REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, November 21, 2021 07:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4789
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Just for fun:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/How-much-do-you-know-ab
out-the-Second-Amendment-A-quiz/Topic-of-Second-Amendment?nav=620255-csm_article-promoLink


I got 13 out of 15, but I challenge one of the wrong answers.

A couple of the answers were quite illuminating...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:50 AM

AGENTROUKA


13 out of 15, as well.


Oh guessing and cursory reading of wikipedia articles in the past weeks... where would I have been without you? *g*

Nah, most of the answers seem pretty obvious.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:30 AM

HERO


Be careful, not all their answers are correct.

For example. The first question asks which right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It gives several examples such as protection from unreasonable searches, free speech, and the right to own a gun.

They list the correct answer as the right to keep and bear arms. This is not correct. The 2nd Amendment protects ALL of the Constitutional rights. That is the only reason it was included.

For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...but this is America and about 50 million Americans would simply exercise their veto power using their firearms if necessary. Blood of patriots and tyrants and some kid with a drum and dude with a bandage on his head playing a fife...

Anybody happen to own a fife...can't preserve our liberty without one. Shoulda put that in the Constitution.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:36 AM

JONGSSTRAW


He who commands the military branches controls the country, be it President or rebel leader.


"The nineteenth batallion of mind raiders, three thousand master computer killers; from great platforms in the mountains...."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:51 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...



You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:51 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
He who commands the military branches controls the country, be it President or rebel leader.


That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:09 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Be careful, not all their answers are correct.

For example. The first question asks which right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It gives several examples such as protection from unreasonable searches, free speech, and the right to own a gun.

They list the correct answer as the right to keep and bear arms. This is not correct. The 2nd Amendment protects ALL of the Constitutional rights. That is the only reason it was included.



Oh look Hero must have gotten some wrong but can't admit it so the test is wrong. Go figure.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:15 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...



You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?



When do propagandists bother themselves with factual info?




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:26 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

When do propagandists bother themselves with factual info?




Your logic gives me sad feelings.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


We The People ARE the Fourth Branch of govt.














http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/cary-grove-drill-to-include-sho
oting-blanks-in-hallways
/

?300 school employees prepare to return fire during an attack
http://kwgn.com/2013/01/28/hundreds-of-teachers-school-personnel-atten
d-concealed-weapons-class
/

U.S. backed plan to launch false-flag chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-w
eapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.


*blink*
.......
*DOPESLAP!*

MADISON, you dimwit - in Federalist #46, fer cryin out loud you gettin senile on us or what ?!
No extra credit for YOU, lawyer-boy!

Oh, and 10/11 is wrong in light of the assertions of Tench Coxe and others.
Quote:

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.


10 USC @ 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Just because some find it inconvenient, just because the rule of law is ignored and trampled upon, makes it no less the law of the land - restricting the Second Amendment without invoking the amendment process would be like passing laws to forbid persons of certain race/religion from using public transportation, for example, the legal superiority of a Constitutional Amendment would forbid this.

Let's not pretend that isn't what's going on here.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:57 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...but this is America and about 50 million Americans would simply exercise their veto power using their firearms if necessary. Blood of patriots and tyrants and some kid with a drum and dude with a bandage on his head playing a fife...

Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!

I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:26 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?


Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

For example, in the Soviet Union there was one party, no opposition. There was a Constitution that had even more expressions of liberty and freedom then our own. They had elections with near 100% turnout. You go in, you vote for the one choice you had...party line votes all the way down the ballot. If you don't vote (which is your only choice) you get a visit from the Committee for State Security and possibly an all expenses paid trip to summer camp...in Siberia...in winter. Nazi Germany was even less...enlightened.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:28 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!

I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!


Really? You just lost your vote, what do you do?

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:03 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!

I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!


Really? You just lost your vote, what do you do?



A) Take up arms
B) Do nothing, your vote never counted anyways
C) Petition the government through legal means and protest.

Okay folks lets see who the reasonable and intelligent people are!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:05 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?


Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.



You drew up a very simplistic scenario.

1) Nazi Germany and Communist Russia "bent over and took it." Implying that generally they hated these developments but just were too cowardly and helpless to do anything about it.
2) America wouldn't because they have the 2nd Amendment = armed citizenry standing up against tyranny.

And that's just so very much not what it boils down to. Ignoring the complexities that led to these developments in both countries is not the way to make your point.

Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.


You know, I really, really hate folks like Zero being on my "side" of an issue, it burns, it really does - their lunacity and incompetence does NOT help, you know ?

No, he probably couldn't find you such an example - but I could.
So too could (ironically) PirateNews, cause this is one of his favorite historical bits right here.

Battle of Athens (1946)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
Quote:

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

Also worthy of note are the battles of Matewan and Blair Mountain, in regards to workers/union rights - especially the latter, since despite some "creative editing" on behalf of the horde bent on revising history, the bombs in question had US Army Ordinance Depot markings, and were dropped from Martin MB-1's, as Chafins civilian aircraft were not capable of carrying such a payload.

The reason I feel this distinction needs be made is that because the US Military was often used as an adjunct to strikebreakers and hired goons, using martial law and the need to "restore order" as excuses - but never not once in all of american history did they ever try to defend/protect the workers, leading to the realization after Blair Mountain that a while a union *CAN* fight a corporation and their hired goons, they could not fight both them and the entire weight of the US Military, and if they could, might as well just take over - it effectively crushed unions into the pale, thin, servile shadow that they are now, and the one union which didn't bend the knee (that being the IWW) was all but destroyed via extra legal measures, and constant harrassment from the Gov under a thin veil of excuses and scare tactics.

Battle of Matewan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_matewan
Quote:

The Battle of Matewan (also known as the Matewan Massacre) was a shootout in the town of Matewan, West Virginia in Mingo County on May 19, 1920 between local miners and the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency.

This lead TO the Battle of Blair Mountain, since the remnants of the Baldwin-Felts goons arranged for Sid Hatfield to be at court, and thus conveniently disarmed (because no one in their right mind would mess with Sid if he was!) and blatantly, publicly murdered him right there on the courthouse steps in broad daylight - something they weren't even charged for, much less called to heel about.
Quote:

Tom Felts, the last remaining Felts brother, planned on avenging his brothers' deaths by sending undercover operatives to collect evidence to convict Sid Hatfield and his men. When the charges against Hatfield, and 22 other people, for the murder of Albert Felts were dismissed, Baldwin-Felts detectives assassinated Hatfield and his deputy Ed Chambers on August 1, 1921, on the steps of the McDowell County Courthouse located in Welch, West Virginia. Of those defendants whose charges were not dismissed, all were acquitted.

