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.
It is nonsensical to think the US military could defeat the American citizenry. What you are not recognizing is that militaries struggle against gorilla warfare. Added is the fact that large numbers of military personnel will defect and side with the citizens.
You will never see the disarmament of the American citizen. And, 2A infringements will eventually cross a line that could spark civil unrest. It is in everyone’s best interest to learn how better to address the consequences of an armed citizenry than to unarmed the citizenry.
Not only that but do they really think that the military is going to destroy their own family, friends and neighborhoods? There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to.
The Constitution does not mention anything about assault style weapons. Is it not true that the weapons of the time were 'flintlock' that shot one at a time, and could take minutes to reload?
Assault style weapons can hold 30 ammunition bullets, and are designed for mass slaughter. In my view that goes against the 5th & 14th Amendment's requirement of 'due process,' and violates the spirit of the Declaration's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause.
Get off your high horse. Humans are citizens, not much else qualifies. I keep a pocket constitution right on the side table beside me, within reach where I sit right now. Do you really think they wrote the constitution to be a document just temporary in nature? Of course not!
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, we are a constitutional republic, our nation is founded on that document. The constitution contains within it the means to modify itself if needed so obviously it was envisioned that it would survive and might have to be modified, rather than trashed and ignored which is so popular now.
And again, technology simply doesn’t matter. It isn’t about technology, it’s about rights. The SCOTUS tells us the intent of the constitution and its writers with each new challenge, whether based in technology or not.
The constitution is not about human rights, it's about the rights of citizens. It grants liberty, but liberty and equality cannot coexist in balance. Human rights and equality are western European concepts that have slowly been integrated into our legal system since our founding.
The biggest problem with uneducated people popping off about the constitution and what it means is that they generally only understand the first 2nd amendments. The biggest way to shut some dummy up that's telling you that you need to read the constitution because of some 1st or 2nd amendment issue is to simply ask them what they know about stuff like the 14th and Corporate personhood or literally anything in regards to the 16th.
As for technology playing into all of this, only a fool would think that technology wouldn't eventually catch up to law that was written over two hundred years ago. For instance, things like DNA evidence or video evidence play big into the 5th amendment. The founder's obviously didn't envision people walking around with smart phones or even the basic concept of DNA evidence when they were discussing double jeopardy.
The Constitution does not mention anything about assault style weapons. Is it not true that the weapons of the time were 'flintlock' that shot one at a time, and could take minutes to reload?
Assault style weapons can hold 30 ammunition bullets, and are designed for mass slaughter. In my view that goes against the 5th & 14th Amendment's requirement of 'due process,' and violates the spirit of the Declaration's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause.
Cannons didn't just shoot cannon balls.
My cannon loads are 50 lug bolts, not a ball.
They had rapid fire guns.
They had rockets.
All made by the PEOPLE, not the Government, not the military.
Our military didn't have it, unless the people who were the military had it.
I'm sure the founders realized the jump from archery, to gunpowder and more advancements would come.
Not only that but do they really think that the military is going to destroy their own family, friends and neighborhoods? There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to.
You seem to assume that any armed insurrection would be a united citizenry vs the Military. That is highly unlikely.
What could (and does) happen is that armed militias or groups would declare their own law and attempt to live independently of the State and/or Federal Authorities. Groups like the Branch Davidians or the Bundys or T Kaczynski, or even Ruby Ridge and we know how all of those ended.
None of those included the use of Military personnel and most included both the FBI and local/other Federal law enforcement authorities. If you think that you and your gun (or guns) are going to do anything to protect you from a tyrannical Federal Government then my belief is that you are very badly deluding yourself.
There's no such thing as natural rights. Jokes on you fatBob.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The right to self defense is a natural right.
It exists separately and even in the absence of government.
The Constitution preserves rights by barring the government's interference.
Just in the 1st amendment which states :
"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."
This and the rest of the Bill of Rights are not list of rights bestowed upon the people by a fickle government whose benevolence is subject to change at a whim.
They are a set of rules and placed on the governments power.
Put everyone in solitary confinement and nobody would die of anything unnatural. If it saves one life, is it worth it?
Take a deep breath and look at what you're attempting to compare. Nobody on this thread has even come close to banning guns. The majority of citizens in this country want some additional limited restriction on who can purchase firearms and the type of firearms they purchase. The example given was that Washington State just passed a law that all guns must be unloaded and securely locked up when not in use. Not a big infringement on anybody's rights, right? Especially when you consider that if you keep a loaded handgun in your nightstand, you are not likely to be arrested unless a child finds it and kills himself or someone else. I would probably accept that risk if I didn't have children in the house. And it probably would save a few lives.
Now look at what you're comparing that law with. "Put everyone in solitary confinement... Do we need to go any further than mentioning how many of the Bill of Rights are violated in that statement? We could start with the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th. Glad we could settle that one so easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq
Are you just trying to troll? How many technological advances are even thought of 10 years beforehand? You think the foresaw Twitter and discussion forums?
There were automatic firearms back then. They didnt have to foresee something they could actually see.
Could you help me out and post a link to an example? I couldn't find one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
No problem. Always glad to oblige.
So you are of the assumption that military technology pertinent to the times was not discussed? Do you have any evidence of this? It is true that I do not have any direct evidence that it was discussed, but I assume the men who were in charge of the revolt against England were bright enough to discuss such matters. Military leaders generally are.
One of the Founding Father's biggest fear at the Constitutional Convention was the fear of a standing army. They felt a standing army was a threat to their independence. They felt a standing militia could be activated to repel an enemy invasion in addition to the ongoing Indiana threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
What part of armed to be able to resist a tyrannical government don't you understand?
I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution does it discuss, "armed to be able to resist a tyrannical government?"
The only tyrannical government I'm concerned about is named Donald Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Would a law against automobiles save at least one life?
Yes
In case you wanted me to expound, here goes. This discussion is not about banning guns. I'm assuming you mean that a law against automobiles would be a law banning them. A comparison to automobiles would be something like requiring occupants to wear seat belts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Yes, we should also abolish the 1st amendment because the Founders never discussed how many bits per second your internet connection might be some day..
I assume you're referring to not making any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Freedom of speech or of the press is the same regardless of how, or how fast it is communicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
Well at least you're honest about one thing, your name!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The right to self defense is a natural right.
.
No, FatBob.
Once again, there is NO SUCH THING AS NATURAL RIGHTS. Human rights are relative, not universal.
A slave being whipped by his master did not have the right to self defense. The constitution did not protect that man's natural right to self defense because that man was not a citizen, and the Constitution was created to protect the rights of citizens. It took almost a hounded years for most black men in this country to receive their "natural right" to defend themselves and almost 200 years before they could do it without being unfairly persecuted. Just look at the quote you posted and think to yourself how ridiculously hypocritical that is in regards to the era that it was written.
Seriously, READ A BOOK DUDE........
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.
