ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 01:56 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 05:52 AM)BnW Wrote:  Feel fee to post those quotes, but make sure it is actual quotes and not the bullshit that permeates the internet.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I'm curious as to what you think the history is. I'd bet even money it's not what you think.

The 2nd Amendment was about militias, period. Individual gun ownership in the 18th century was not nearly as ubiquitous as the gun lobby would have you believe. People were not walking around with guns as they went to ye old local tavern. People in cities generally didn't have guns and most farmers didn't have guns. One of the problems with the revolution early on was people showing up to fight and not having any guns. David McCullough's book 1776 goes into some detail on this topic. Guns were not everywhere. People were not clamoring for the right to keep guns. It was barely a topic of discussion at the time. Until the slave states brought it up that is.

At the time the Constitution was written and debated, the friction between free and slave states was already in play. The newly proposed Constitution made the President Commander and Chief of the military. The Constitution provides for the formation of a permanent navy, but not a permanent army. Funding for armies was to be for no more than 2 years. Standing armies were considered to be weapons of tyranny. But, the states - and especially the southern states - did have standing militias. The had these for 2 reasons: 1) threats from hostiles, including Indians and even the British in Canada, needed to be defended against and 2) to suppress slave revolts.

I don't know the exact demographics, and I won't guess, but slaves in the southern states already outnumbered whites. It wouldn't take much for them to rise up and massacre the whites that subjugated them into slavery. What prevented that from happening were guns, and specifically armed militias. Remember that arms back then were single shot weapons, so a plantation would have to employ a ton of guards to hold back their slaves. It wasn't economic. So, instead, the militias provided security and any slave that said "boo" was dealt with quickly and harshly. A commander and chief from a non-slave state that could order the state militia to go deal with something far from home was a real concern for the south. It would leave them defenseless. And, that is what the 2nd Amendment was constructed to deal with; a guarantee that the state's could always have their militias. Personal gun ownership and restrictions on it were never even a topic during the various debates. It wasn't something that came up.

There is a legal academic named Carl Bogus who has done a series of lectures on the history of the 2nd Amendment and he goes into great detail on the historical record and provides actual facts to back up his positions.

As a complete secondary, and unrelated, point on Bogus - when I was in law school in the early 90s, he was a visiting professor at my law school for a year. Back then he didn't do anything with the 2nd Amendment and I was very surprised when I discovered in the last 2 years his involvement. Back then he taught classes on evidence and product liability. Nothing that would lead you to think he would one day be at the forefront of the gun history in this country. Back then he was a slight man with average height (he's a little heavier 20+ years later, as are we all) He had one distinguishing feature though - he was hung like an elephant. I swear I'm not making this up. Males couldn't get within 4 rows of him because women filled every single seat to witness that 3rd leg swish around in his pants. He was like Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights. This is not a joke, he's really that hung.

Anyway, you can find videos of his lectures on Youtube if you're inclined.

I agree, the 2nd amendment is about militias. And as George Mason said at the time, the people are the militia. It was common knowledge at the time what the true meaning of the 2nd amendment was. 8 of the 13 colonies had something similar to the 2nd amendment. The Virginia Constitution was used as the foundation of the Bill of Rights, which George Mason had originally wrote himself.

Virginia Constitution:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Pennsylvania Constitution:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Nearly everything I can find on the subject shows the founders were very weary of government power, standing armies etc and wanted the people to remain armed. This doesn't necessarily mean carrying their arms with them at all times, but it definitely wasn't odd or outlawed. Many were hunters, or lived on the frontier and carried everywhere.

The James Madison research library has put together a really great collection on the sentiment at the time. It really shows the mindset the founders, other leaders, journalists and citizens had at the time.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bo...ndment.htm

I wouldn't think there is a point to denying it was the case. But it drums up the questions.

Do we need a well regulated militia anymore? Do we want one? Is there a desire for that to be the reasoning? IS that the reasoning for x whatever laws?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 01:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 01:56 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I agree, the 2nd amendment is about militias. And as George Mason said at the time, the people are the militia. It was common knowledge at the time what the true meaning of the 2nd amendment was. 8 of the 13 colonies had something similar to the 2nd amendment. The Virginia Constitution was used as the foundation of the Bill of Rights, which George Mason had originally wrote himself.

Virginia Constitution:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Pennsylvania Constitution:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Nearly everything I can find on the subject shows the founders were very weary of government power, standing armies etc and wanted the people to remain armed. This doesn't necessarily mean carrying their arms with them at all times, but it definitely wasn't odd or outlawed. Many were hunters, or lived on the frontier and carried everywhere.

The James Madison research library has put together a really great collection on the sentiment at the time. It really shows the mindset the founders, other leaders, journalists and citizens had at the time.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bo...ndment.htm

I wouldn't think there is a point to denying it was the case. But it drums up the questions.

Do we need a well regulated militia anymore? Do we want one? Is there a desire for that to be the reasoning? IS that the reasoning for x whatever laws?