Needless to say this set a fire under the workers, on top of the treatment they received the minute they turned over their arms as requested by governor Cornwell when he sent the state police to take control of the town - as soon as they handed em over, it was back to business as usual for the corrupt collective of corporation and state, and the murder of Sid in combination with an absolute refusal by officials to DO anything about it...
That was the last damn straw.

Battle of Blair Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Quote:

The Battle of Blair Mountain was one of the largest civil uprisings in United States history and the largest armed rebellion since the American Civil War. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders, who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

And for anyone thinking of saying "See, this is why the Second Amendment is useless!" - allow me to point out that if said amendment had not been so badly infringed, distorted and abused by well meaning and gullible fools, those miners would have obliterated them - because that is the *EXACT* situation Madison describes in Federalist #46, in which the body of the people IF COMPARABLY ARMED would outnumber and outgun any body of Federal troops raised to oppress them - bear in mind a large part of his argument consisted of "but no one would ever dare disarm the people, no leader would ever stoop so low and so we need no protection against it..." - all the while Hamilton and his cronies planning to do just that, and the Antifederalists *knew* it, they were just trotting Madison out there to dismiss suspicions which had every basis in fact and came functionally true beyond even Madisons worst nightmare.

And if you wanna go back even a little further, there was the fight which LEAD to the concept that if comparably armed average americans could lay the smack down on army regulars - this was before the Constitution was penned, but this brawl here was kind of the foundation of the idea for the Second Amendment.

Battle of Kings Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_kings_mountain
Quote:

The Battle of Kings Mountain was a decisive battle between the Patriot and Loyalist militias in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. The actual battle took place on October 7, 1780, nine miles south of the present-day town of Kings Mountain, North Carolina in rural York County, South Carolina, where the Patriot militia defeated the Loyalist militia commanded by British Major Patrick Ferguson of the 71st Foot.

Ferguson had arrived in North Carolina in early September 1780 with the purpose of recruiting for the Loyalist militia and protecting the flank of Lord Cornwallis' main force. Ferguson issued a challenge to the rebel militias to lay down their arms or suffer the consequences. In response, the Patriot militias led by James Johnston, William Campbell, John Sevier, Joseph McDowell and Isaac Shelby rallied for an attack on Ferguson.


Mind you, describing the Wataugans as Patriots is kinda stretching it there, they were the closest thing the colonies had to Anarchists, and bore as little love for the Colonials as they did the Crown, you see ?

But then along comes Ferguson, and he tells em to hand over their guns or he would lay waste to the countryside with fire and sword, aka OR ELSE.
Of course, no fools the Wataugans, they made the obvious connection that if they DID hand them over, they'd wind up staring down the barrels of those same weapons in the hands of Fergusons men as he did much much worse than that.

So they came up over the mountain and dished out probably the most epic curb stomping of the entire revolutionary war.
Quote:

The Battle of Kings Mountain lasted 65 minutes. The Loyalists suffered 290 killed, 163 wounded, and 668 taken prisoner. The Patriot militia suffered 29 killed and 58 wounded.

At which point they went home, as the local Cherokee had decided to break the peace treaty without crazy Sevier and his boys around, and then proceeded to beat on them for a while.

Anyhows, this is a topic I know quiiiite a bit about.
And I shall include a link to Federalist #46 for you as well.

Federalist 46
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
(EXCERPT OF POINT IN CONTENTION)
Quote:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Translation: Oh that'll NEVER happen!

And yet, here we are, are we not ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Frem, battle, battle, battle. First of all, those are not "positive" scenarious. Secondly, they were on a local level, and long ago, when it might have been possible, but I'm sorry, I find it impossible to imagine any scenario where citizens taking up arms would do any good nowadays. Even locally, the National Guard would be called in, or the Army if it got to that, and that's the end of that.

There simply ARE NOT enough Americans who would rise up, unless true dictatorship and egregious harm was being done, and there's so much that comes before that, that I just can't see it happening.

The things you point to are 1780, 1920, 1921, etc. Think of how different things are now--merely the population of the country, and you have to have a large portion of the population willing to rebel. Do you REALLY imagine enough Americans standing up to rebel in these times?? I just cannot. And anything less than a major revolt can easily be put down.

It's not "it can't happen here" for me, it's "it won't happen here" because there aren't enough Americans willing to put their lives on the line, there's no indication that the kind of tyranny you envision has even begun, or WOULD begin given the way our government is set up, from local to state to federal. I feel like some of us are dealing with reality, while you're coming at this out of your own experience, which is limited to a small part of the country and doesn't extrapolate to the country as a whole. That's why I reject your rebellion scenarios.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:51 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Of course you reject them, they're... inconvenient for you.
Note: Battle of Athens had a POSITIVE outcome, as in the end, did Matewan/Blair Mountain cause it pushed legislators into backing workers rights in order to avoid further bloodshed - and Kings Mountain was quite helpful to that whole, yanno, indepedence thing.

Also, it doesn't have to be some huge gotterdammerung battle to stop an act of tyranny - case in point Maryanne Godboldos fateful shot into the ceiling.
Just imagine how awful that could have been (given how awful it WAS despite it) had that shot not drawn the eyes and ire of the public down upon the injustice which was being done ?
A shot that might I add, harmed NO ONE - the mere presence of the weapon and will to use it was enough.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:57 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.


*blink*
.......
*DOPESLAP!*

MADISON, you dimwit - in Federalist #46, fer cryin out loud you gettin senile on us or what ?!
No extra credit for YOU, lawyer-boy!

Oh, and 10/11 is wrong in light of the assertions of Tench Coxe and others.
Quote:

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.


10 USC @ 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Just because some find it inconvenient, just because the rule of law is ignored and trampled upon, makes it no less the law of the land - restricting the Second Amendment without invoking the amendment process would be like passing laws to forbid persons of certain race/religion from using public transportation, for example, the legal superiority of a Constitutional Amendment would forbid this.

Let's not pretend that isn't what's going on here.

-Frem



Just noting with great amusement that "hero" did a great job of avoiding the post that proves him to be full of shit. As per usual.

And he expects us to believe he's an expert in the law. Hi-larious!




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:15 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.


There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt. Another example is Germany in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch

But a better example is closer to home...the United States of America engaged in armed resistance and prevented the King of England from toppling their own elected democratic govt's. The colonies were governed by appointed governers, local elected legislatures, and local courts, and by right as British Citizens should have been represented in Parliament. The King denied their rights to be represented in Parliament, usurped the power of local judges, and bypassed local legislatures.

