|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 6, 2015 9:28:59 GMT -5
He assumes the illegitimacy of the Constitution as either the last word (unless changed by due process of amendment) or as reasonable when followed. . . , OK. I see where you're going to (or coming from). And it's a very valid point. If any law is passed (no matter what) that pertains to guns, it will most certainly end up in a challenge before the SCOTUS. And the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment would most likely make it null and void, unless the Supremes would find a convoluted way to trump with some other Constitutional right. A new Constitutional Amendment would be the only iron clad legal argument. But we know that there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that all the states would get behind that. Do all the states have to ratify an Amendment? I can't remember. Probably so. That's how Virginia got the "Guns and Well Regulated Militia" in the constitution; so they could keep down slave rebellions; in order to pass the Constitution in the first place. The whole slavery thing has so affected this nation. We live with the artifacts of it every day. What a sad testimony to man's inhumanity towards man. That's a warped vision of where the second amendment came from. The truth is that America had just defeated the most powerful military in the world in armed rebellion. An armed rebellion that was supported by a well armed populace that was already quite skilled in the use of firearms. Washington didn't need to generate a whole lot of revenue in order to arm and train his army. A citizen's militia beat the British. The second amendment was a recognition that the new republic was certainly just as capable of slipping into tyranny and the rights of citizens to oppose that in the same way must be protected. The slavery issue didn't materialize until a century later. At the time of the revolution slavery was accepted through out the colonies including the north.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 6, 2015 10:12:19 GMT -5
It's not as warped as you say. But I grant you it's a one sided argument. I suppose I'd have to do a chunk of research that I'm not ready to do at this moment to feel comfy in where the issue stands. But I'm willing to accept a portion of that slavery argument, if indeed it was the South that was pushing for the amendment. You can build a case that the whole Civil War was about the rights of the states to have their own Militias. But then we still have the National Guard in each state. But the Governor's rights over such can be trumped by the Feds any time.
I enjoy throwing noodles at the wall around here and seeing what sticks. I don't often purport to have lock on truth. And I like to put things out there and see what the Soundhole gurgitators will come up with. I learn a lot.
And I waste way too much time.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 6, 2015 10:16:39 GMT -5
I was struck by a statement at the beginning of Ken Burn's Civil War. The narrator says at the time of secession there were 21 million people in the north, and 9 million people in the south. And 4 million of the South were slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 6, 2015 10:22:15 GMT -5
But; We already control the sales of tanks and howitzers and machine guns. Somehow the "Well Regulated Militia" doesn't apply to ownership of these weapons. It would seem that a ban on assault type weaponry would be possible to squeak by the Supremes. Handguns and hunting rifles are never going to get banned. (Though high capacity magazines for handguns could. But that ban would be so easy to get around that you have to wonder about it's effectiveness. But it might have kept high capacity fire power out of the hands of the loonies at Sandyhook and Rosedale. Those were legal purchases gone awry). We already control the sales of tanks and howitzers and machine guns. Somehow the "Well Regulated Militia" doesn't apply to ownership of these weapons. It would seem that a ban on assault type weaponry would be possible to squeak by the Supremes. Also unconstitutional. Remember the Constitution was written to protect the people from the government. And that doesn't just apply to the 2nd A. Government can only do "these things", government is forbidden from doing "these things" and if we forgot anything government is forbidden from doing anything not listed in Article 1 section 8. Constitution was written with the knowledge that government is evil and the thought was if it was a necessary evil then put a whole bunch of rules to keep it from becoming more evil.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 6, 2015 10:25:08 GMT -5
It's not as warped as you say. But I grant you it's a one sided argument. I suppose I'd have to do a chunk of research that I'm not ready to do at this moment to feel comfy in where the issue stands. But I'm willing to accept a portion of that slavery argument, if indeed it was the South that was pushing for the amendment. You can build a case that the whole Civil War was about the rights of the states to have their own Militias. But then we still have the National Guard in each state. But the Governor's rights over such can be trumped by the Feds any time. I enjoy throwing noodles at the wall around here and seeing what sticks. I don't often purport to have lock on truth. And I like to put things out there and see what the Soundhole gurgitators will come up with. I learn a lot. And I waste way too much time. The Revolution ran until 1783. The Bill of Rights passed in 1791. Civil War wasn't until 1861. Slavery had not become an issue at the time of the Bill of Rights.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 6, 2015 10:30:05 GMT -5