I don't know. But as I said in an earlier post, its not the government I fear, its the fact that I have come to fear the government has no answer for crime, or a way to 100% guarantee the safety of everyone all the time. The population in America is far too large for any government to control the actions of everyone. We must police ourselves. Police are no longer police. They are responders.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 05:52 AM)BnW Wrote:  At the time the Constitution was written and debated, the friction between free and slave states was already in play. The newly proposed Constitution made the President Commander and Chief of the military.

Commander-in-chief Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 03:13 PM by Chas.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 05:52 AM)BnW Wrote:  The 2nd Amendment was about militias, period.

Read the words.

"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."

The Militia was the people. When called upon, they needed to have their own arms - there was no standing army, so the individual right to keep and bear arms was necessary.

The insistence that this is solely about a militia is about as true as the First Amendment being about newspapers.

The Bill of Rights is about individual freedoms. There are five that explicitly say "the people" and it means the same in all five and is implicit in the other five.

There aren't nine amendments about individual rights and one that's not. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-10-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 02:11 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 01:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I wouldn't think there is a point to denying it was the case. But it drums up the questions.

Do we need a well regulated militia anymore? Do we want one? Is there a desire for that to be the reasoning? IS that the reasoning for x whatever laws?

I don't know. But as I said in an earlier post, its not the government I fear, its the fact that I have come to fear the government has no answer for crime, or a way to 100% guarantee the safety of everyone all the time. The population in America is far too large for any government to control the actions of everyone. We must police ourselves. Police are no longer police. They are responders.

When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
"Original intent" in political texts isn't much more useful than "original intent" in religious texts. At least they're slightly more possible to reform. What might matter is whether the underlying premises of the sentiment persist. Left unsaid in any declaration of rights is that all of the above, whatever they may be, can be and are restricted where deemed necessary in any case.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 02:11 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 01:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I wouldn't think there is a point to denying it was the case. But it drums up the questions.

Do we need a well regulated militia anymore? Do we want one? Is there a desire for that to be the reasoning? IS that the reasoning for x whatever laws?

I don't know. But as I said in an earlier post, its not the government I fear, its the fact that I have come to fear the government has no answer for crime, or a way to 100% guarantee the safety of everyone all the time. The population in America is far too large for any government to control the actions of everyone. We must police ourselves. Police are no longer police. They are responders.

Your life in a modern developed state is, statistically, the safest anyone's has ever been in all of human history.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
29-10-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 06:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your life in a modern developed state is, statistically, the safest anyone's has ever been in all of human history.

Irrelevant, the possibility of a people's armed revolt against their own government is and always will be the one and only sure way to prevent totalitarianism. The founding fathers knew this, and they stated it many times in a myriad of ways. It is no less true today than it was then. No matter how comfy we get.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. -David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 08:43 PM by epronovost.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 08:31 PM)RinChi Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 06:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your life in a modern developed state is, statistically, the safest anyone's has ever been in all of human history.

Irrelevant, the possibility of a people's armed revolt against their own government is and always will be the one and only sure way to prevent totalitarianism. The founding fathers knew this, and they stated it many times in a myriad of ways. It is no less true today than it was then. No matter how comfy we get.

The problem is that history as also proven the exact opposite to be true. Armed revolt have created totalitarian regime. One can be scared that small, but organised and well armed extremist could overthrow a democratic, peaceful regime.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
29-10-2015, 08:48 PM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 08:31 PM)RinChi Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 06:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your life in a modern developed state is, statistically, the safest anyone's has ever been in all of human history.

Irrelevant,

Not when people are appealing to their personal safety, or the safeguarding thereof.
(which even then I don't disagree with as a matter of course, it's simply that the statement "it's more dangerous than it used to be" is factually incorrect)

(29-10-2015 08:31 PM)RinChi Wrote:  ... the possibility of a people's armed revolt against their own government is and always will be the one and only sure way to prevent totalitarianism.

Except that isn't how revolutions and regime changes play out (or fail to), historically speaking.

(29-10-2015 08:31 PM)RinChi Wrote:  The founding fathers knew this, and they stated it many times in a myriad of ways. It is no less true today than it was then. No matter how comfy we get.

Political control depends on whether a polity can count on the support of a sufficient proportion of the populace. Passive only, in the case of an established regime, but active if it comes to political violence. But that's not quite the thing here.

I have one question for anyone who entertains thoughts of violent resistance to their own government "gone bad": who are you fighting in that scenario? If it's the entire military and police apparatus, then a), you'll lose, and b), what magical mind control device compelled all of them to side against the populace they're supposed to be serving? If it's your fellow citizens, then a) what happened to the existing authorities, and b), then they're just as armed as you, aren't they?

It was never true. What the "founding fathers" knew was that well-armed citizen freeholders were the only way to keep the redskins out and the niggers down. What they knew or didn't know doesn't matter for shit.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: