teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-01-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(12-01-2015 08:17 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 07:51 AM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  My grandfather had gun classes in school as a child. They brought their hunting rifles to school. School shut down the first week of hunting season. Kids were taught the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the way James Madison meant it when he wrote it. (if every American owned a gun, no standing army could take over America, nor could an overbearing American government rule -federalist papers #46)

You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about.

First, anytime I see a reference to the "true meaning" or "original intent" of the Constitution, it's a pretty safe bet that whomever is saying that is a) an ideologue and b) convinced all the 18th century farmers who wrote the thing off course agree with his or her 21st century preferred interpretation. What a crock. News flash - there was no unified interpretation. That's not an opinion, it's historical fact. The original 13 states had not even all ratified the document before they ran into interpretation issue. Some of you may recall learning about the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the idea of a federal bank. Right then and there, in 1791, it was clear the document meant different things too different people. And, these are the guys who wrote it.

Second, the 2nd Amendment was not interpreted to create an individual right to gun ownership until the late 1960s. As recently as 1939 the Supreme Court held the Amendment referred to a collective right, not an individual right. That view is very, very modern. I can't recall the exact year the Supreme Court flipped but it was within a free years of 1970.

Third, the prevailing reason there was a 2nd Amendment was not so people could over throw the government or defend against an invading army. I'm sure a thorough search of the historical record will find evidence those arguments were made by someone, but that was not where the push came from. The push came from the south and the concern was over slave uprisings. There was already tension then between the slave and free states. The south feared a federal government that wouldn't protect them from the slaves (who significantly out numbered the whites) and would prevent them from protecting themselves. At the time the slave states had standing militias to deal with uprisings and runways. They were not signing up to any new government that didn't overly agree the slave states could continue that practice.

On the ludicrous idea that they wanted people armed so they could over throw a tyrannical government - one of the reasons they scrapped the Articles of Confederation was issues were not getting dealt with and there were a few revolts against the new government, the most famous of which was Shay's Rebellion. While the ruling class did recognize that things needed to change, those revolts were put down with violence. The idea that they then wanted an armed population who could again rise up is laughable.

So, you want to teach the 2nd Amendment, I'm all for it. But teach the truth, that it was implemented to protect the south from their slaves.

The only thing that you have right in there is that the Supreme Court had once held it as a collective right.

They were wrong and have corrected that.

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
12-01-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(12-01-2015 01:46 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  You fail.

I'm 100% sure that I don't. Not one of your quotes says fuq all about a private right to arms. And, the historical record is pretty much the way I set it out. There were armed rebellions due to frustrations with the Articles of Confederation. They were put down by force. There were militias in the south to prevent slave uprisings. And, the southern states were the ones that were pushing the hardest for the Amendments, and were especially concerned about the slaves. Those are all facts.

Here's another fun fact for you - the Bill of Rights deals with citizens and the federal government. Our most cherished freedoms, enshrined in those first 10 Amendments, did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1867.

People like you want it both ways. You want to argue the framers didn't intend to give the federal government any real power and it was all reserved for the states - except guns where, in that one single instance and only that instance, the constitution was intended to supercede the state's rights to decide what is best when it comes to bearing arms. Oh, and of course, this obvious intent of theirs was written in the most ambiguous language possible and dressed up around the idea of militias which, by pure coincidence, happened to be something that half the states had and were extremely concerned about.

Right. Got it.

Chas - the only thing I got right was the idea of a collective right? You mean there was no Shay's Rebellion? There was no early rift on Constitutional interpretation between Hamilton and Jefferson? The view on the 2nd Amendment wasn't that it was a collective right up until the 1960s? I'm pretty sure I got those things right, too.

I know you're a gun guy and want to defend your right to have them. I get that. But ignoring history or turning your back on the facts of the past doesn't enhance your argument. You're much better than that and too intelligent to stoop to those tactics. The past is the past and the facts are the facts. You want to argue with historical interpretations, that's fine. But, please don't tell me that things that happened didn't happen.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2015, 09:18 PM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(12-01-2015 07:37 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(12-01-2015 01:46 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  You fail.

I'm 100% sure that I don't. Not one of your quotes says fuq all about a private right to arms. And, the historical record is pretty much the way I set it out. There were armed rebellions due to frustrations with the Articles of Confederation. They were put down by force. There were militias in the south to prevent slave uprisings. And, the southern states were the ones that were pushing the hardest for the Amendments, and were especially concerned about the slaves. Those are all facts.

Here's another fun fact for you - the Bill of Rights deals with citizens and the federal government. Our most cherished freedoms, enshrined in those first 10 Amendments, did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1867.

People like you want it both ways. You want to argue the framers didn't intend to give the federal government any real power and it was all reserved for the states - except guns where, in that one single instance and only that instance, the constitution was intended to supercede the state's rights to decide what is best when it comes to bearing arms. Oh, and of course, this obvious intent of theirs was written in the most ambiguous language possible and dressed up around the idea of militias which, by pure coincidence, happened to be something that half the states had and were extremely concerned about.

Right. Got it.

Chas - the only thing I got right was the idea of a collective right? You mean there was no Shay's Rebellion? There was no early rift on Constitutional interpretation between Hamilton and Jefferson? The view on the 2nd Amendment wasn't that it was a collective right up until the 1960s? I'm pretty sure I got those things right, too.

I know you're a gun guy and want to defend your right to have them. I get that. But ignoring history or turning your back on the facts of the past doesn't enhance your argument. You're much better than that and too intelligent to stoop to those tactics. The past is the past and the facts are the facts. You want to argue with historical interpretations, that's fine. But, please don't tell me that things that happened didn't happen.

