Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where was all this outrage when George Dubya Bush was stomping on the constitution with the Patriot Act, starting an illegal war based on outright lies, releasing the name of Iraq War whistleblowers who called out his lies, banning the media from even taking pictures of returning coffins from the war, etc etc.
I think some people are afraid when it's a Black Man doing those things because they fear he may want some revenge for the many terrible things that White Americans have done to Blacks throughout US history.
please bring something of substance to the table, george w bush was a terrible president. Whether or not the media reflected that or not, I couldn't care less. The media is run by the powers that be so its not surprising they didn't attack bush and Obama since they need to keep the facade of a free country alive.
I'm no longer an absolutist in regards to gun control, and I don't like the idea of revisiting constitutional issues every time a tragedy occurs (I'm waiting for someone to blame the Batman movie itself for what happened in Aurora).
However, there are two important points to made in regards to The Second Amendment:
The wording, as ratified by the states is this:
"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."
Linguistically, this is a complex sentence. Had there been no intent to consider the dependent clause ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State") as relating directly to the independent clause ("The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."), the former would be totally unnecessary. The reasonable conclusion is that the right to bear arms was envisioned within the context of maintaining a "well-regulated Militia".
The second point is that, if we take the right to bear arms in a literal and absolute sense; there can be no limitations whatsoever to the right. This means that I can amass nuclear warheads in my garage, and maintain vials of biotoxins and chemical agents in the basement. Few people, even NRA extremists would likely be in support of this definition of The Second Amendment.
I've made my peace with the existence of handguns and hunting weapons; but it isn't unreasonable to suggest that prohibitions be enacted at some level, based upon the potential for destruction a given weapon is capable of wreaking. Nor is it unreasonable to argue that many types of modern high-tech weapons and ammunition should fall into the prohibited category.
Attempts to take away our most fundamental rights usually start with lies like this one.
Often accompanied by equally specious hints that somehow we haven't "talked" until now.
(yawn) SSDD......
Well this magnificent American Constitution also guarenteed my RIGHT to keep other human beings as "property". We got around to changing that little flaw 150 odd years ago. There was nothing specious about that.
Is it time to change ? Would the authors write it this day and age?
When this was written there was no semi automatic,automatic, assualt rifles. They did not know of mental cases and stress of modern day life.
Guns are designed to kill so are swords.. Only knives are designed for cutting vegetables.
I know we just use some tragedy to beat up pro and anti gun rights people. But isn't it time to talk?
That sentence itself provides the context for the answer, but context is not something gun-freaks care about. They just want as many guns as possible to feed their weak egos.
It looks like some of them form pseudo-militias so they can feel righteous about the 2nd Amendment wording, but many aim to fight our own "guv'mint" which was never the historical context of militias. It's laughable, since you need tanks and heavy artillery to stave off a real army.
I once went through a gun phase, but more and more I see them as a coward's fantasy item and right-wing chip on the shoulder. Still, it's good to have something more than a baseball bat to stop a home invader.
Oh, I don't know about that. The Afghanis have been doing a heck of a job with just a handful of AKs against the best army in the world.
Yep, I agree!!!
A contingent of folks across this country who were willing to engage in various types of guerilla against the government..........could topple the system as we know it.
Like many pre-civil war Constitutional concepts the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the states some autonomy from the federal government. Thus why the 2nd Amendment was, until 2010 principally directed at the federal government and not the states, and why the phases "well regulated militia" and "security of a free State" are used, since at the time the state militia was the primary defense force of each individual state.
After the Civil War however the conception of the 2nd Amendment began to change because the post civil war amendments and in particular the 14th amendment essentially stripped individual states of a lot of their autonomy. Basically in the era between 1860-1880 the entire concept of how US citizens identified changed. Prior to 1860 most US citizens identified chiefly as Virginians, Rhode Islanders, Ohioans etc. by 1880 most US citizens viewed themselves first and foremost as Americans. Thus the original concept behind the 2nd amendment is a vestige of a bygone era, and this is again an example of why I think originalism is far from an ideal method of looking at the Constitution.
You are completely and thoroughly incorrect on the Framer's intent. Bet you learned this from a leftwing professor.
Now, back to school with you and no more posting until you know what you're talking about (which you plainly do not).
No, Gungnir, your comparison is inapposite. The overthrow of monarchy/dictatorship does not equate with violent opposition to the lawfully constituted government. The oath of citizenship is to uphold the Constitution; it is not to take the law into one's own hands.
No, Gungnir, your comparison is inapposite. The overthrow of monarchy/dictatorship does not equate with violent opposition to the lawfully constituted government. The oath of citizenship is to uphold the Constitution; it is not to take the law into one's own hands.
Every democracy and republic in recorded history has devolved into tyranny. Do you think we are somehow exempt from this and that our founders were too stupid to anticipate this possibility?
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
-Noah Webster, 1787
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
No, Gungnir, your comparison is inapposite. The overthrow of monarchy/dictatorship does not equate with violent opposition to the lawfully constituted government.
It does if that lawfully constituted government happens to be a monarchy/dictatorship, you can't have it both ways.
The War of Independence really had virtually nothing to do with King George, the issues the colonial governments had were in regards to policies decided by the British Government under Lord North (for example the "Coercive Acts" also known as Intolerable Acts levied after the Boston Tea Party), all of whom who were lawfully elected by the English, and at that time, every person within the 13 colonies was a subject of the King.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
The oath of citizenship is to uphold the Constitution; it is not to take the law into one's own hands.
Indeed, I've taken that oath, and that oath is to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If the enemy happens to be the Federal Government (acting against the Constitution) then they are a domestic enemy and the oath requires that I defend the constitution, or break that oath.
This isn't hard to understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