Another American example is from Rhode Island. The Dorr Rebellion in 1842 briefly led to two state govts with two legislators and 2 governors. Several small battles were fought and Dorr eventually lost...and won. All over the question of who could vote. There was a minimum of money or property required and only about 40% of the white men qualified (women, blacks, and Irish need not apply back then). Dorr got a bunch of guys together and drafted a new constitution that included all the white dudes and Irish immigrants. Eventually he lost, he was convicted of treason, his constitution was later adopted and his conviction overturned.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:23 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
A) Take up arms
B) Do nothing, your vote never counted anyways
C) Petition the government through legal means and protest.


A) They already gave up their arms, so liberals can't engage in armed resistance.

B) That's the weed and TV talking.

C) If they took away your right to vote, what's to stop them from taking away your right to protest or go to court. A good example is France. The French people in Paris used to riot all the time. It was their thing, afteer all they had a legitimate beef with how things were run. They overthrew the king, they overthrew the people who overthrew the king, and this went on for years till a little fella named Bonaparte came home from a vacation in Egypt and saw all these fellas coming down the street to overthrow the latest republic. So he takes a few cannons, lines them up side by side, and fires into the crowd...grapeshot. Voila, Viva La Revolution! Then...poof, he's Emperor and conquering Europe the old fashioned way.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:41 AM

AGENTROUKA


Hi Frem,
thank you for taking the time to look up these examples!

The Battle of Athens is a particularly good example. I noted that they raided a National Guard Armory and thus apparently obtained further weapons (and possibly the dynamite?) for their cause, but that wouldn't have been possible without guns in the first place, I imagine. A big factor there was probably the shared military background of many of the "rebels" and their ability to form a cohesive team, as well as follow through with sensible reform.

All the examples relating to union suppression I saved for reading tomorrow, because I'm fairly certain delving into that would rob me of sleep for the night.

I see where Niki is coming from with her doubts and concerns about the age of the examples, as well.

It is not my intention to support either "side" of the issue. I understand both and cannot yet find a balance. It's a highly protracted situation. I mainly got highly annoyed at the use of an extremely tired and inadequate comparison to dictatorships of eras past, and Frem did a great job providing much better material for comparison and discussion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:53 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt.



See? That's a decent example. As are the last two you listed.

Quote:

Another example is Germany in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch


This one, not so much. You're listing this as a positive example? Hitler and his armed fascist thugs trying to topple a democratically elected government? That'd be an argument against gun rights if I ever saw one.

Unless you were joking?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:59 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The things you point to are 1780, 1920, 1921, etc. Think of how different things are now--merely the population of the country, and you have to have a large portion of the population willing to rebel. Do you REALLY imagine enough Americans standing up to rebel in these times?? I just cannot. And anything less than a major revolt can easily be put down.


Niki: What happened with you and the Occupy Wall Street Movement? I seem to recall police brutality. Doesn't non-violent law breaking count as rebellion?

The only problem I had with OWS is they didn't seem to know what they were doing or what to do next.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:17 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, Frem, it's not that it's inconvenient. If I thought it were possible, I'd be right in there planning and worrying. But to me it's like Rap and his "Islamist terrorism" stuff; it ain't gonna happen, so why should I get all hot and bothered about it?

If I thought it were a real potential, I'd be in there working at it--you KNOW I do and have become an activist on things I believe are important and doable. I'd no more stay awake nights and write long screeds about Islamist terrorism than I would about an American rebellion. For one thing, what are the odds of it happening in the next couple of decades? No, don't answer that, I'm guessing you might even think it's imminent.

Just a subject we'll have to agree to disagree on, if you can be even that reasonable. You've pretty much pushed our friendship right out the door with your nastiness, snarking about it being "inconvenient" just pushes it further. I've made reasonable arguments against your position; if you can't do the same without snarking, just don't respond. You've done enough damage with that particular obsession, and I've mourned the loss of how I felt about you ever since.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:48 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The Battle of Kings Mountain was a decisive battle between the Patriot and Loyalist militias in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. The actual battle took place on October 7, 1780, nine miles south of the present-day town of Kings Mountain, North Carolina in rural York County, South Carolina, where the Patriot militia defeated the Loyalist militia commanded by British Major Patrick Ferguson of the 71st Foot.

Ferguson had arrived in North Carolina in early September 1780 with the purpose of recruiting for the Loyalist militia and protecting the flank of Lord Cornwallis' main force. Ferguson issued a challenge to the rebel militias to lay down their arms or suffer the consequences. In response, the Patriot militias led by James Johnston, William Campbell, John Sevier, Joseph McDowell and Isaac Shelby rallied for an attack on Ferguson.

Mind you, describing the Wataugans as Patriots is kinda stretching it there, they were the closest thing the colonies had to Anarchists, and bore as little love for the Colonials as they did the Crown, you see ?

But then along comes Ferguson, and he tells em to hand over their guns or he would lay waste to the countryside with fire and sword, aka OR ELSE.
Of course, no fools the Wataugans, they made the obvious connection that if they DID hand them over, they'd wind up staring down the barrels of those same weapons in the hands of Fergusons men as he did much much worse than that.


Last weekend The History Channel had a special program on this very subject. They called themselves mountain men, and they had their own culture, something very different from the city dwellers and farmers in Boston, Philadelphia, or even Charleston. They wore animal skins and drank home brew whiskey. When the battle occured things were looking very bleak for Washington's Continental Army and the future of the revolution. Defeat seemed inevitable. The mountain men's superior tactics and their long rifles gave them a big advantage in shooting distance over the British regulars. This victory was inspirational, and as the story spread throughout the colonies thousands of new voluteers signed up. It can be argued that without this little-known battle victory there wouldn't be a United States today.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:21 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
And for anyone thinking of saying "See, this is why the Second Amendment is useless!" - allow me to point out that if said amendment had not been so badly infringed, distorted and abused by well meaning and gullible fools, those miners would have obliterated them



...and than what? Rainbows and sunshine would have erupted from the dead and the miners would have lived happily ever after?

Many of the miners spent time in jail, some were acquitted, but do you think the punishment would have been less had they slaughtered the lawman and others?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Just a subject we'll have to agree to disagree on, if you can be even that reasonable. You've pretty much pushed our friendship right out the door with your nastiness, snarking about it being "inconvenient" just pushes it further. I've made reasonable arguments against your position; if you can't do the same without snarking, just don't respond. You've done enough damage with that particular obsession, and I've mourned the loss of how I felt about you ever since.


Okay, that's it.
You wanna play this card on me, fine.

You wanna threaten an honest friendship because I hold an honest position that is... inconvenient for you, even though I have tried to bite my tongue about it ?
Oh well, won't be the first one down the tubes.

There is a reason some things are Constitutional Amendments, it is to prevent state laws from overturning what were felt to be essential human freedoms, a check against tyranny of the majority by insisting on a difficult process which requires an extreme and overwhelming amount of support to prevent abuse of the system by folks with agendas not supported by the whole of the people, in fact it's the closest thing our entire legal structure has to mutually agreed consent.

Mind you, it doesn't always WORK, because the desire to ignore them by factions which want thier way no matter what is very strong, pushing religion with state resources is but one example, blue laws are another, and so too are infringements on the right to bear arms.

As you well know I am an Anarchist, and I begrudgingly accepted the Constitution as a minimum standard in tolerance of the fact that others seem to want and need a structure even if I feel it is not the benefit they believe it is, therefore I am bound by both ethics and oath to support that Constitution and the principles upon which it is founded - something I take pretty damned seriously as it has put me in conflict with many persons and factions over the years.

I say again, *IF* you wanna mess with a Constitutional Amendment, then you go to the Amendment process - this is how it's done, it's called the rule of law, due process, and it is there for a reason - you do NOT just ignore that because it is inconvenient, because you want your way and you want it now and who cares if you don't actually have the support of enough people to do it...
Might-makes-Right is not an argument you wanna have with me.
And that is what you are proposing, make no mistake about it - this is no different than others ignoring the Fourth Amendments protections because they were too much hassle and got in the way of what they wanted to do, something I also stood strongly against.

Nor does the argument of historic or techological advancement hold much weight with me, as the Fourth Amendment never foresaw telephones, cellular networks, computers or the internet, but we damn sure adapted it, maybe not all that well, but in principle it's been applied.
To say the Second Amendment covers muzzle loading muskets is as ridiculous as saying the Fourth Amendment covers only physical documents, it's a sham argument which holds no weight given any understanding of its initial purpose.

Beyond that, despite every effort to ignore or strawman the argument, not every act of tyranny, nor every act of resistance, is collective - some are individual, as I pointed out in the case of Maryanne Godboldo, which is an example of how OTHER rights come into conjunction with that, such as freedom of the press and the Fourth Amendment, because it was trampling on the latter which started that incident, an act of resistance under the Second Amendment which put a check on it and drew the notice of the public and the press, and the First Amendment in combination with public outrage which eventually put paid to the situation.

No single Amendment, by itself, is a pancea to oppression, but they exist as a whole to provide a check against infringing on what are felt to be necessary human rights in a system intended to be of benefit to all within it, rather than benefitting a few at the expense of the many.
Picking at the structure of this and weakening it, because you do not like certain of those human rights, do not like who has them, do not like how they are used, is to demean them all, for everyone.

Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are - for if one can pass a law infringing on the Second Amendment in that way, it then becomes precedent and ammunition for infringing on the First, Fourth and others in a similar fashion, eventually rendering the whole purpose of those Amendments an exercise in futility and reducing them to naught more than a mostly ignored pretense.

Now, I have tried to be reasonable about the matter, I've even offered a very well thought out and researched proposal which remarkably manages to address the issue without seeming to trample on anyones rights - no one wanted to hear it, they want what THEY want, regardless of whether or not there is sufficient public support for it, and mean to have it in spite of this.
From my perspective that is an act of Tyranny, at least in intention if never actually executed, unethical, immoral, and in respect to subversion of the Amendment process, illegal.
Not that this seems to bother anyone too much, it seems.

See, if one were to call for alteration of the Second Amendment, they're within their right to do so, and obviously I would stand against it, but the right to do so is in my opinion sacrosanct and beyond question - calling for the Amendment process to be ignored because you desire something forced upon unwilling others whom you know would effectively block that attempted Amendment is offensive to a degree it's hard for me to explain in mere words.

One can hand over their human rights, exercise them or not, as they wish - but calling for them to be stripped from others without respect to the process simply because you do not care for those rights, who has them or who uses them, against their consent and by force if necessary, is downright offensive to me and calls into question immediately the character of anyone who would do such an awful thing.

That I would always and ever stand against it, no matter who does it, no matter what excuses or justifications are used, should be patently obvious to anyone who knows me in the slightest.

To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place, which I do not believe is the case - to be angry at me because I disagree with you quite strongly and happen to have some pretty damned good arguments for it strikes me as petty and beneath you, especially when you try to paint me as some kind of unreasoning fanatic for taking the exact same stance I did on other rights that you happened to agree with, or who had them, or how they used them.

Nothing here has changed, my position hasn't budged an iota, all human rights for all humans.
That you would have a problem with that on a personal level, to the degree you apparently do, I find this hurtful and confusing, but you've a right to your own life and feelings - whether I share them or not, and while you may decide whatever you do, I myself am under no obligation not to view YOU as a friend, whether you reciprocate or not.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:39 PM

BYTEMITE


I call Besties! :D Niki, you may feel free to express your lack of respect for me and my emotional/personality disorder whenever you want. This is how I understand friendship works.

I reserve the right to throw a snit and threaten to leave and everyone just rolls their eyes because it is so TIRESOME I need a new schtick like Yesterday.

In the meantime we can all keep pouring sand into the machine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:43 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place,

That's the funniest thing I've seen since Manti T'eo's fake internet girlfriend died.

"If you need a friend get a dog." G.G.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:35 PM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


Now, as a Brit, I know next to nothing about the 2nd Amendment, but I thought I would take the test as a bit of an experiment. I got 11 of the 15 right, purely based on the sensibility of the proposed answers and a certain amount of lucky guesses. Not quite sure what it proves, other than don't base knowledge on multiple choice tests, maybe. Just thought it was something I might throw in there.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:52 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are - for if one can pass a law infringing on the Second Amendment in that way, it then becomes precedent and ammunition for infringing on the First, Fourth and others in a similar fashion, eventually rendering the whole purpose of those Amendments an exercise in futility and reducing them to naught more than a mostly ignored pretense.



Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.

It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:41 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place,

That's the funniest thing I've seen since Manti T'eo's fake internet girlfriend died.

"If you need a friend get a dog." G.G.



