Anwar al-Awlaki killed

If America was at war, then all the soldiers it took should be POWs and would be covered by the Geneva Convention. America has long argued that they are NOT soldiers and hence such rules don't apply... Until, of course, they need them to do so for a different reason. All detainees transferred to POW camps, with Red Cross visits and no forced interrogation? No, thought not.

Merely that Yemeni commandos failed changes nothing. If a SAS / SBS / Delta Force / IDF had failed to do so, that would have credance. Merely that some local incompetants failed isn't evidence that capture is impossible. I should have said a significant attempt to capture him.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ

Reading the account of the internal legal memorandum used to justified the killing, I find the logic quite compelling if you accept that the US is at war with Al Qaeda. If al-Awlaki were serving in the army of a foreign state with which the US was at war, there would be no legal objection to a drone strike on him. The fact that he was serving with a non-state belligerent, Al Qaeda, does not change that in my mind.

On the pandora's box, being "at war" does not justify a massace. Not every declaration of war is justified. And not every government would want to declare war on terrorist adversaries. The IRA long campaigned to be regarded as legally as being at war with the British state (e.g. to get POW rights for its prisoners) but the UK resisted this and treated them just as criminals. In the context of the more limited armed conflict with between the IRA and the UK government, restraint by the latter was probably sensible. There would have been little more likely to have generated support for the IRA than a drone strike on one of its leaders. (There was controversy over an alleged "shoot to kill" policy in N. Ireland in the 1980s but if such a policy existed it was certainly more covert than the drone strike we are discussing.) You could make the same pragmatic argument about the America's war on AQ. But the reason I keep coming back to 9/11 is that the struggle with AQ is peculiarly unlimited. It's also fundamentally international (if al-Awlaki were operating in the US, a drone strike would not have been appropriate) wherea many other terrorists conflicts are essentially internal.

---

Uhum, I agree. Well, insofar as forcing the war-combatant label on Al-Awlaki can be accepted, yet then we'd have to go back to 2002 and the whole debate then over the mere framing of the issue in terms of wartime policy instead of criminal law (moment in which the above would become a clear case of extrajudicial killing) and we'd both bury ourselves in decade-old articles over which is what. So, in view of the new info on the extraordinary nature of the case and the even more extraordinary way it was treated, I do have to somewhat change my mind -- best way to make sure you've got one after all and a privilege not enough chaps make use of even in light of compelling evidence (that's an old rant of mine, moving on).

I will write though that the fact that this was not made part of a public debate is still unsettling and it should act as a caveat should this situation repeat itself -- in fact, this is not actually the first time an american dies in a drone strike targeting AQ per se as far as I know, Kamal Derwish, a Qaeda member from N.Y., was killed in Yemen in 2002. At the time, the Bush administration communicated that it did not know before the attack that Derwish was in the car. But administration officials made it clear that they were not troubled that he was, because he was considered a Qaeda operative and therefore a legitimate target. Thus I can't let go to all my objections. It's not as if a public debate on legally dealing with american citizens operating in overseas terrorist organisations would've impeded operations. And then, in the NYT article there's the small paragraph:

Quote:

---

The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.

---

Which again one cannot overlook. Still, in principle, should they actually have a case able to survive the Supreme Court on Awlaki being demonstrably a lawful military target (and I mean demonstrably in Court, because we all know here, even the ones on the other side of the fence regarding the action, that he was so), as they let to believe, no one can object to it morally.

Quote:

---

If America was at war, then all the soldiers it took should be POWs and would be covered by the Geneva Convention. America has long argued that they are NOT soldiers and hence such rules don't apply... Until, of course, they need them to do so for a different reason.

---

Well, no, even the chaps down in Guantanamo are classified as enemy combatants, albeit since 2008, and their treatment does observe the Geneva conventions since 2006, after the Hamdan case I think :book2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If America was at war, then all the soldiers it took should be POWs and would be covered by the Geneva Convention. America has long argued that they are NOT soldiers and hence such rules don't apply... Until, of course, they need them to do so for a different reason. All detainees transferred to POW camps, with Red Cross visits and no forced interrogation? No, thought not.