It is true that laws against concealed carry are anti black laws, as are a majority of anti gun laws. Gotta keep guns out of the hands of those negras. Now days we cover that by banning ex felons from gun ownership, that's just another racist law.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 6, 2015 11:15:25 GMT -5
Slavery had not become an issue at the time of the Bill of Rights. A rare moment when I disagree with you. Slavery was very much on the minds of folks around the time the Constitution, etc, was being put together. They just decided to kick the can down the road, seeing as how they had bigger issues that needed dealing with first.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 6, 2015 11:44:54 GMT -5
Slavery had not become an issue at the time of the Bill of Rights. A rare moment when I disagree with you. Slavery was very much on the minds of folks around the time the Constitution, etc, was being put together. They just decided to kick the can down the road, seeing as how they had bigger issues that needed dealing with first. It's not really disagreeing. Slavery may have been on folks minds. But they had just fought and won a war of independence in the name of liberty. Fundamental liberty. Which was won with an armed citizen's militia. To say that the second amendment was merely a sop to Virginia slave owners demeans the entire Bill of Rights. It is profoundly more important than that.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Oct 6, 2015 15:59:38 GMT -5
... The truth is that ______ had just defeated the most powerful military in the world in armed rebellion. An armed rebellion that was supported by a well armed populace that was already quite skilled in the use of firearms. _______ didn't need to generate a whole lot of revenue in order to arm and train his army. A citizen's militia beat the _________. .... The US should have had that in mind during Vietnam, and also keep it in mind today in the middle east and central asia.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 6, 2015 16:25:07 GMT -5
... The truth is that ______ had just defeated the most powerful military in the world in armed rebellion. An armed rebellion that was supported by a well armed populace that was already quite skilled in the use of firearms. _______ didn't need to generate a whole lot of revenue in order to arm and train his army. A citizen's militia beat the _________. .... The US should have had that in mind during Vietnam, and also keep it in mind today in the middle east and central asia. Right. And while they're at it leave me and my guns alone.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 6, 2015 17:03:09 GMT -5
The US should have had that in mind during Vietnam, and also keep it in mind today in the middle east and central asia. Right. And while they're at it leave me and my guns alone. And yet, the notion that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny is mocked and ridiculed.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 6, 2015 17:09:42 GMT -5
... The truth is that ______ had just defeated the most powerful military in the world in armed rebellion. An armed rebellion that was supported by a well armed populace that was already quite skilled in the use of firearms. _______ didn't need to generate a whole lot of revenue in order to arm and train his army. A citizen's militia beat the _________. .... The US should have had that in mind during Vietnam, and also keep it in mind today in the middle east and central asia. No shit. Damn hard to beat a guerrilla army on it's home turf. You would thing with history going back to Alexander, and the Brits and the Russians, that we would have had enough sense to stay out of Afghanistan. And the French were getting their ass kicked before we got into VN. Isn't there something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 6, 2015 19:35:31 GMT -5
Right. And while they're at it leave me and my guns alone. And yet, the notion that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny is mocked and ridiculed. An armed citizenry is the only reason Jade Helm failed. Who knows what would have happened?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 7, 2015 5:50:28 GMT -5
And yet, the notion that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny is mocked and ridiculed. But surely not here on the Soundhole, right? ::nods:: Hey, who is this Jade Helm guy, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Oct 7, 2015 6:18:02 GMT -5
And yet, the notion that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny is mocked and ridiculed. But surely not here on the Soundhole, right? ::nods:: Hey, who is this Jade Helm guy, anyway?A 007 knockoff produced by the Chinese, clothed by Indonesians, footwear by Vietnam, and accessories out of Singapore.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 7, 2015 7:03:58 GMT -5
|
|