Well... Internet friends kinda do become more important for people who don't really have friends in real life. Plus there's the added bonus that you risk less and no one really notices if you're gone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:55 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
There is a reason some things are Constitutional Amendments, it is to prevent state laws from overturning what were felt to be essential human freedoms, a check against tyranny of the majority by insisting on a difficult process which requires an extreme and overwhelming amount of support to prevent abuse of the system by folks with agendas not supported by the whole of the people, in fact it's the closest thing our entire legal structure has to mutually agreed consent.


You need to understand that when the Bill of Rights was written it was a check on the power of the Federal Govt. The Federal Govt could not infringe on speech, establish religeon, etc. States were not bound by those limitations in the Federal Constitution except were they were specifically mentioned. It was not until after the Civil War and the passage of the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to state law and it is not until the last 10-15 years that the 2nd Amendment was applied to the States.

I note for the record that most, if not all states, have their own specific 'bill of rights' in their State Constitutions. For example, Ohio has Article 1, Sec 4 which says "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security". Which is a bit more direct a statement of my rights here in Ohio under State law, the the US Consitution's 2nd Amendment.

Quote:


As you well know I am an Anarchist, and I begrudgingly accepted the Constitution as a minimum standard in tolerance of the fact that others seem to want and need a structure even if I feel it is not the benefit they believe it is, therefore I am bound by both ethics and oath to support that Constitution and the principles upon which it is founded - something I take pretty damned seriously as it has put me in conflict with many persons and factions over the years.


Not much of an Anarchist...hell, you sound like a Federalist. That's like saying, 'I'm a Christian, but I worship Allah because...you know...its the popular thing around here."
Quote:


I say again, *IF* you wanna mess with a Constitutional Amendment, then you go to the Amendment process - this is how it's done, it's called the rule of law, due process, and it is there for a reason


Enough with your Anarchist rants about how we should all respect law and due process...actually, I think somebody...ME...has gotten into your head. I've said it before, deep down you are a Republican. Probably voted for Bush...four times!

Quote:


Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are -


Stop it! Your making me blush. Somebody has a Hero crush.

Quote:


I find this hurtful and confusing, but you've a right to your own life and feelings


You folks just need to hug...a nice, non-sexual expression of forgiveness and love that will soothe those hurt feelings away and bathe you both in the light of mutual respect and understanding...makes me kinda teary just thinking about it.

For the record...my ammo is in, 180 rounds of .223 for my new SIG M400. Also bought 20 of the 30rd mags at cost. I'm gonna sell most of them at the Gun Show this weekend, should make about $15-20 per. My rifle wont be in till April or May. Yep, all this talk of feelings is making me want that rifle even more. Nothing helps you express your feelings more then shooting up a defenseless paper target.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:09 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I got 11 of 15................I got hung up with the whole hand gun issue.

But I noticed something, that I only heard of in passing, that sounds very much like a BAN of a certain type of gun - Congress passing the National Firearms Act of 1934, in response to a mass killing, very similar to the outrage of Newtown and the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary.

"The grisly shooting on Feb. 14, 1929 was the result of a “disagreement” between Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Seven of Moran’s men were riddled with bullets fired from two Thompson submachine guns. One contained a 20-round magazine, the other 50-rounds. The assailants also used shotguns. The escalating firepower being used by criminal gangs alarmed law enforcement, Congress, and the public."

Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:13 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I've heard of rights being added, but I have not heard of rights being taken away.

Which national laws have been "whittled" away?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:27 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.


The general rule when the govt wants to limit your rights is that the limitation must be as specific and narrow as possible, content neutral, serve a compelling govt interest, and be a reasonable limitation on time, place, and manner.

For example, the Court has ruled that the ban on felons or people who commit Domestic Violence is narrow, there's an obvious interest, and the limitation is specific to them. Also allowed is the right of an owner of a private property to exclude guns from their property. Another one is the Federal and State laws barring guns from specific places like schools and govt buildings (they apply to all but are very limited in time and place).

A non-gun example is requiring someone to get a permit for a parade. You have the right to speak and assemble...but it could cause a traffic mess so lets schedule it for next Tuesday so we can announce it, have some extra cops on, and put up those traffic and crowd barriers so nobody gets run over by Grandma coming home from her Yoga for Oldies class at the Y.

Heller (2007) threw out DC's ban which said you could not own handguns and that rifles and shotguns be either unloaded and locked with a trigger lock or disassbled. The Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for 'traditionally lawful purposes', such as self-defense within the home. The Court ruled that the prepatory language in the section (the bit about a militia) announces a purpose for the protection and is not a limitation.

The Court also noted that this interpretation of the clause is consistant with the legislative intent of the founders to provide an ultimate check on the power of govt as well as consistent with similar state constitutions drafted before and after the 2nd Amendment (and the interpretation of those collective documents throughout the 19th and 20th centuries).

The right is not unlimited (as I discussed before). A limit on type of weapon is valid (no more assault rifles) but the test is if the weapon is used for legal purposes and is in common use (oops, looks like Assault Rifles stay legal since there are millions in the hands of law abiding citizes for everything from home defense, target shooting, and hunting).

But that only applies to the Federal Govt because DC is a Federal enclave. Can Ohio suddenly take away my guns?

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) threw out Chicago's gun ban for all the same reasons. The Court held that the Due Process Clause (Alito) and/or the Privilages and Immunities Clause (Thomas) of the 14th Amendment incorporate the protections of the 2nd Amendment. Oddly one of the liberals dissented saying incorporation of the Bill of Rights should be thrown out and the doctrine should revert to its 19th Century basis when it was disallowed. An odd take from a liberal since that would overturn fun cases like Miranda, Gideon, and school integration. Another dissented on the same grounds argued for Hiller (guns bad, nobody should have them except criminals and tyrants).

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:28 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?


Yes.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:32 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I've heard of rights being added, but I have not heard of rights being taken away.

Which national laws have been "whittled" away?


There are a number, but I think "privacy" is probably the one people most notice.

We have technology that lets us look through your walls, monitor your heat levels and energy use (which helps in drug cases). We have technology that allows us to peek in your windows, fly drones over your fenced back yard, and listen to your conversation from 1000 yds away. Police can take an involuntary blood sample...without a warrant in some cases. It goes on...but needless to say, privacy is a great example.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:46 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Not much of an Anarchist...hell, you sound like a Federalist. That's like saying, 'I'm a Christian, but I worship Allah because...you know...its the popular thing around here."


Nah, it's a manifestation of the chaotic alignment. Most chaotic types don't mind so much the rules people impose on themselves so long as they CHOSE to live like that.

So a chaotic good or chaotic neutral anarchist would see a social contract accepted by a majority of the population and -begrudgingly, as Frem mentioned - accept it. Though that means we also have a sympathy for people who resist the rule of the land for their own reasons, and also for people who just sometimes don't quite fit into the greater established society.

And part of us chaotic good-neutral anarchist types still wants to see everything topple and return to what we see as a more natural state. But the neutral/good part of the alignment says we won't violently force that on people.

Not sure if that makes any sense to you. You're a pretty straightforward "lawful" alignment, Hero, which means that some chaotic alignment perspectives will seem like alien gibberish to you. Much like pure lawful arguments look the same to chaotic alignments.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Frem,

I get from your statement, among other things, that you feel that the Amendment process is being bypassed? How so? It is my understanding that Congress is imbued with that power, as determined by the Constitution:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the constitution.
1.get 2/3 of both houses in congress to agree
2.through a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures

Then it must be ratified:

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.


The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions
(never used)

•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions
(used once)

•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures
(used all other times)

And, as a point of clarification, for those who incorrectly state that the president is going to repeal or amend the 2d Amendment, he has no say whatsoever in the formal amendment process. He cannot veto an amendment proposal or a ratification (Article V of the Constitution).

Having stated the above, I am somewhat baffled by the comments and claims being levied against the president of making himself out to be "King." The Constitution simply would not allow it.

History Repeating Itself

I want to point out that the precedent for weapons ban was established by Congress in 1934, I'm referring to the National Firearms Act, which, in effect, established a ban on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. I argue that despite this law banning a specific type of gun, the rights of the people to bear arms has produced, over the years, some 4.3 million NRA members and some 300 million guns owned by civilians (2010 figures). Also, there has been a significant uptick in gun sales since Obama took office in 2004 (partially due to the scare tactics incorporated by the NRA). I would further argue that the 2d Amendment was the first gun control law established by Congress in 1791.

The 2d Amendment was the Framers answer to the tyranny of King George and his British Army, whereby they correctly established a "well-regulated militia" to ensure the freedoms that they fought and died for.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:01 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I want to point out that the precedent for weapons ban was established by Congress in 1934, I'm referring to the National Firearms Act, which, in effect, established a ban on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.


This is the law that lets the govt require you to have a Federal Fireamrs License to legally sell guns as a dealer. It also talks about background checks and keeps me from buying some types of weapons.

While this ban does set a statutory precedent it could not be used to ban assault rifles or the size of magazines. The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that the govt could not ban guns sold for legal purposes and that are in common use. In 1934 very few automatic and semi-automatic weapons were in common use. Today tens of millions of assault weapons are owned by tens of millions of Americans, thus they are in common use. The legal purposes range anywhere from hunting to collecting to target shooting to self defense.

So in short, times change and in this case the times have not changed in favor of the people seeking to limit the sale or ownership of guns.

You folks might want to start thinking ahead. Someday we'll be talking about laser guns, flechette guns, and other fancy scifi stuff. Ban them now so they never come into common use. What good will my old fashioned slug thrower be against a Federal Policeman in full body bullet proof powered armor and packing a laser rifle. I just saw the Judge Dredd remake...I prefer Stallone and I want my flying motorcycle. I wonder if they have warbots at the local pawn shop...

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?


Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

For example, in the Soviet Union there was one party, no opposition. There was a Constitution that had even more expressions of liberty and freedom then our own. They had elections with near 100% turnout. You go in, you vote for the one choice you had...party line votes all the way down the ballot. If you don't vote (which is your only choice) you get a visit from the Committee for State Security and possibly an all expenses paid trip to summer camp...in Siberia...in winter.



You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.

And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:40 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt.


There is no evidence to suggest that the French people were heavily armed like US citizens prior to WW2. In fact the Resistance, in a non organised way, heavily relied upon tactics such as distributing written information and sabotage, especially in the early days. Most arms and equipment were provided through drops by allied forces, and it is quite clear that the Resistance would have probably never survived or impacted significantly without the involvement of Allied Military Force to combat the German military force. Their role is significant, but it wasn't just through battle, but information and intelligence that they played a major part.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 1, 2013 4:47 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.


I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power. After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.
Quote:


And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.


Yes, it is more often then not the bad guys win. That's human history, filled with bad guys winning. But not all the time. Sometimes the good guys win...sometimes the act of fighting turns the bad guys into good guys and the good guys into bad guys and then its all really mucked up.

The alternative is not to fight...but that only works if both sides agree. Since you've already noticed that often one side is made up of bad guys...the odds of them putting their guns down and joining in one of the group chanting events like the Occupy crazytalkers...is not likely.

But Ghandi and Martin Luther King did so much with non-violence, says you. True, but they were both fighting societies made up and controlled by 'good guys' who simply needed some serious enlightenment which they provided. I suggest that had Dr. King attempted his non-violent reform in the Soviet Union...it would not have ended well.

Dr. Martinov Lutherinko Kingovich's dream speech (written and approved by the Ministry of State Security):

I say to you today, Comrades, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the People's dream.

I have a dream that one day the worker's will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all workers are created equal and they have nothing to lose but their chains."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former landowners and the sons of former peasants will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the People's Democratic Republics of Europe, a land once sweltering with the heat of Nazi injustice, sweltering with the heat of Western Bourgeois oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of equality and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by the quality of their individual achievment but rather by their contribution to the collective. A worker's paradise under the guiding hand of our Great Leader.

I have a dream today.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 1, 2013 5:11 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power. After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.



But then it doesn't really have much to do with your point about armed citizens holding back the forces of tyranny, does it?

You put up good examples. Why defend the bad ones?



Peaceful resistance depends a lot on visibility, which is why authoritarian regimes hate a free press and harass journalists at any cost. But it also depends on popular sympathy. Just look at Russia these days. They're slashing away at all options of public dissent and the majority of people are happy with it. Lack of guns is not the issue in that mess, as it needn't come down to armed conflict. It's lack of wanting to resist for a number of reasons.

East Germany did a pretty decent job using peaceful protest to demonstrate civilian power in '89 because people wanted to resist. A lot of beneficial outside factors played into that, of course, but the big factor was that public dissatisfaction was wide-spread and had the will to speak up as a group.


I'm not an anti-gun advocator but when you're looking at armed resistance to tyranny you really have to look at a large number of factors, not the least of which public sentiment, so you really really really need to be careful and respectful to circumstances when picking your comparisons.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 1, 2013 8:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Just got around to this post.