---

Well, I think the US regards AQ prisoners as unlawful combatants - as defined in the US army link I posted earlier - similar to bandits in a warzone or civilians who attack downed airmen. I think that assessment is fair - terrorists are not fighting to the same rules as uniformed soldiers of a properly established government. How they should be treated when captured is another matter. I am quite happy with applying the humane rules you referred to.

Quote:

---

Merely that Yemeni commandos failed changes nothing. If a SAS / SBS / Delta Force / IDF had failed to do so, that would have credance. Merely that some local incompetants failed isn't evidence that capture is impossible. I should have said a significant attempt to capture him.

---

In a war, you don't have to show that it is impossible to capture an enemy before you shoot him. The issue is whether an operation to capture would be as effective and pose excessive risk to your men. It is self evident that a drone strike can be put in place more quickly than a SEAL raid - thus being more effective at catching an elusive target - and at no risk to your own personnel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Uhum, I agree. Well, insofar as forcing the war-combatant label on Al-Awlaki can be accepted, yet then we'd have to go back to 2002 and the whole debate then over the mere framing of the issue in terms of wartime policy instead of criminal law (moment in which the above would become a clear case of extrajudicial killing) and we'd both bury ourselves in decade-old articles over which is what.

---

I know, but I do think that is the issue here. For many years, I though the War on Terror was an inane idea. Donald Rumsfeld apparently had the same reaction. And I thought the appropriate response was to treat it as a criminal matter rather than a military one. But discussing the al-Awlaki case now makes me re-consider that to some extent. The idea that 9/11 put the US on a war footing cannot be lightly dismissed (as the national head of the air traffic control said, closing US air space: "We’re at war with someone and until we know what to do about it, we’re finished.”). From a domestic political/emotional point of view, the case for the US going on to a war stance after 9/11 was unstoppable. Maybe now that the same scale of atrocity has not been repeated and AQ appears to wilt, the US will move back to treating terrorism as a criminal issue. But I can't with any certainty deny their right to adopt a military approach. (Nor the right of other countries facing severe long term terrorist threats, e.g. Israel).

More detail about the kill memo surfaces:

The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat. [...]

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him. [...]

It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks.

Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located.

Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

It then considered possible obstacles and rejected each in turn.

Among them was an executive order that bans assassinations. That order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict.

A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war.

But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility.

Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”

The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.

It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”

The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.

It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.

---

And this is where their reasoning breaks down. al-Awlaki was not "detained or prosecuted" by the military, sentence was passed down a year in advance, no court (including military) involved, and sentence carried out by civilian personnel. And what was the imminent risk to innocent people? His killing was premeditated, the situation of his death can't be a factor in the decision because his sentence was passed so far in advance. The memo justifies his assassination regardless of the circumstance, he could have been drinking tea in the desert, it didn't matter. Why would they even include that in the memo, when the circumstances of his eventual demise could not be known? The use of imminent risk here is so egregious, where/when does the "risk" end? So a year later cops can just shoot a suspected armed robber on sight? It's just easier, he might be a risk to innocents, and he don't need a trial anyway, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

AThe use of imminent risk here is so egregious, where/when does the "risk" end? So a year later cops can just shoot a suspected armed robber on sight? It's just easier, he might be a risk to innocents, and he don't need a trial anyway, right?

---

Actually, I don't think we need to invoke the slippery slope to see why this sort of decision-making is disturbing. Even if we accept that this sort of "kill memo" would only be used on terrorists who cannot be reached by the law, it's still disturbing, and still worth arguing over. Frankly, I find the reasoning of the memo scarily similar to the legal-sounding nonsense put forward by Yoo and Bybee declaring that enhanced interrogation torture was a legitimate tool when used on people we suspected were bad.

Did the use of torture by MI, CIA and SEAL interrogation teams metastize into everyday citizens being waterboarded, stress-positioned and head-slammed? No, it did not. The only case that really leaps out is Jose Padilla, and his situation was more complicated. So I'm not sure that imagining drone attacks on gang bangers or "enhanced interrogation" of murder suspects is a legitimate worry.

On the other hand, we have seen that once an extra-legal method is approved in a particular context, it is then used and reused in similar situations by the agents of government. Hence the spread of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, not in NYC or FLA. Hence the worry that "kill memos" could be written about any figure who opposes US interests overseas.

It's a moral and legal thicket, but we don't need to invoke these extra-legalities being used on grandma.

It's exactly the same crap Yoo and Bybee put forth, 2 lawyers in the Justice Department handwaving away people's civil rights. And the constant pingponging between civilian and military situations whenever it suits them in this case gets old fast.

If they had run it through a marsupial-like Star Chamber run by the judicial branch, I probably wouldn't be complaining so much here. But the effort just isn't there, and that's the pattern I fear. FISA warrants are essentially a rubber-stamping process (you can even post-date them), and the executive branch couldn't be bothered there either.

2 guys in suits being told to come up with uncontested justifications to meet whatever agenda is desired. Unitary executive ftw.

Slightly OT but it does contain constitutional law & drones.

Given the premise of the right to have arms is to put citizens up on an equal footing with the military in the event the civilians want to overthrow an unjust government:

Is Joe Citizen allowed to have his own fleet of drones?

If not, why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Slightly OT but it does contain constitutional law & drones.

Given the premise of the right to have arms is to put citizens up on an equal footing with the military in the event the civilians want to overthrow an unjust government:

---

Quote:

---

in no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

• deterring undemocratic government;
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[32]

---

etc

I imagine civilian ownership of drones would be regulated by the FAA (airspace control) and the FCC (RF spectrum control). Missiles/explosives to put on the drones, a big, fat, no. The feds tend to draw the line at personal explosives.

The right to bear arms is phrased in such a way that Joe Citizen is allowed to have hydrogen bombs... It doesn't limit arms at all. Still, I'd expect that acquiring of same would tend to fall foul of NPT and classified info legislation, not to mention that the local homeowners club might get a little upset when they come home to find their neighbourhood marked with shiny new “danger: presence of radioactive materials” signs. <_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The right to bear arms is phrased in such a way that Joe Citizen is allowed to have hydrogen bombs... It doesn't limit arms at all.

---

No it is not phrased that way. That's not how constitutions...or english...works.


If there was an amendment that said "Each citizen shall have the right to a free scoop of ice cream in a cone" it would not be "phrased in such a way" that the ice cream could be served in a traffic cone, or a cone 10 yards in diameter, or a cone made off little hydrogen bombs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

No it is not phrased that way. That's not how constitutions...or english...works.

---

The English actually is pretty final about it, ... “shall not be infringed”. Now, you happen to have a whole nice legal tradition of finding ways to bend the meaning of the words used in the Constitution to whatever is practical or desirable (for whomever gets it their way) at any given time. In other words your Supreme Court did in fact rule that such language is not to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean the English itself changes meaning.

TL;DR: phrasing =/= meaning =/= interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The English actually is pretty final about it, ... “shall not be infringed”. Now, you happen to have a whole nice legal tradition of finding ways to bend the meaning of the words used in the Constitution to whatever is practical or desirable (for whomever gets it their way) at any given time.

---

The legal debate about the 2nd amendment is strongly shaped by exactly the opposite of what you said our legal tradition is.

Quote:

---

In other words your Supreme Court did in fact rule that such language is not to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean the English itself changes meaning.

TL;DR: phrasing =/= meaning =/= interpretation.

---

Exactly :stare::stare::stare:

The english DOESN'T change meanings.

For example. "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" means, in english, a certain class of cups. It most definitely does not mean the kind of cup they use in sports. When you say things in any language (that I know of) it is not the case that a word in a context can mean any of its possible meanings. "Keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with biological arms like everyone has either, and it does not mean that "literally".

I'm not sure I follow you “in cups” doesn't mean “in certain kind of cups”, it means “in cups”. It doesn't define what cups these are, but crucially it doesn't define what these cups are not either. So there's no restriction on what cups these cups might be. The phrasing is <Reasoning>, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is it, the entire 2nd amendment in full. The meaning is therefore quite simple: there shall be no encroachment on the right to keep & bear <unspecified> arms.

Could you point out the restriction on arms for me? Where exactly do I find that in that sentence?

... I don't. I only find that in your legal tradition which does indeed impose such restrictions. The debate is merely between people who say the restrictions are sensible, reasonable and beneficial which should carry greater weight than the opinions of a few long dead people who were high on 18th century memes, versus those who say that this impinges upon their liberty as laid down in the constitution...

Quote:

---

For example. "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" means, in english, a certain class of cups.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure I follow you “in cups” doesn't mean “in certain kind of cups”, it means “in cups”.

---

In cups means in cups, ice cream in cups said in that way means in a certain class of cups. You know this unconsciously because you DO speak the language, but I guess you can't get it consciously?? :dizzy2::dizzy2:


Next you'll be telling me that "all men are created equal" excludes women :wall: :wall:

Quote:

---

The debate is merely between people who say the restrictions are sensible, reasonable and beneficial which should carry greater weight than the opinions of a few long dead people who were high on 18th century memes, versus those who say that this impinges upon their liberty as laid down in the constitution...

---

Where do you get these ideas?

So basically "arms" is known to have meant guns because that is what they were referring to when they wrote the word, since obviously those were the only kind of arms. Now that there are many different kind of arms, (nuclear, biological), these are not meant to be lumped in with guns under the terms "arms" because when you say "arms" in that context they obviously meant guns, not nuclear bombs.

Thus, when he says cups, you know he means cups and not some thing else with the term "cup" attached to it.

Well the definition of a gun could be a howitzer.

If you restrict the arms to that of 1776 you effectively neuter the intent of the amendment. No force using muskets is going to beat or be able to effectively aid a modern military other then wearing red shirts and all being ensigns.

I thought the constitution is supposed to be a living document, ergo the amendment should be amended to clarify this directly. It could even have a clause that requires the section to re reviewed every decade or so to allow for changes over time.

Guessing what is meant is impossible.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Guessing what is meant is impossible.

~:smoking:

---

That's why they don't guess. Why would you imagine the supreme court justices reading it and guessing?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That's why they don't guess. Why would you imagine the supreme court justices reading it and guessing?????

---

Or they what? Go through a time portal and talk directly to those that wrote it?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The english DOESN'T change meanings.

For example. "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" means, in english, a certain class of cups. It most definitely does not mean the kind of cup they use in sports. When you say things in any language (that I know of) it is not the case that a word in a context can mean any of its possible meanings. "Keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with biological arms like everyone has either, and it does not mean that "literally".

---

You're right in that English doesn't change the meaning, unless you are talking about in translation where it can.

But "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" does not define anything apart from citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups, it doesn't determine a certain type or class of cups just as it doesn't dictate the flavour of ice cream. Similarly "Keep and bear arms" does not define what arms are, common sense says it shouldn't be what your hands are attached to but there is nothing there to determine if it means a BB gun or a nuclear weapon. Bear implies that it should be something you can carry but does not properly define it.

So language doesn't change the meaning but unless you are very precise it is open to interpretation and this is easily tested, draw a black square exactly 4cm on each side:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is that a black outline of a square or a solid black square?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Or they what? Go through a time portal and talk directly to those that wrote it?

~:smoking:

---

...aka books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

You're right in that English doesn't change the meaning, unless you are talking about in translation where it can.

But "citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups" does not define anything apart from citizens have the right to be served ice cream in cups, it doesn't determine a certain type or class of cups just as it doesn't dictate the flavour of ice cream.

