Why didn't Sandy Hook change anything?

People are tired of having their rights taken away.

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

bnw wrote:

The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

The ‘spirit’ in which the 2nd Amendment was written was to defend the institution of slavery and to protect slave owners from uprisings…

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, “Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller.” There were exemptions so “men in critical professions” like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 – including physicians and ministers – had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. “Liberty to Slaves” was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington’s army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

“Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

“By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.”

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . ”
Henry then bluntly laid it out:

“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”
And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

“In this state,” he said, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they’d use the Constitution to free the South’s slaves (a process then called “Manumission”).

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

“[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission,” said Henry. “And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
“This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.”
He added: “This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.”

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

“I was struck with surprise,” Madison said, “when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.”

But the southern fears wouldn’t go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner’s “property” (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

“In this situation,” Henry said to Madison, “I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson’s insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word “country” to the word “state,” and redrafted the Second Amendment into today’s form:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as “persons” by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

THOM HARTMANN

Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. You can learn more about Thom Hartmann at his website and find out what stations broadcast his radio program. He also now has a daily independent television program, The Big Picture, syndicated by FreeSpeech TV, RT TV, and 2oo community TV stations. You can also listen or watch Thom over the Internet.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

The ‘spirit’ in which the 2nd Amendment was written was to defend the institution of slavery and to protect slave owners from uprisings…

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, “Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller.” There were exemptions so “men in critical professions” like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 – including physicians and ministers – had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. “Liberty to Slaves” was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington’s army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

“Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

“By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.”

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . ”
Henry then bluntly laid it out:

“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”
And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

“In this state,” he said, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they’d use the Constitution to free the South’s slaves (a process then called “Manumission”).

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

“[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission,” said Henry. “And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
“This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.”
He added: “This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.”

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

“I was struck with surprise,” Madison said, “when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.”

But the southern fears wouldn’t go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner’s “property” (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

“In this situation,” Henry said to Madison, “I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson’s insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word “country” to the word “state,” and redrafted the Second Amendment into today’s form:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as “persons” by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

THOM HARTMANN

Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. You can learn more about Thom Hartmann at his website and find out what stations broadcast his radio program. He also now has a daily independent television program, The Big Picture, syndicated by FreeSpeech TV, RT TV, and 2oo community TV stations. You can also listen or watch Thom over the Internet.

Interesting though when the 2nd Amendment was written slavery was practiced throughout the north too. Atrocities against civilians were perpetrated with muskets too which were the technology of the day.

bnw wrote:

That’s cool. Just don’t expect me to acquiesce to someone wanting to deprive me of my rights for any reason.

In other words, this is a debate, and you are on one side, and others are on the other side.

Understood.

TSRF wrote:

I don’t think anybody on my side of this discussion wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. We’re idealists, but also realists.
I just want to get assault rifles banned. I’m sure there would be a grandfather clause, where they aren’t going to come and take your AK out of your cold, dead hands, but how in the wide world of sports can you claim a ban on additional sales of assault rifles is taking away one of your “rights”? (Speaking of rights, have you heard of this little thing known as the Patriot Act??).

I didn’t plan on starting an argument, just wanted to make my initial comment. After seeing what one sick fuck with an assault rifle can do, I fear that somebody with a similar weapon can take my children from me. This is the waking nightmare I and lots of my town folk have every fucking day.

With all due respect you do not know what you’re writing about. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It looks like an assault rifle, the M16. The AR-15 is semi automatic. I cannot fathom that you do not know this given the ample explanations of this in any substantive conversation on this topic in the media. Any US citizen legally allowed to own a firearm can buy a true assault rifle. They can buy a silencer too. You simply have to pay the federal government a fee of hundreds of dollars per item after jumping through hoops and then you can only transfer it to someone having gone through the same hoops. Plus there are no new assault rifles being produced and hasn’t been since 1986 when government ordered a class 3 stamp for all to be legally sold thereafter. The class 3 stamp was also given to a collection of parts necessary for full auto conversion. The individual collection of parts is by law considered an assault rifle whether it is installed in the rifle or not. These collection of parts for an individual rifle were also capped in 1986. Obviously with these restrictions imposed by government the cost of these items has always skyrocketed thus the de facto denial of these items to most people based on cost alone. Plus the price of ammo has nearly doubled recently while the supply to the consumer has been severely constrained due to the federal government buying up the vast majority of production which makes full auto use further prohibitive for most people who own them.

Sure I’ve heard of that act and other acts since that has lead public opinion to say enough with the dismantling of individual rights.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Sure I’ve heard of that act and other acts since that has lead public opinion to say enough with the dismantling of individual rights.

I am not going to debate this (ie. my upcoming point in this paragraph). I am going to assert it. That whole “dismantling of individual rights” routine is a slogan. The truth is, this is a debate over policy. That’s it. That’s the reality. “Dismantling of rights” is an amped up slogan and sheerly a matter of opinion. It escalates the rhetoric without adding anything in the way of rational discussion.

And just in terms of my personal opinion—replying the way you did to a guy who has very strong personal issues surrounding this event is just plain crudely insensitive. You could have just easily stepped out of the discussion with him, and said something true to your position but not inappropriately confrontive like “well we see it differently and neither us will probably change.”

I;m not going to get into this one. You have the floor.

How was I crudely insensitive? I wasn’t. You disagree with my position as your first post referred to those against my position as the Good Guys. You are not debating anything. You are trying to temper what I write when it is not justified. I’m not escalating rhetoric as you claim since it was TSRF who brought up the act in question. I responded to it. That is a debate. You can also assert all you want but that act and others have stepped far across the line of what knowledgeable citizens expect. Government ordering without trial the murder of US citizens should not be taken lightly. Disappearing citizens with no explanation nor notification for transport out of this country to be tortured elsewhere should not be taken lightly either as was the basis of an ACLU lawsuit that was thrown out of court trying to address this assault on our liberties:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_3612354.html

NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out
Matt Sledge
msledge@huffingtonpost.com

Posted: 07/17/2013 3:23 pm EDT Updated: 07/17/2013 3:45 pm EDT

A federal appeals court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit targeting a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that opponents argue could be used to indefinitely detain American citizens on mere suspicions of terrorism.

The journalists and activists who brought the case argued that the NDAA unconstitutionally gives the president the authority to detain anyone he suspects of teaming up with al Qaeda or the Taliban, anywhere. They argued that even those who merely spoke with terrorists — like former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges — might be in danger.

But in a 60-page ruling, a three judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs lacked legal status to mount a challenge to the law because it “says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens,” and that two non-citizens who were also plaintiffs had failed to show that they were actually threatened with detention.

Hedges, who served as the lead named plaintiff in the case, told HuffPost he was frustrated by the court’s decision.

“It’s sad that we can’t even find any kind of redress through the courts,” he said. “There’s nowhere left to turn to in this really egregious assault against our most basic civil liberties.”

Wednesday’s decision may bring to a close a 16-month legal saga during which a lower court judge briefly attempted to block the law. While noting that the Supreme Court’s guidance on granting standing for such lawsuits “has been less than clear,” the appeal court leaned heavily on the high court’s February ruling that human rights groups couldn’t challenge a warrantless wiretapping program without concrete proof that it had targeted them.

The plaintiffs may appeal the ruling, but the Supreme Court is not required to hear them out.

“The Second Circuit panel did not distinguish itself in upholding civil rights in America,” said Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “I think the decision is imminently appealable because it reverses a very solid and comprehensive lower court opinion, and frankly I think it’s time for the Obama administration to stop supporting these statues like the indefinite detention law.”

Outside of the courts, activists and human rights advocates had their hopes of derailing indefinite detention dashed when Congress reauthorized the NDAA in December.

Still not insensitive as I responded to the post I quoted not the post you quoted since I had not seen his later post. Still wouldn’t matter. Amped emotion doesn’t trump facts in a debate. I stand by my original post which answered his question to begin this thread.

I hope you realize as friend to friend that your popping in and out of mod and poster roles in a thread and only in mod role in response to what I write is unethical in a debate. It has a stifling effect on participation as does amped emotion.

You were the one that interjected the word ‘debate’ into this thread. You did so twice. You also did so early in the thread while I was responding to TSRF. A few months ago a gunman killed a canadian soldier then ran into the Canadian parliament right past the room in which the prime minister was in attendance. So much for saner canadian gun control.

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

Well, yeah, except that we don’t often see a lot of mentally unstable people climbing into Chryslers or Volkswagons and indiscriminately killing a bunch of innocents with them because they had a crush on Jodi Foster. That’s the difference between gun regulation and a never-to-be-seen public outcry for car regulation.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the intent of the Founding Fathers’ development of the 2nd amendment was based on them having just broken away from Great Britain, so they wanted to protect themselves against the possibility that the new Federal Government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel as though an entire Country of armed-to-the-teeth citizens still has zero chance of overthrowing (or even defending ourselves against) our Government should they turn on us. Which I don’t believe they’ll ever try to do anyway. But again, even if they did, we still have no chance to defend ourselves. No matter how many semi or fully automatic weapons we each have. They have control of THE gun and THE bullet.

So yeah, I have no problem surrendering my 2nd amendment right, because I’m not even exercising it anyway. For what? To say I can? I have more fear of some jacked up meth-head shooting my wife in the head over a parking spot at Walmart than I do of my Government turning on me. But I guess if I had a sawed-off shotgun, I could stop the latter from happening.

— X — wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

Well, yeah, except that we don’t often see a lot of mentally unstable people climbing into Chryslers or Volkswagons and indiscriminately killing a bunch of innocents with them because they had a crush on Jodi Foster. That’s the difference between gun regulation and a never-to-be-seen public outcry for car regulation.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the intent of the Founding Fathers’ development of the 2nd amendment was based on them having just broken away from Great Britain, so they wanted to protect themselves against the possibility that the new Federal Government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel as though an entire Country of armed-to-the-teeth citizens still has zero chance of overthrowing (or even defending ourselves against) our Government should they turn on us. Which I don’t believe they’ll ever try to do anyway. But again, even if they did, we still have no chance to defend ourselves. No matter how many semi or fully automatic weapons we each have. They have control of THE gun and THE bullet.

So yeah, I have no problem surrendering my 2nd amendment right, because I’m not even exercising it anyway. For what? To say I can? I have more fear of some jacked up meth-head shooting my wife in the head over a parking spot at Walmart than I do of my Government turning on me. But I guess if I had a sawed-off shotgun, I could stop the latter from happening.

You giving up your 2nd Amendment right is your personal choice. We must disagree about the effect of an armed populace as history shows an armed populace is capable of making life miserable for an oppressor. That is why governments arm populations in countries they wish to overthrow by proxy. It is also why government confiscates arms in order to control opposition. You mentioned “should they turn on us”. Have you given any thought to how the “turn” will manifest? Given the assault on our liberties between the so called war on drugs and the war on terrorism the turn is being made and the radius becomes tighter each year. If you can’t see it then the myriad of distractions in popular culture and politics has worked on you. I view it as a frog contentedly sitting in a pot of water with the heat rising to boiling at which time it is too late.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

PA Ram wrote:

I’ve never been convinced that the 2nd Amendment means that no matter how far technology progresses(some futuristic nuclear rifle?)that it’s basically your right to have access to any of it for “personal protection” because you fear…whatever. Earlier Supreme Courts didn’t look at it that way.

It certainly isn’t good for the country or humans in general.

We live in a country of very fearful people. They will hug their guns tighter than their children.

I don’t see the point of large magazines or assault weapons. If you’re THAT fearful of your government that you think you’ll be going to war with it or only that type of weapon can protect your family, well, good luck with that. You’re screwed.

I wouldn’t worry though–this country isn’t giving up its guns anytime soon–no matter how many Sandy Hooks there are.

So yes–this fourth of July–with all the fireworks there WILL be guys out there shooting a gun in the air. Just celebrating their RIGHTS. Hopefully no one is killed.

So much of what you wrote I disagree with but as zn said earlier the mind is made up. I do find something you wrote intriguing.

“We live in a country of very fearful people.”

— X — wrote:

Of course this little side-debate was already over once the word “you” was introduced into it. And it wasn’t *me* who did that.

Yes it’s not about posters. Bnw & I kind of went into that when I went all meta about one part of this, but that moment is a unique understandable hiccup, and hopefully bracketed off and tucked away. To mix metaphors. (Do mixed metaphors violate the rules? The garden of my brain explodes discordantly at the thought.)

So yeah discuss ideas but you’re right the poster is not supposed to be the topic.

— X — wrote:

bnw wrote:

– X – wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

Well, yeah, except that we don’t often see a lot of mentally unstable people climbing into Chryslers or Volkswagons and indiscriminately killing a bunch of innocents with them because they had a crush on Jodi Foster. That’s the difference between gun regulation and a never-to-be-seen public outcry for car regulation.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the intent of the Founding Fathers’ development of the 2nd amendment was based on them having just broken away from Great Britain, so they wanted to protect themselves against the possibility that the new Federal Government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel as though an entire Country of armed-to-the-teeth citizens still has zero chance of overthrowing (or even defending ourselves against) our Government should they turn on us. Which I don’t believe they’ll ever try to do anyway. But again, even if they did, we still have no chance to defend ourselves. No matter how many semi or fully automatic weapons we each have. They have control of THE gun and THE bullet.

So yeah, I have no problem surrendering my 2nd amendment right, because I’m not even exercising it anyway. For what? To say I can? I have more fear of some jacked up meth-head shooting my wife in the head over a parking spot at Walmart than I do of my Government turning on me. But I guess if I had a sawed-off shotgun, I could stop the latter from happening.

You giving up your 2nd Amendment right is your personal choice. We must disagree about the effect of an armed populace as history shows an armed populace is capable of making life miserable for an oppressor. That is why governments arm populations in countries they wish to overthrow by proxy. It is also why government confiscates arms in order to control opposition. You mentioned “should they turn on us”. Have you given any thought to how the “turn” will manifest? Given the assault on our liberties between the so called war on drugs and the war on terrorism the turn is being made and the radius becomes tighter each year. If you can’t see it then the myriad of distractions in popular culture and politics has worked on you. I view it as a frog contentedly sitting in a pot of water with the heat rising to boiling at which time it is too late.

None of the points raised in the above post suggests a need to heavily arm this Country. None of them. A spattering of talking points about civil liberties and a tip of the hat to George Orwell isn’t enough to convince me that I need an AK-47 hanging above my fireplace.

Of course this little side-debate was already over once the word “you” was introduced into it. And it wasn’t *me* who did that. That said, I graciously accept the offer presented to me that I’m permitted to retain my choice on this matter. I’m apparently a little too dumb (kinda like a frog) to make this decision of my own volition, but I’ll brave the consequences nonetheless.

Practically every home in Switzerland has an assault rifle. Those world famous dysfunctional Swiss, eh? Oh you’re not dumb. You’ve checked yourself out of following the erosion of personal liberties as have many people. It is easy to graciously accept my offer since it preserves your choice, something I wouldn’t work towards denying you.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by bnw.