Frem: I believe you are misunderstanding what I have said.
Quote:

You wanna threaten an honest friendship because I hold an honest position that is... inconvenient for you
I explained why it's not about "inonvenience", and you totally ignored that, continuing to claim that on my behalf. THAT is why I feel the way I do about what you write, it has nothing to do with the issue itself. I have told you that it was you calling us all (which means me) LIARS for our position, at which I take serious offense, which put the first dent in my feelings toward you.

IT'S ABOUT YOU, not the issue. I have no problem disagreeing or debating an issue, but I have a big problem with being called a liar when I, too, have expressed MY HONEST POSITION--something for which you have never apologized. When you repeatedly claim that I believe what I believe because it is INCONVENIENT, it offends me because you are JUDGING me as a petty person, despite my having attempted to be honest about why I feel what I feel. When that sort of thing comes from someone I don't consider a friend, it rolls right off my back. When it comes from someone I have felt a special friendship with, it hurts deeply.

And I have never "threatened" our friendship, I have told you how I feel. I don't like feeling that way, but you keep belittling me and attacking me, on this one issue.

You went on and on about the issue itself, while the only negative thing I have said about you where it's concerned is that I believe your experiences have caused you to generalize them as existing everywhere, and that I think you are blinded about some realities. You've been a lot less kind in your judgments of me. You're not addressing me as a friend, you're addressing me as an enemy.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GUN ISSUE--your entire rant comes off as if I'm attacking the issue of the second amendment, etc., etc., which I am not. Once again, my response is to how you have addressed me and the negative things you have said about me.
Quote:

To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done
First, I'm not angry; I'm hurt. Second, it has nothing to do with what you will support; it has to do with the lack of respect you have shown me. It has caused me to lash out and show you a lack of respect at times, out of FRUSTRATION, never anger, but I have attempted over and over to put that frustration aside and again address you with respect. Not once have I seen you show me equal respect on this issue. I have tried to suggest we should agree to disagree on the issue itself, as it is obvious there can be no middle ground, but even that pisses you off.

When respect goes out the window, it is no longer a friendship. THAT is why I have felt our friendship slipping away; that and nothing else. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS or your stand on them, can you understand that??

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 1, 2013 9:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Byte, I'm totally confused.
Quote:

Niki, you may feel free to express your lack of respect for me and my emotional/personality disorder whenever you want.

I wasn't aware I'd done so, and I've gone back quite a ways in this thread to see where I did. I didn't respond to that post because I didn't see it; as I said, I've not been back here since the last time I posted in that thread. I certainly would never disrespect your disorder, far be it, and while yes, I have shown a lack of respect for you personally now and again, it stems from my total inability to understand why you have such a desire for us to view you the way you view yourself.

Jong, I don't know why you find that so amusing. If you'd care to elaborate, and maybe do so without belittling anyone on the left, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Um, cancel that, as I think I have an inkling what you meant by the comment, and I'd probably rather not hear further.

PK, absolutely correct; much can be guessed from the framing of multiple-choice tests, and in this case some of the "answers" provided were so patently absurd, guessing was easy!

Nick, bless your heart. At least YOU got it:
Quote:

It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.

And that's a good point, about the courts' decision, and that "The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits." That seems to be something our pro-gun members refuse to accept, and is the cause of much frustration because it leaves absolutely no room for any kind of common ground.

Shiny, excellent point. The National Firearms Act is a perfect parallel to what is happening today, and the fact that the American public wants something done about the abuse of the Second Amendment as it is happening today, just as it happened then. Personally, I don't consider either "an infringement of the people's right to bear arms", I view both as the People's reaction to an abuse of the Second Amendment which has been going on and has grown to a point where some sort of change needs to happen.

Byte:
Quote:

Most chaotic types don't mind so much the rules people impose on themselves so long as they CHOSE to live like that.

So a chaotic good or chaotic neutral anarchist would see a social contract accepted by a majority of the population and -begrudgingly, as Frem mentioned - accept it. Though that means we also have a sympathy for people who resist the rule of the land for their own reasons, and also for people who just sometimes don't quite fit into the greater established society.


MOST excellent, in my opinion.

Magons,
Quote:

You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.

And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.


Beautiful example, and some of how I feel about the potential of an American rebellion and that it might result in something "better" than what we have now. I sincerely believe it wouldn't, as in your example. Thank you.

Agent, you made some excellent points, not the least of which reflects exactly why I believe the way I do about armed rebellion:
Quote:

Peaceful resistance depends a lot on visibility, which is why authoritarian regimes hate a free press and harass journalists at any cost. But it also depends on popular sympathy. Just look at Russia these days. They're slashing away at all options of public dissent and the majority of people are happy with it. Lack of guns is not the issue in that mess, as it needn't come down to armed conflict. It's lack of wanting to resist for a number of reasons.

We have and will continue to have a press; yes, it is influenced by those in power, to a more and less degree depending on the individual press, but I don't believe it will ever be completely stifled. And I would posit that popular sympathy is THE thing that will keep America from rebelling. I just don't see Americans, as populous and diverse as we are, coming together to rebel. Simple as that. I understand that others see it differently, and attempt to debate them civilly. It is when the civility leaves the debate that it ceases to be a debate, and just an argument, frequently nasty.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 1, 2013 9:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA



From the top here:

M52Nick
Quote:

Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.

Horse manure.
They can state that the sky is green, it does not make it so, and there is no proper check against this as there is with the other branches - something addressed in Antifederalist Papers #78-82.
Of course, given that Hamilton and Jay were apparently planning to use that loophole from the very start might have had a little something to do with it being there.

Nor is the Supreme Court in any way immune to some very... erm, "creative" re-interpretations of existing law, given the occasional ruling that some act means exactly the opposite of what is written, or by refusing to address very obvious cases of Unconstitutional acts because doing so allows them to stand - again, there is a flaw there in the checks and balances system.


SGG
Quote:

But I noticed something, that I only heard of in passing, that sounds very much like a BAN of a certain type of gun - Congress passing the National Firearms Act of 1934, in response to a mass killing, very similar to the outrage of Newtown and the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary.

"The grisly shooting on Feb. 14, 1929 was the result of a “disagreement” between Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Seven of Moran’s men were riddled with bullets fired from two Thompson submachine guns. One contained a 20-round magazine, the other 50-rounds. The assailants also used shotguns. The escalating firepower being used by criminal gangs alarmed law enforcement, Congress, and the public."

Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?


Yes, and if not, it should have been - case example of how knee-jerk outrage and rush to judgement can over time erode rights into non-existence.