---

It does determine that the kind of cup is not the kind used in sports. The kind of cup is the kind that is used to serve ice cream in, that meets the needs or wants of ice cream serving.

Quote:

---

Similarly "Keep and bear arms" does not define what arms are, common sense says it shouldn't be what your hands are attached to but there is nothing there to determine if it means a BB gun or a nuclear weapon. Bear implies that it should be something you can carry but does not properly define it.

---

So it does limit arms...I'm not sure we really disagree. There's a class of arms that you are referring to when you talk about them keeping and bearing them for the reasons that citizens keep and bear arms.

Soooooo... there is a document that explicitly states what they meant in the second amendment? Funny thing, that. All this discussion for decades and there is something that specifies exactly what they meant! What a stroke of luck! Does it even list their discussions on hypothetical situations that had yet to occur? Automatic / semi-automatic guns and what calibre was allowed? Are there any comments on future weaponry that doesn't exist yet?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

In cups means in cups, ice cream in cups said in that way means in a certain class of cups. You know this unconsciously because you DO speak the language, but I guess you can't get it consciously?? :dizzy2::dizzy2:

---

.

No it doesn't. You are conflating equality with “being synonymous”, or at least your reasoning belies making a mental leap or two to that effect. That works in colloquial language, but it breaks down at the level where you talk about semantics beyond a superficial meaning.

Try to translate your sentences into German, say, and mind you stick as close to the original as is possible. Literal translation. That is important because while literal translation is almost always not very useful, it is a marvelous way to highlight where the subtleties in your sources are.

Quote:

---

Next you'll be telling me that "all men are created equal" excludes women :wall: :wall:

---

As you know full well “men” means more than “males”, it can also mean “humans” or “people”/“persons”. (Actually “persons” is its most accurate meaning: women is derived from the word “men” itself. It's a feature of the Germanic languages that words tend to default to male gender.)

@ACIN:
Ehrm, at the time all sorts of arms where in common usage. From rifles to cutlasses...

I know, I know there were lots of different weapons, but you all got my point. we know what they meant by arms, so talking about personal nuclear weapons is ridiculous. that is what sasaki is trying to say I think.

The whole point: there is no definition in the 2nd Amendment of what kinds of arms apply. Whether that is ridiculous in this world or not is therefore about as relevant as whether chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream when it comes to flawed analogies with cups.

So a ICBM no.
A suitcase nuke yes... Because an individual can carry it... Or an x-ray laser powered by a suitcase nuke (so the explosion is no longer the primary weapon just a collateral effect).
Does bear arms include borne by horse ... I'm thinking the modern day pick up truck with .50 cal tripod on the back as used in Libya

Does it include RPGs? If not then no citizens have arms strong enough to fight a modern armored force. This in turn would require rebels to engage in asymmetric warfare... Making it an even worse situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So a ICBM no.
A suitcase nuke yes... Because an individual can carry it... Or an x-ray laser powered by a suitcase nuke (so the explosion is no longer the primary weapon just a collateral effect).
Does bear arms include borne by horse ... I'm thinking the modern day pick up truck with .50 cal tripod on the back as used in Libya

Does it include RPGs? If not then no citizens have arms strong enough to fight a modern armored force. This in turn would require rebels to engage in asymmetric warfare... Making it an even worse situation.

---

No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Soooooo... there is a document that explicitly states what they meant in the second amendment? Funny thing, that. All this discussion for decades and there is something that specifies exactly what they meant! What a stroke of luck!

---

All this discussion yes, because people don't bother to read the stuff :book2:

Quote:

---

As you know full well “men” means more than “males”, it can also mean “humans” or “people”/“persons”. (Actually “persons” is its most accurate meaning: women is derived from the word “men” itself. It's a feature of the Germanic languages that words tend to default to male gender.)

---

But did they mean it in that sentence? Which did they mean, males or humans? YOU are saying that you don't know. Maybe you should translate into german and apply some semantic subtleties to it.