Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-23-2012, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Maryland
377 posts, read 574,714 times
Reputation: 77

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
Lord North was not the only mover and shaker in the British Parliment. In 1760 Britain had won what was in effect a world war that took more than 30 years to win and left Britain with an empire that spanned the globe since Britain picked up most of Frances holdings in India, SE Asia, North America and Africa,
The British King and his Government had a really big debt to work down. So what to do? One idea was British colonies and the Great Overseas Trading Companies should shoulder the burden and pay for the much enlarged Royal Navy and Armed forces that needed to be scattered around the globe in places like India, the Cape Province, Singapore and Batavia and of course in America. . William Pitt who was Prime Minister suggested that the 13 Colonies should raise a navy and Army to protect British interests in the Western Hemisphere. Pitt was a Whig (Liberal) and felt that the Americans should have more say in their Government's affairs particularly if they were going to be asked to do more and might have the means to break away if they got the Army and Navy Pitt was proposing but no voice in the Government.
In 1763 Pitt submitted his Columbia Act to Parliment which proposed expandind the British Parliment by 15 seats, one each for the 13 colonies and Upper and Lower Canada. Unfortunately Pitts Govrnment fell due to other problems in Britain like the post war economic slump and the Tory Government that replaced Pitt's didn't see the issues the same way he did. So the Columbia Act died.

But what if it hadn't and a group of Americans maybe lead by a certain Virginia planter a relative of the Spencer Family had taken seats in Parliment sometime after 1765. Remember George Washington was Col. Washington in a British lead army that fought the French in the French and Indian Wars. This very possible change in history is the the subject of a new Alternate history novel called "Columbia and Britannia". It speculates on a world were the Columbia Act was passed and British America grew and prospered and eventaully became the engine to secure Pax Britanica for centuries to come and eventually to shift the balance of power in the British world to North America with the Americans having a majority in Parliment and forming Governments. Things would be different or maybe not so different for the author has a Royal American AirForce Officer plant the Union Jack on the Moon in the 1980s in the Mare Imbrium and a very young King Charles III assends the throne in 1963 when his mother Queen Elizabeth II is assisnated in New York on a visit to America to celebrate the 200th Anniversary of the Columbia Act. The assasin is a disgruntled Irish-American named John F. Kennedy (Both this alternate world and ours had the Irish Problem) . He obviously got sent to the Tower of London and the BBC World Service and BBC TV and CBS broadcast the the Hanging. .
==========
An outstanding bit of historical information. I notice that you are particularly adept in providing a wHOLY image of the events of the American Revolution. Data I've needed all my life. Your other post separating carefully the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution. Especially because I know that General President George Washington was offered the Kingship in the court of public opinion and he refused to be king. I even hear politicians use the Declaration of Independence to justify "god" in the Constitution. Weren't many of the signers of the Constitution also signers of the Declaration of Independence? If so, that tells me how lucky we all are that they were such farsighted English males in providing management for a brand new nation. The ability, themselves, to separate their sentiments in the Declaration as Englishmen property owners to establish their idea of an England in the Western Hemisphere. Our own National Anthem is a popular English drinking song melody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:22 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,750,280 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (which is now applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment by McDonald v. Chicago) that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone. If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in bootstaping gun ownership as an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. Certainly, the legal landscape has changed. Now, gun ownership is a "fundamental right"; which raises the bar on judicial review to "strict scrutiny" - but the right of marriage is also considered fundamental, and there’s plenty of strict regulation of it under state law. (It’s hard to believe that there are those so stupid as to want to make a federal case of marriage; but here we are - bold as brass - wanting to do just that!) There’s an old saying: "Be wary of what you wish for." I fear we may get more than what we would have.
regarding the bolded line, gee, ya think? we couldnt tell from your postings that you were not a proponent of the second amendment.

but realize that without the second amendment, ALL the other amendments mean NOTHING. the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms protects ALL other amendments as well as the rest of the constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,253,575 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
Arms in 1776 consisted of single shot muskets, not automatic machine guns.
What kind of arms did the prevailing military (redcoats) have at the time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:32 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,490,663 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
regarding the bolded line, gee, ya think? we couldnt tell from your postings that you were not a proponent of the second amendment.

but realize that without the second amendment, ALL the other amendments mean NOTHING. the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms protects ALL other amendments as well as the rest of the constitution.
No. The Second Amendment protects all other amendment as well as the rest of the Constitution in "[A] well regulated Militia"; which would be under state (not individual) control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,253,575 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
No. The Second Amendment protects all other amendment as well as the rest of the Constitution in "[A] well regulated Militia"; which would be under state (not individual) control.
What is the point of enumerating a right for only military of the population to own firearms?

Going by this logic, LEO are not allowed to own firearms since they are not federal militia. They are law enforcement.

Also going by this logic, the Soviet Union had a 2nd amendment equivalent because comrade commissars were state regulated officials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:46 AM
 
390 posts, read 265,221 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
Arms in 1776 consisted of single shot muskets, not automatic machine guns.

I support revising but not eliminating the 2nd amendment. AR 15 rifles should not be available especially at a fishing store!!
Let's use your own retarded logic here for a moment....

Freedom of the press wouldnt apply to the Internet, freedom of religion wouldn't protect any new religions which weren't contrived yet when the constitution was signed, only to those practiced in the late 1700's.

See how stupid your argument sounds?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 11:23 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,490,663 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
What is the point of enumerating a right for only military of the population to own firearms?

Going by this logic, LEO are not allowed to own firearms since they are not federal militia. They are law enforcement.

Also going by this logic, the Soviet Union had a 2nd amendment equivalent because comrade commissars were state regulated officials.
That's precisely the problem with Heller. The decision raises more questions than it answers - it leaves us all in doubt. Without clear direction from the Supreme Court, we don’t know where we stand. After distinguishing its precedent in United States v. Miller, the court then bent over backwards to reconcile its ruling with that decision, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 against a direct challenge that it violated the Second Amendment. (My reading of this is that it leaves in place all the federal laws regulating firearms.) And the application the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment under McDonald v. Chicago does not remove individual owner ship of firearms from state regulation. The court has issued a decision that is unclear, even confusing; and, worse, as pointed out by the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer, weakly premised. This decision will spawn more gun laws (and even more litigation), which can only lead to the lessening of our rights.

So what did we win? During oral argument, Mr. Dellinger argued (in response to Justice Alito’s question regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment) that it was wanted to retake state authority over the militia; to which Justice Scalia stated: "They got nothing at all, not everything they wanted. They got nothing at all." District of Columbia v. Heller, Transcript, Oral Argument (March 18, 2008) After studying the court’s opinion by Justice Scalia, I am convinced that we got nothing at all as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Mars
527 posts, read 916,856 times
Reputation: 357
Moral of the story from this post...

People who love guns are using 2nd amendment as the only logic to back up the need to retain guns!

People who hate guns.. don't have a midpoint and don't have a solution either to this problem.

I have a question for legal gun owners who depend on 2nd amendment... let's say for a moment we take out all illegal guns away from criminals, will you be willing to give away your guns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 03:26 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,260,493 times
Reputation: 55556
my problem with that is when its time to talk its always about me giving up mine and u keeping yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,344,453 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADA_NC View Post
2nd amendment..

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?

No need to change the second amendment. Gun sales from individual to individual can be regulated, stricter standards for buying can be put into place, and you can restrict the type of guns, and the amount your clip can carry.

All within the boundries of the constitution, and much more in line with the modern world we live in, instead of the 1780's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top