Mind you, I don't think much of fully automatic weapons from a tactical perspective, offensive or defensive, they're inaccurate, waste ammunition and the recoil/inaccuracy is a recipe for needless collateral damage, as well as such fire rapidly wearing the bore - as I recall the M16A2, our military battle rifle at one time, in truth did NOT have a fully automatic setting, but a three-round-burst setting - in large part due to that exact problem.

While I think the notion of an outright ban is bunk, and they're not "technically" banned, since the right bribes (aka Taxes) to the right people can net you a full auto - what they've done instead of made it financially prohibitive for the average citizen as a form of getting what they want without "technically" calling it a ban, basically chicanery.
Mind you, that would likely remain a problem anyhow since a full auto is one of those situations where requiring insurance against collateral damage could logically be required as a condition of purchase or ownership, and another ridiculously flaky workaround is that in some localities it's legal to own all the PARTS, but not legal to actually assemble them.
That's a lot like making owning a car legal, but making it illegal to start the engine and then saying you haven't banned the use of cars, you see ?
Quote:

I get from your statement, among other things, that you feel that the Amendment process is being bypassed? How so? It is my understanding that Congress is imbued with that power, as determined by the Constitution

I feel it is, and yes Congress is imbued with that power - if the people want something badly enough that's the process it requires to alter or remove an Amendment, case example was Prohibition - once installed the people quickly realized the unforseen and terrible consequences of the thing and eventually demanded its repeal.

You can't just ignore the process cause it's inconvenient, those protections are there in such a way as to be very difficult to alter for just that very purpose, as a check against state laws or local ordinances violating peoples rights.
Example: say some place full of racist pricks passes a law forbidding persons of color from using public transportation under the guise of keeping crime out of their neighborhood, right ?
As this violates essential protections within the Constitution, the Federal Supremecy clause kicks in and said law is invalidated - in principle, anyhows.

Mind you this isn't always properly enforced, Blue Laws, for example, are a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and a constant slap in the face to non-christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States

Not to mention the downright ludicrous number of end-runs and doubletalk legal dodges used to all but disregard the Fourth Amendment these days, most of which are blatantly and patently Unconstitutional and everyone involved bloody well knows it.

Still, you can't just write a law and overturn or infringe upon a Constitutional right, it makes a mockery of having them in the first place, erodes the protections they offer, and weakens the protections of all those rights - the difficulty of the process required to alter them is present for very good reasons.


Magons
Quote:

And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.

A very cogent point, especially when the "good" guys are terribly undergunned via having allowed such restrictions in the first place, but even so...
A good example of that was the Spanish Civil War, a point of ire with me cause Americas Government wholeheartedly supported Franco while it's people mostly did not - in many cases the Anarchists were down to throwing ROCKS, George Orwells experiences there (which can be read in Homage to Catalonia ) and with what came after were very influential on his later works.

Mind you, there's times when the "good" guys carry it off, the American Revolution was one of them and parity of armament was a VERY decisive factor, which is one particular reason WHY the Second Amendment was written in the first place, in hopes of ensuring the people would always outgun the Government - something which is sadly not whatever the case these days.

HOWEVER, that said - I don't necessarily disagree with you, here.
The presence of the weapons and the threat they represent make good deterrent, right up to when the shooting starts, at which point as you say it has a tendancy to turn pretty damned ugly, no doubt about it - especially since it seems the nature of Governments to reduce or suppress that threat prior to going full jackboot, and such should always be seen as a warning sign and stalled off such as is possible.

See, the historical cycle works a lot like this:
(I'll do this as a BASIC progam to simplify)

10 Establishment
20 Entrenchment
30 Corruption
40 Regulation
50 Registration
60 Confiscation
70 Massacre
80 Tyranny
90 Revolution
100 IF Revolution = FAIL: Goto 70
110 IF Revolution = WIN: Goto 10

So when you get around 40-50 there, you should start WORRYING, and maybe throwing sand in the gears of the process, you know ?

I do think that cycle can be broken though, and I am all for finding inventive non-violent ways of ensuring it never comes to open conflict, especially when you're pretty badly outgunned, not to mention the very problem of the psychos with the biggest guns becoming the new Government and lather-rinse-repeat, which is why I've focused on trying to help bring about a saner society rather than feeding the endless power struggle, to cut the leash rather than simply change the hand holding it.

Of course, these days even conventional mass-protest has it's problems, being at this time no more than an exercise in public suicide for your cause as you get demeaned and ignored by the press, corralled, kettled and beaten down, while being placed on "lists" for future harrassment and/or worse, without really accomplishing the objective.

S'why I am more interested in specifically targeted actions with clarity of purpose and immediate effect - one VERY good case of this was PBS Frontline putting Lanny Breur to the grill for his failure to prosecute ANY of the massive fraud going on within Wall Street...
Resulting in his immediate flight from the job within 24hours, probably to go hide under a rock somewhere, and if he should happen to then accept employment from the very folks he was refusing to bust, well... stoking public ire shouldn't be too hard, yes ?

Report: Asst. Atty. General Who Shied Away From Wall Street Prosecutions To Step Down
http://consumerist.com/2013/01/23/report-asst-atty-general-who-shied-a
way-from-wall-street-prosecutions-to-step-down
/
Quote:

Less than 24 hours after his appearance on PBS’ Frontline, where he struggled to explain why his office had brought not one single indictment against a high-level Wall Street executive related to the 2008 financial crisis, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has reportedly decided to step down.

The Washington Post reports that no specific time-frame for Breuer’s departure has been given, so it’s possible he’ll continue to not prosecute bank executives for some time.


As I say, ALL of the Amendments are critical, the First being IMHO more valuable than the Second in many cases cause the right words can be every bit as effective as bullets if not more so.
And words are cheaper.

One needn't slaughter a foe to remove them as a threat, attacking their resources and political support is effective too, especially since the cascade failure removes the infrastructure behind them, whereas just clipping someone off at the top simply ensures a new face on the same old game, something Robespierre learned to his peril.

Anyhows, yeah, once the shooting starts it tends to go badly for the "good" guys: this is true.
But this is because often as not the shooting starts once the "bad" guys have ensured sufficient martial superiority and political support to accomplish their objective.
(See Also: Line 70 - Massacre)
So having the weapons in play and at least a modicum of political support to that is a necessary check to prevent or at least delay the supposedly inevitable slide while we work on other ways to solve that problem.

Rather than propose the end of weapons, I propose to end the NEED for them, you see.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL