders it tends to motivate the rest of the national politician to get off the dime.