I didn't deny that things happened, just your interpretation. Read The Federalist Papers.
Every right of the people in the Bill of Rights is an individual right. Every one of them.

To say that the use of the people in the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right is special pleading.

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
13-01-2015, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2015 01:59 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(12-01-2015 09:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-01-2015 07:37 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm 100% sure that I don't. Not one of your quotes says fuq all about a private right to arms. And, the historical record is pretty much the way I set it out. There were armed rebellions due to frustrations with the Articles of Confederation. They were put down by force. There were militias in the south to prevent slave uprisings. And, the southern states were the ones that were pushing the hardest for the Amendments, and were especially concerned about the slaves. Those are all facts.

Here's another fun fact for you - the Bill of Rights deals with citizens and the federal government. Our most cherished freedoms, enshrined in those first 10 Amendments, did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1867.

People like you want it both ways. You want to argue the framers didn't intend to give the federal government any real power and it was all reserved for the states - except guns where, in that one single instance and only that instance, the constitution was intended to supercede the state's rights to decide what is best when it comes to bearing arms. Oh, and of course, this obvious intent of theirs was written in the most ambiguous language possible and dressed up around the idea of militias which, by pure coincidence, happened to be something that half the states had and were extremely concerned about.

Right. Got it.

Chas - the only thing I got right was the idea of a collective right? You mean there was no Shay's Rebellion? There was no early rift on Constitutional interpretation between Hamilton and Jefferson? The view on the 2nd Amendment wasn't that it was a collective right up until the 1960s? I'm pretty sure I got those things right, too.

I know you're a gun guy and want to defend your right to have them. I get that. But ignoring history or turning your back on the facts of the past doesn't enhance your argument. You're much better than that and too intelligent to stoop to those tactics. The past is the past and the facts are the facts. You want to argue with historical interpretations, that's fine. But, please don't tell me that things that happened didn't happen.

I didn't deny that things happened, just your interpretation. Read The Federalist Papers.
Every right of the people in the Bill of Rights is an individual right. Every one of them.

To say that the use of the people in the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right is special pleading.

That's an interesting perspective Chas, but the First Amendment is also expressed in the plural: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2015, 04:57 AM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
No, it's not special pleading. What it is is an argument based on both the language and roughly 190 years of historical precedent.

The framers knew the difference between individual and collective rights. For example, the 5th Amendment makes clear it is an individual right, as it starts with "no person ".

Finally, the Constitution put a cap on funding a standing army. This was done because armies were seen as offensive and means of tyranny (unlike navies, which were seen as defensive, and necessary). They didn't plan to have a standing federal army, but, as I said before, the south had a need for one.

Finally, I have read the Federalist Papers. They also don't say it was an individual right.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2015, 07:10 AM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(13-01-2015 01:56 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-01-2015 09:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  I didn't deny that things happened, just your interpretation. Read The Federalist Papers.
Every right of the people in the Bill of Rights is an individual right. Every one of them.

To say that the use of the people in the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right is special pleading.

That's an interesting perspective Chas, but the First Amendment is also expressed in the plural: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment gives every individual those rights. You don't need to be more than one person to speak or to petition or to publish, each and every person can join with others to peaceably assemble.

Freedom of the press is not reserved to newspapers nor speech to broadcasters nor petition to groups nor assembly to organizations. These are rights of the people.

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
13-01-2015, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2015 07:21 AM by Chas.)
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
(13-01-2015 04:57 AM)BnW Wrote:  No, it's not special pleading. What it is is an argument based on both the language and roughly 190 years of historical precedent.

The framers knew the difference between individual and collective rights. For example, the 5th Amendment makes clear it is an individual right, as it starts with "no person ".

Finally, the Constitution put a cap on funding a standing army. This was done because armies were seen as offensive and means of tyranny (unlike navies, which were seen as defensive, and necessary). They didn't plan to have a standing federal army, but, as I said before, the south had a need for one.

Finally, I have read the Federalist Papers. They also don't say it was an individual right.

James Madison, Federalist Paper #46 Wrote:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.


Every other use of the "the people" in the Constitution refers to individual rights. So I stand by calling your interpretation a special pleading.

The weight of history is on the side of individual rights.

Quote:1822: Bliss v. Commonwealth Brings ‘Individual Right’ Into Question

The Second Amendment’s intent for individual Americans first came into question in 1822, in Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court case arose in Kentucky after a man was indicted for carrying a sword concealed in a cane. He was convicted and fined $100.

Bliss appealed the conviction, citing a provision in the Commonwealth’s constitution that states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned.”

In a majority vote with just one judge dissenting, the court overturned the conviction against Bliss and ruled the law unconstitutional and void.

1856: Dred Scott v. Sandford Upholds Individual Right

The Second Amendment as an individual right was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856. With the rights of slaves in question, the nation’s highest court opined on the intent of the Second Amendment for the first time, writing that affording slaves full rights of American citizenship would include the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

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
13-01-2015, 07:41 AM
RE: teach 2nd ammendment in schools?
Bliss was not a federal ruling. It pertains only to the Kentucky state constitution, and that document does specifically provide an individual right. That has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment. If anything, the Bliss case bolsters my argument. Why would the states need to include an individual right If such a right was already conferred by the federal constitution? If anything, they would be risking running afoul of the federal document. Why do it? The obvious answer is because the federal constitution didn't address that issue and left it up to the states.

I also wouldn't go reading all that much into the Dredd Scott language. That is known in legal terms as dictum, which is basically any language a court feels like adding that has no bearing on the ruling. It was not a 2nd Amendment case and that language has no legal bearing. All it tells you is how the justice who wrote the opinion felt on that topic at that time. If the specific issue came before the court, you write likely get a very different answer. That is fairly common.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: