PDA

View Full Version : " ...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed "


Volcana
Oct 27th, 2007, 03:44 AM
Second Amendment to the US Constitution
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't want my next door neigbor owning a nuke, my likes and dislikes aren't inthe Constitution. The language seems pretty un-ambiguous. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Framers were, principally, concerned in protecting the citizenry FROM the government. Of course, it's arguable what the statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" actually means, but the government having an Army simply is NOT the same as ME having my own weapons.

Add in how US citizens have been systematically stripped of our Constitutional rights, the Framers concerns with abusive government seem quite prescient.

Haute
Oct 27th, 2007, 05:48 AM
The Framers were referring to the State maintaining a militia, but 200 years of Supreme Court rulings have changed it to mean something else to the general public.

miffedmax
Oct 27th, 2007, 09:31 AM
Well, the courts have placed some limitations on that right. You can't own a nuke, or howitzer.

What I don't understand is the position that some people have that any attempt to register and regulate the sale of certain types of weapons infringes on the right to own them, assuming you are a law abiding person.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 27th, 2007, 01:47 PM
``The Framers were, principally, concerned in protecting the citizenry FROM the government.``



We discussed this previously. You may recall when I posed the question, does this include the right of citizens to shoot a government criminal like Mark Fuhrmann who used his police uniform to terrorize law abiding black citizens of Los Angeles?

In principle, the forum's right wingers should have applauded the idea. But, not so strangely, they refused to answer my question.

Now that you brought up the issue again, how about answering my question.

meyerpl
Oct 27th, 2007, 06:36 PM
``The Framers were, principally, concerned in protecting the citizenry FROM the government.``



We discussed this previously. You may recall when I posed the question, does this include the right of citizens to shoot a government criminal like Mark Fuhrmann who used his police uniform to terrorize law abiding black citizens of Los Angeles?

In principle, the forum's right wingers should have applauded the idea. But, not so strangely, they refused to answer my question.

Now that you brought up the issue again, how about answering my question.
I assume you're intentionally being obtuse.

Volcana
Oct 27th, 2007, 06:41 PM
The Framers were referring to the State maintaining a militiaActually, no they weren't. This was a chief point of contention between the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists. The Framers had just freed themselves from a country where the central government had a military powerful enough, supposedly, to suppress the colonies The question was whether to maintain a Federal standing army at all. It was argued that the Federal government's army would never strong enough to overthrow the combined militias of the states, plus an armed citizenry. The Framers turned out to be wrong in that regard.

Wikipedia is hardly a flawless resource, but they've done a decent job on the discussion leading up to what is now known as the 2nd Amendment. (Follow the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (and then click the Origin' link.)

wta_zuperfann
Oct 28th, 2007, 12:02 AM
I assume you're intentionally being obtuse.


Can't imagine why you're saying that.

Several times on this forum, certain right wingers have accused me of being a political lefty. Yet, when it comes to discussing 2d amendment rights, their criticism disappears. Being a former member of the NRA, a strong proponent of 2d amendment rights, having a law degree, and being thoroughly versed in Constitutional history, I know fully well the actual intention of our Founders.

At the time of the Constitution's enactment, there was no such thing as a police force in NYC. In fact, we did not get a force until 1825 - well after most of our Founders passed away. At no point did they contemplate giving the police life and death rights over citizens. Therefore, if they were alive today and knew what Fuhrmann did to innocents on the streets of Los Angeles, they would be the first ones to allow that city's citizens to take up arms and to summarily deal with the racist criminal.


Ain't that right, Volcana?

Donny
Oct 28th, 2007, 01:25 AM
I assume you're intentionally being obtuse.


Can't imagine why you're saying that.

Several times on this forum, certain right wingers have accused me of being a political lefty. Yet, when it comes to discussing 2d amendment rights, their criticism disappears. Being a former member of the NRA, a strong proponent of 2d amendment rights, having a law degree, and being thoroughly versed in Constitutional history, I know fully well the actual intention of our Founders.

At the time of the Constitution's enactment, there was no such thing as a police force in NYC. In fact, we did not get a force until 1825 - well after most of our Founders passed away. At no point did they contemplate giving the police life and death rights over citizens. Therefore, if they were alive today and knew what Fuhrmann did to innocents on the streets of Los Angeles, they would be the first ones to allow that city's citizens to take up arms and to summarily deal with the racist criminal.


Ain't that right, Volcana?

Excellent post.

What one needs to remember is that the main federal attempts to curtail the second amendment came after the end of the civil war, and during nadir of American race relations, and the Civil Rights movement- in other words, attempts by white Southerners to oppress and murder blacks through the use of firearms.

Even now Southerners seem obsessed with guns. Why? The east and west coast don't seem nearly as gung ho when it comes to the second amendment? The racial aspect is obvious, even today. Especially considering the fact that the people most likely to trust the "establishment"- Republicans and conservatives- seem to most favor gun rights. Are they THAT afraid of the Feds? Somehow I doubt it.

meyerpl
Oct 28th, 2007, 01:44 AM
I assume you're intentionally being obtuse.


Can't imagine why you're saying that.

Several times on this forum, certain right wingers have accused me of being a political lefty. Yet, when it comes to discussing 2d amendment rights, their criticism disappears. Being a former member of the NRA, a strong proponent of 2d amendment rights, having a law degree, and being thoroughly versed in Constitutional history, I know fully well the actual intention of our Founders.

At the time of the Constitution's enactment, there was no such thing as a police force in NYC. In fact, we did not get a force until 1825 - well after most of our Founders passed away. At no point did they contemplate giving the police life and death rights over citizens. Therefore, if they were alive today and knew what Fuhrmann did to innocents on the streets of Los Angeles, they would be the first ones to allow that city's citizens to take up arms and to summarily deal with the racist criminal.


Ain't that right, Volcana?
Since you actually seem to be serious, I'll direct your attention to the fifth amendment to the Bill of Rights. In it, the founding fathers are quite clear and answer your question.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 28th, 2007, 04:00 AM
The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791. This is well before NYC got its first police force. Nothing in it enjoins citizens from protecting themselves from state oppression. On the contrary, it gives citizens further protection from the likes of criminals such as Fuhrmann and those judges who protected him.


Ain't that right, Volcana?

meyerpl
Oct 28th, 2007, 04:10 AM
The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791. This is well before NYC got its first police force. Nothing in it enjoins citizens from protecting themselves from state oppression. On the contrary, it gives citizens further protection from the likes of criminals such as Fuhrmann and those judges who protected him.


Ain't that right, Volcana?
Nonetheless, if a police officer is accused of crimes, he has the same rights under the the fifth amendment as any other citizen.

No, the founding fathers didn't intend the second amendment to be interpreted as giving citizens a green light to gun down the Mark Fuhrmans of the world.

miffedmax
Oct 28th, 2007, 04:27 AM
There was probably less than universal consensus among the FF meant on any of the constitution. I mean, Jefferson was convinced he'd helped create a weak central government geared at protecting the rights of small farmers and Hamilton was certain he'd created a strong central government that laid the foundations for economic growth in a proto-industrial society.

Even today you get bills passed and different politicians and lawyers will give you completely different descriptions of what they really mean.

HippityHop
Oct 28th, 2007, 04:41 AM
And nobody answered my question about where in the constitution is it stated that the courts have the last say on what is consitutional.

I've never been to law school but I would think that would be one of the most interesting topics for discussion in a constitutional law class.

Or is that type of inquiry frowned upon in most law schools?

wta_zuperfann
Oct 28th, 2007, 01:31 PM
''No, the founding fathers didn't intend the second amendment to be interpreted as giving citizens a green light to gun down the Mark Fuhrmans of the world.''



There were no Fuhrmanns to begin with. Therefore, they did not give free license to his like to be able to gun down innocent civilians with impunity.

The following is the closest thing to an abusive cop during the time of our Founders:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/1774_lynching.jpg



And what did those patriots do to him? They tortured him with water and proceeded to lynch him. This is what our Founders would have done to Fuhrmann. As my hero Casey Stengel used to say, ''you can look it up''.


Ain't that right Volcana?

wta_zuperfann
Oct 28th, 2007, 01:40 PM
And nobody answered my question about where in the constitution is it stated that the courts have the last say on what is consitutional.

I've never been to law school but I would think that would be one of the most interesting topics for discussion in a constitutional law class.

Or is that type of inquiry frowned upon in most law schools?



Sorry, I did not see your question previously.

Here is the answer and it comes from Founder Alexander Hamilton:



"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."



It was entrenched in USA jurisprudence in the famous Marbury vs Madison case of 1803 with John Marshall as Chief Justice.

miffedmax
Oct 28th, 2007, 01:59 PM
That tax officials and others were tarred and feathered (which did not always lead to a full-blown lynching) does not make it a legal or acceptable activity.

Remember, John Adams had such respect for the law and justice that he acted in defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

That fact that there was vigiante "justice" in those days doesn't mean it was considered acceptable.

meyerpl
Oct 28th, 2007, 03:42 PM
''No, the founding fathers didn't intend the second amendment to be interpreted as giving citizens a green light to gun down the Mark Fuhrmans of the world.''



There were no Fuhrmanns to begin with. Therefore, they did not give free license to his like to be able to gun down innocent civilians with impunity.

The following is the closest thing to an abusive cop during the time of our Founders:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/1774_lynching.jpg



And what did those patriots do to him? They tortured him with water and proceeded to lynch him. This is what our Founders would have done to Fuhrmann. As my hero Casey Stengel used to say, ''you can look it up''.


Ain't that right Volcana?
I seriously think you're intentionally being obtuse to provoke a response.

You're original suggestion was that the second amendment may give mobs the right to gun down suspected criminals (which is what a police officer becomes when he's suspected of breaking the law) without due process. Come on. You're screwing around. You know better than that. I could post a picture of a mob torturing and murdering someone from any era and suggest that because it happened it reflected the rule of law and spirit of the leadership at the time. Right? There have always been Mark Fuhrmans, regardless of what uniform they wear and where they get their authority.

Volcana
Oct 28th, 2007, 07:02 PM
Therefore, if they were alive today and knew what Fuhrmann did to innocents on the streets of Los Angeles, they would be the first ones to allow that city's citizens to take up arms and to summarily deal with the racist criminal.


Ain't that right, Volcana?That's certainly NOT an arguement I'd make, nor have I ever read anything by the Founders that suggested that they'd support that either.

Volcana
Oct 28th, 2007, 07:06 PM
The FF knew that they could not envisage all the changes to society that might occur in the future. They intended the Constitution to be a 'living document'. Founded in base principals yes, but subject to amendment.

But it is one thing to Amend the Constitution, and another to ignore it.

HippityHop
Oct 28th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Sorry, I did not see your question previously.

Here is the answer and it comes from Founder Alexander Hamilton:



"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."



It was entrenched in USA jurisprudence in the famous Marbury vs Madison case of 1803 with John Marshall as Chief Justice.

Thanks for that answer wta. So it's not in the constitution itself, I take it. But it's so because John Marshall says it's so? I don't have a problem with that, but it seems to me to be the case.

I would imagine that a law student who challenges the supreme court's taking that power would not last long in law school.

Scotso
Oct 28th, 2007, 08:53 PM
It always makes me laugh when people try to assert what the writers of the constitution intended it to mean. First, no one alive now knew any of them, so one person claiming to understand better than others is complete bullshit. Second, the one thing we do know is that the authors of the Constitution created a document not just to be the cornerstone of their current government, but one that is adaptable into the future. It doesn't matter what the people in the 18th century intended with certain parts, what matters is how we apply it to today.

As long as someone has committed no crime, there is no reason they should not be allowed to own guns.

Scotso
Oct 28th, 2007, 08:55 PM
Thanks for that answer wta. So it's not in the constitution itself, I take it. But it's so because John Marshall says it's so? I don't have a problem with that, but it seems to me to be the case.

Of course it's the case, that's the first thing you learn in government 101. It's the basis for our system of government. The legislative branch makes laws, the judicial branch interprets laws, and the executive branch enforces laws. It works.

HippityHop
Oct 28th, 2007, 09:17 PM
Of course it's the case, that's the first thing you learn in government 101. It's the basis for our system of government. The legislative branch makes laws, the judicial branch interprets laws, and the executive branch enforces laws. It works.

My question was where in the constitution itself does it say that the court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Please cite the passage.

meyerpl
Oct 28th, 2007, 10:32 PM
It always makes me laugh when people try to assert what the writers of the constitution intended it to mean. First, no one alive now knew any of them, so one person claiming to understand better than others is complete bullshit. Second, the one thing we do know is that the authors of the Constitution created a document not just to be the cornerstone of their current government, but one that is adaptable into the future. It doesn't matter what the people in the 18th century intended with certain parts, what matters is how we apply it to today.

As long as someone has committed no crime, there is no reason they should not be allowed to own guns.
I agree with you to a point. I do believe it's important for people to try to understand the intent of the founding fathers when they crafted the Bill of Rights. I think everyone's liberty is more secure when we do so. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of material the founding fathers left behind in the form of letters, essays, speaches, etc. that serve to help clarify their intent. I'm inclined to think a serious constitutional scholar actually is better qualified to understand the intent of the founding fathers than, say, Harry at the end of the bar after his sixth whisky sour. I don't think that's bullshit. But, that's just my opinion.

By the way, a citizen's right to bear arms isn't revoked for committing a crime unless they're convicted of a felony.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 28th, 2007, 10:50 PM
John Adams had such respect for the law and justice that he acted in defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.



Adams was also the first to suspend civil liberties.




There have always been Mark Fuhrmans, regardless of what uniform they wear and where they get their authority.



True. And it cost that abusive excise tax collector his life. BTW, so far as I know, history does not indicate that any of those in that painting were prosecuted.



nor have I ever read anything by the Founders that suggested that they'd support that either.



Then why make the right to keep and bear weapons legally unchallengable?

Scotso
Oct 28th, 2007, 11:42 PM
My question was where in the constitution itself does it say that the court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Please cite the passage.

It doesn't say that implicitly, but it's an obvious necessity. It's their job to interpret laws and uphold the Constitution. The only way to override the Constitution is to pass an amendment, so any other laws that go beyond what the Constitution allows must be struck down.

You seem to have a problem with this, which I can't understand at all. The judicial branch is the last defender of our Constitutional rights. Without that ability, we'd all be fucked.

HippityHop
Oct 28th, 2007, 11:55 PM
It doesn't say that implicitly, but it's an obvious necessity. It's their job to interpret laws and uphold the Constitution. The only way to override the Constitution is to pass an amendment, so any other laws that go beyond what the Constitution allows must be struck down.

You seem to have a problem with this, which I can't understand at all. The judicial branch is the last defender of our Constitutional rights. Without that ability, we'd all be fucked.

You apparently didn't read my response to wta where I specifically said that I don't have a problem with it. However that still does not make it be present in the constitution.

My real interest is in how this is discussed in constitutional law classes if it is.

John A Roark
Oct 29th, 2007, 12:00 AM
The Framers were referring to the State maintaining a militia, but 200 years of Supreme Court rulings have changed it to mean something else to the general public.

You are wrong! Wrong! So wrong! Incredibly wrong!
If 'the people' refers to individuals in any one amendment, it does so in ALL of them. If the First Amendment says, "...the people..." when referring to free speech, and it means each of us individually, it means so in the 2d, too.
Besides, the courts have already so ruled and this bugaboo has been laid to rest.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 29th, 2007, 01:06 AM
``My real interest is in how this is discussed in constitutional law classes if it is.``

The Constitution gives the SC jurisdiction (that is, the authority to interpret and apply law) in:

U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In Marbury so far as I recall from my law school days many moons ago, British cases allowing such application were cited.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 29th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Note above = ''the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make''


According to this provision, Congress may limit the SC's powers of review in cases where it does not have original jurisdiction. This is a matter rarely discussed in legal circles or academia today.

HippityHop
Oct 29th, 2007, 04:33 AM
Note above = ''the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make''


According to this provision, Congress may limit the SC's powers of review in cases where it does not have original jurisdiction. This is a matter rarely discussed in legal circles or academia today.


That's very interesting. I wonder why this is not discussed much. Do people think that it might cause a constitutional crisis if congress insists on prohibiting the court from ruling on certain matters? Very interesting indeed.

Bacardi
Oct 29th, 2007, 04:43 AM
I own guns, nothing major. But I do keep a .22 Rifle behind my bedroom door (it's not loaded), and there are no small children in this house at any time. The reason I do it, is because this area I live in people would kill you for $10 or a pill, so I feel safer having it. And if the Government tried to take away my rights to have something to protect myself with, that I do no misuse in anyway, then damn right I'd be angry. But in today's society with every criminal and killer owning a gun, it's an average persons right to own one as well to defend themselves. If the US Gov done away with guns, and made every average citizen (law abiding) give up their guns, that would still not stop the criminals and killers from having them. They've not listened to the laws at this point, what would make them then? Plus, I don't know about how much a lot of you know about gun control. But anytime I've gone to buy one the shit they have to ask is whoa. Last time I went I had to fill out 3 papers & show my drivers license & social security cards for them to copy. I live in VA, and yes there is no wait to buy a gun. What they do is have you do all the paper work, call it in to the state police and as long as you have a clean record (no mental problems, crimes, etc) you get your firearm that day. I'd be angry if there were more than a 3 day waiting period, when me being a woman and living alone in an area like this just wanting to defend myself, because in 3 days someone could have broken in on me, killed me or raped me. ANd as far as tazers go, and mace, forget that shit. If someone's trying to rape me or kill me I don't want to give them a face rash or some electric jumpstart, I want to let them know I'll kill instead of be killed. That's another thing, around here, if someone does break in to hurt you, then you have the right to shoot that person. At least in this state, it's now if someone comes on your land that you did not permit or do not know, then you have the right to use firearm force to remove them. The thing is, you have to kill that person, because if you wound them, you end up like this older lady that lives down the road from me. Some guy about 10 years ago broke in on her to rape her, steal her meds and her money, well she shot him in the leg. Now that bastard spent about 3 months in jail, got out and has sued her for basically all she owns. So it's fair warning that I have 'No Tresspassing' and 'Private Property' signs up, that clear me by law if someone comes onto the property that I own to use force. Because here it takes police over 30 minutes (or longer) to respond to a call, in that time the criminals have done what they wanted. Also in this state, I'm working on getting a concealed weapons permit, which is a right to carry a hand gun with me when I travel or go somewhere. TO get it I'm having to pay a hefty fee, get throughly checked out, and take a firearm class. Which is a small price to pay to stay safe.

So a lot of you guys can bitch and moan about how average citizens shouldn't own guns, and they should be done away with completely. But, then if that's the case, how in the hell are you going to get those guns out of the criminals hands? How do you suggest the killers turn in their guns? Do you really think they will abide by any law? They haven't thus far, so they won't if that law comes into effect. So lay off the gun control issues, you have a right as a citizen who's not a criminal to own something that might save your life, the life of someone else, or your families lives. Unless you just expect all law abiding citizens to give up their guns, allow the criminals to keep theirs and them come slaughter the rest of us???

wta_zuperfann
Oct 29th, 2007, 12:43 PM
I wonder why this is not discussed much. Do people think that it might cause a constitutional crisis if congress insists on prohibiting the court from ruling on certain matters?


Perhaps it is because of the complexity of the issue --- the Constitution, being an ancient document written in 18th century English, is beyond the understanding of today's average citizen.

What makes matters worse is the constant harpings made by right wing radio/television evangelist types on judicial issues. Most of these deluded pundits know absolutely nothing of the subject but act as if they were experts. And what's worse still, is the hold they have on so many naive and unknowing people who are readily disposed to blame and to attribute an endless array of evils and misfortunes to liberals, feminists, foreigners, or anyone else who they deem to be subversive.

Would the issue create a constitutional crisis? Not necessarily. At least, not so if the court was comprised of moderate and rational people. Unfortunately it is largely comprised of right wing extremists such as Thomas and Scalia, neither of whom is known for moderation or for rationally explaining their judicial views. As conservatives, both supposedly believe in judicial restraint. But this has not stopped them from exercising judicial activism in order to promote their right wing agendas. In the interest of justice and social equity, this needs to be stopped.

Bottom line is that the Marbury case can or should be subjected to review(both scholarly and judicial). This would make for VERY interesting legal discourse and provoke much discussion which ultimately may be beneficial to society.

Volcana
Oct 31st, 2007, 04:29 AM
Perhaps it is because of the complexity of the issue --- the Constitution, being an ancient document written in 18th century English, is beyond the understanding of today's average citizen.I don't think that's true. The Constitution is written in relatively plain English. However, the average citizen is not educated about it. Look how often people cite 'freedom of speech' in this forum, when that concept only limits what the government can or cannot do.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 04:41 AM
I am a liberal. VERY liberal. And I therefore believe in the second amendment as a civil libertarian. I also think that responsible restrictions are okay.

SF

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:49 AM
So a lot of you guys can bitch and moan about how average citizens shouldn't own guns, and they should be done away with completely. But, then if that's the case, how in the hell are you going to get those guns out of the criminals hands? How do you suggest the killers turn in their guns? Do you really think they will abide by any law? They haven't thus far, so they won't if that law comes into effect. So lay off the gun control issues, you have a right as a citizen who's not a criminal to own something that might save your life, the life of someone else, or your families lives. Unless you just expect all law abiding citizens to give up their guns, allow the criminals to keep theirs and them come slaughter the rest of us???

One question, though, how is an unloaded gun going to help you? Get some ammo in there. I've always believed that if someone breaks into your house and threatens you, it's okay to blow their head off.

And your last paragraph is indeed the main argument against banning people from owning guns. The only people a law banning guns would affect are people that actually pay attention to the law. It would take the guns from those who are going to use them legally. It wouldn't stop the bad eggs from getting guns, and they're the only ones that we should fear having them. In the end, the government and the police do not, will not, and cannot protect you. They only punish people who break the law, they don't prevent them from doing so. The only person who can really look out for you is you.

Halardfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 04:03 PM
The problem is I dont think its as simple as that, with neatly defined good guys and bad guys...there are grey areas, and there are numerous cases when guns are used by previously law abiding people to kill innocent people.

More its about the position of guns in society, in Britain guns are widely loathed, there isnt the long respect and even affection that many in the US have for guns. Guns are part of your founding mythology/story which is incredibly dangerous. The US gun crime dwarfs ours...I dont think its a coincidence.

kiwifan
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:24 PM
I don't think that's true. The Constitution is written in relatively plain English. However, the average citizen is not educated about it. Look how often people cite 'freedom of speech' in this forum, when that concept only limits what the government can or cannot do.And what exactly do non-government actors do to stop your freedom of speech? Even a boss firing an employee doesn't shut the employee up. :shrug:

That's a bit of an "under sell" on what freedom of speech applies to; after all federal guidelines have been liberally interpreted to apply to any organization or institution that interacts with the government (receives govt funding or even a little tax break) and the tentacles of this rubric have stretched to the point where a private institution that interacts with public institutions is expected to be bound by cute little things like the Civil Rights Act...

...thanks to the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement its reasonable to conclude that Government rules apply not only to local actions but local refusals to act in favor of the Constitution...

...Americans take freedom of speech so for granted that without some legit Religious or valid organization based Creed, the First Amendment de facto applies nearly everywhere. ;)

HippityHop
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:08 PM
One question, though, how is an unloaded gun going to help you? Get some ammo in there. I've always believed that if someone breaks into your house and threatens you, it's okay to blow their head off.

And your last paragraph is indeed the main argument against banning people from owning guns. The only people a law banning guns would affect are people that actually pay attention to the law. It would take the guns from those who are going to use them legally. It wouldn't stop the bad eggs from getting guns, and they're the only ones that we should fear having them. In the end, the government and the police do not, will not, and cannot protect you. They only punish people who break the law, they don't prevent them from doing so. The only person who can really look out for you is you.

Indeed. In fact the only thing that the police are good for in most cases is putting up the yellow tape around your body and launching an investigation as to who the cretin is who murdered you.

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:21 PM
And what exactly do non-government actors do to stop your freedom of speech? Even a boss firing an employee doesn't shut the employee up. :shrug:

That's a bit of an "under sell" on what freedom of speech applies to; after all federal guidelines have been liberally interpreted to apply to any organization or institution that interacts with the government (receives govt funding or even a little tax break) and the tentacles of this rubric have stretched to the point where a private institution that interacts with public institutions is expected to be bound by cute little things like the Civil Rights Act...

...thanks to the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement its reasonable to conclude that Government rules apply not only to local actions but local refusals to act in favor of the Constitution...

...Americans take freedom of speech so for granted that without some legit Religious or valid organization based Creed, the First Amendment de facto applies nearly everywhere. ;)

The Civil Rights Act was tailored specifically to apply to businesses. It was passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Under the wiiiide (almost comically wide) interpretation of the Clause, any business that served interstate customers, or even used materials that came from interstate, are bound underneath the Civil Rights Act.

They are not, however, bound underneath the 1st Amendment. The government is, and is therefore not allowed to give any taxpayer money to businesses that don't follow it.

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:23 PM
One question, though, how is an unloaded gun going to help you? Get some ammo in there. I've always believed that if someone breaks into your house and threatens you, it's okay to blow their head off.

And your last paragraph is indeed the main argument against banning people from owning guns. The only people a law banning guns would affect are people that actually pay attention to the law. It would take the guns from those who are going to use them legally. It wouldn't stop the bad eggs from getting guns, and they're the only ones that we should fear having them. In the end, the government and the police do not, will not, and cannot protect you. They only punish people who break the law, they don't prevent them from doing so. The only person who can really look out for you is you.

Most new guns that criminals get a hold of are stolen from civilians with guns, or acquired illegally from gun stores. Banning ownership of guns and gun stores would eliminate the chance of illegal guns entering the market.

hingisGOAT
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:29 PM
Guns :weirdo:

I can understand why people would own them. It's a total right-brain thing. The government scares them with terror alerts and cowboy policy while the media sensationalizes the most ridiculous violent stories ever... meanwhile, 50 cent raps about how he still kills and film and television show absolutely deplorable violence. It's pussified an entire nation into thinking they need and instant murdering device, because SURELY they will have to murder someone in the future, right? Fucking retards.

As I've said before, a gun bought for the purpose of self-defense is not one, not two, but FORTY times more likely to be used for the purpose of unprovoked or accidental assault... and once again, the whole entire world got this memo a long time ago. But big bad America follows its own rules...

HippityHop
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:29 PM
Most new guns that criminals get a hold of are stolen from civilians with guns, or acquired illegally from gun stores. Banning ownership of guns and gun stores would eliminate the chance of illegal guns entering the market.

Perhaps, if you could turn the clock back to when there were no guns. It's a tad late now.
If you pass a law telling people to turn in their guns who do you think will be left with guns?

HippityHop
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:31 PM
The Civil Rights Act was tailored specifically to apply to businesses. It was passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Under the wiiiide (almost comically wide) interpretation of the Clause, any business that served interstate customers, or even used materials that came from interstate, are bound underneath the Civil Rights Act.

They are not, however, bound underneath the 1st Amendment. The government is, and is therefore not allowed to give any taxpayer money to businesses that don't follow it.

I don't care how wide it was. I'll bet it wasn't as wide as Larry Craig's stance. :o

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 08:40 PM
Guns :weirdo:

I can understand why people would own them. It's a total right-brain thing. The government scares them with terror alerts and cowboy policy while the media sensationalizes the most ridiculous violent stories ever... meanwhile, 50 cent raps about how he still kills and film and television show absolutely deplorable violence. It's pussified an entire nation into thinking they need and instant murdering device, because SURELY they will have to murder someone in the future, right? Fucking retards.

As I've said before, a gun bought for the purpose of self-defense is not one, not two, but FORTY times more likely to be used for the purpose of unprovoked or accidental assault... and once again, the whole entire world got this memo a long time ago. But big bad America follows its own rules...

Excellent post.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:15 PM
I don't think that's true. The Constitution is written in relatively plain English. However, the average citizen is not educated about it. Look how often people cite 'freedom of speech' in this forum, when that concept only limits what the government can or cannot do.


``plain English``


Wow! That's a new one for me. When I was in law school many moons ago even the professors had difficulty ascertaining some of its language.


``the average citizen is not educated about it``

That much is true. But the bigger problem is how readily they succumb to the right wing propaganda crapola they hear from televangelist types who know nothing about law but palm themselves off as if they were experts.


``freedom of speech``

Unfortunately, freedom of speech was used to restrict rights or access to certain members of the public. By contrast, civil rights laws were used to expand access to public forums and privileges. And why not? Expanded freedom and access betters life for everyone.


``what government can/not do``


2d Amendment rights were intended to protect citizenry from governmental abuses. A criminally racist Hitlerian punk like Mark Fuhrmann fits that bill. The citizens of Los Angeles should have every right and every means at their disposal to rid themselves of his menace.

AIN'T THAT RIGHT VOLCANA????

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:00 AM
Most new guns that criminals get a hold of are stolen from civilians with guns, or acquired illegally from gun stores. Banning ownership of guns and gun stores would eliminate the chance of illegal guns entering the market.

Yes, just like banning cocaine and heroin have eliminated the chance of them entering the market. :tape:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:06 PM
Gee, once again the forum's right wingers did not endorse the truth that everyone has a right to keep and bear weapons in order to ward off the Fuhrmann type punks who f*ck up society.

No surprise given their usual hypocrisy and double standards.

Donny
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:47 PM
Yes, just like banning cocaine and heroin have eliminated the chance of them entering the market. :tape:

You're comparing a crop grown in a third world country to handguns?

It takes millions of dollars, thousands of workers, and advanced machinery to produce firearms. Add that to the fact that dozens of countries export drugs.

We are the number one producer of weapons on earth. All the resources required to make weapons are confined to a handful of small companies. That's not the same thing as heroin.

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:28 PM
You're comparing a crop grown in a third world country to handguns?

It takes millions of dollars, thousands of workers, and advanced machinery to produce firearms. Add that to the fact that dozens of countries export drugs.

We are the number one producer of weapons on earth. All the resources required to make weapons are confined to a handful of small companies. That's not the same thing as heroin.

Many countries produce weapons, and many others are easily available on the black market. Of course drugs and weapons are different, but you still wouldn't be able to keep them out of the country. It's extremely unrealistic to think that banning guns will solve our problems. Guns aren't the problem.

Look at Switzerland, where almost every citizen owns and is trained to use a gun. They don't have near the amount of gun crime that we do. It's not the gun, it's the person that uses it.

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 11:29 PM
You're comparing a crop grown in a third world country to handguns?

It takes millions of dollars, thousands of workers, and advanced machinery to produce firearms. Add that to the fact that dozens of countries export drugs.

We are the number one producer of weapons on earth. All the resources required to make weapons are confined to a handful of small companies. That's not the same thing as heroin.

Many countries produce weapons, and many others are easily available on the black market. Of course drugs and weapons are different, but you still wouldn't be able to keep them out of the country.

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2007, 03:55 PM
Second Amendment to the US Constitution"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't want my next door neigbor owning a nuke, my likes and dislikes aren't inthe Constitution. The language seems pretty un-ambiguous. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Framers were, principally, concerned in protecting the citizenry FROM the government. Of course, it's arguable what the statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" actually means, but the government having an Army simply is NOT the same as ME having my own weapons.

Add in how US citizens have been systematically stripped of our Constitutional rights, the Framers concerns with abusive government seem quite prescient.

Armageddon must be VERY close: Volcana and I actually agree about something. :scared:

:bolt:

John A Roark
Nov 4th, 2007, 10:18 PM
From earlier this year:

DC Court says Gun Ban Unconstitutional ('Bout time!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The decision makes a great many salient points, several of which I shall cite (if you want the full text of the decision, it is available online):

"We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim...determining that it does not provide an individual right. We think that such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound."

"The provision's second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, the second is operative [all italics mine]. Appellant's argument is focused on their reading of the Second Amendment's operative clause."

"We start by considering the competing claims about the Amendment's operative clause: '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Appellants contend that 'the right of the people' clearly contemplates an individual right and that 'keep and bear Arms' necessarily implies private use and ownership. The District's primary argument is that 'keep and bear Arms' is best read in a military sense and, as a consequence, the entire operative clause should be understood as only granting a collective right. The District also argues that 'the right of the people' is ambiguous as to whether the right protects civic or private ownership and use of weapons."

An aside, here: There are no such things as 'collective rights.' A 'right' is always held by an individual. The only relevance a 'right' has to any group is whether or not each individual in that group possesses that right.

Here's where it gets down to the tacks, folks, and this is VERY important:
The Court continues: "In determining whether the Second Amendment's guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right--"the people." That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of the individuals [italics the Court's] against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment--'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people'--indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between 'the people' on the one hand, and 'the states' on the other. The natural reading of 'the right of the people' in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights."

That is what we defenders of the Second Amendment have been saying for decades: if 'the people' means individual citizens in one Amendment (like the First), then it means individual citizens in ALL the Amendments. Ardent defenders of free speech who trash the right to keep and bear arms like to conveniently forget that.

The Court continues: "Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of 'the people' across the Bill of Rights. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez(1990), the Court looked specifically at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights' use of 'the people' in the course of holding that the Fourth Amendment did not protect the rights of non-citizens on foreign soil:

" 'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution...this textual exegesis suggests that 'the people'...refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community..."

"In sum, the phrase, 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."

Another aside, here, and specifically noted for Derrick: The court next gives us this as part of their opinion, and goes to the heart of why I and others consider the Constitution an extremely valuable document today, despite the short-sightedness of the Framers on questions of 'total' equality to include women, blacks, etc. They say: "[the above] proposition is true even though 'the people' at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept then 'the people' today. To the extent that non-whites, women and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to 'the people,' the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to have corrected that initial constitutional shortcoming."

The Court continues: "The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by the government, but rather preserved by it."

AMEN AND HALLELUJAH, BROTHER!! At long last, some people on the bench who understand that the rights enjoyed by the people were always there and that the only two effects a government can have on the right is to protect it or tyrannize it--a government has no power to confer any rights.

The Court continues: "Hence, the Amendment acknowledges 'the right...to keep and bear arms,' a right that pre-existed the Constitution, like 'the freedom of speech.'"
"To determine what interests this pre-existing right protected, we look to the lawful, private purposes for which the people of the time owned and used arms." "...arms were kept for lawful use in self-defense and hunting."
"The people's right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation... The right of self-preservation, in turn, was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government."

And now we come to the big one, the reason that the 2d Amendment is there primarily. Depredations on the rights and liberties of the people are the natural by-product of disarming the people, no matter how that disarmament in accomplished. History is all too clear on that point. That is why we defenders of the 2d Amendment refuse to let our right by encircled and infringed by any majority of voters who feel uncomfortable or fearful of firearms. Their fears are not grounds on which to base an assault of our rights, and it is also why we will physically fight anyone who tries to take the right from us by force... either force projected from governmental power, or force projected from the ballot box.

If the need of the many in this case is to live in a society devoid of arms, let them look for and try to find one, for that need does NOT outweigh the right of the one to keep and bear arms for the purpose of protecting himself against that majority. It is both refreshing and uplifting to see that the judicial authorities somewhere recognize that.

We defenders have been trying for years to reverse the trend of 'collectivism' in the interpretation of the character of our national government, and get back to the basic importance of the INDIVIDUAL.
It is with great joy that I read the words of the court: "We reverse."

Like I said, this bugaboo has been laid to rest by the Federal Courts.

*JR*
Nov 4th, 2007, 11:00 PM
From earlier this year:

DC Court says Gun Ban Unconstitutional ('Bout time!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that non-whites, women and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to 'the people,' the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to have corrected that initial constitutional shortcoming."

....

Like I said, this bugaboo has been laid to rest by the Federal Courts.
Well, hello Jack. :wavey: Now first off, the Federal Courts didn't lay the matter to rest, one of the 11 Circuit Courts of Appeals reversed a lower court, but the US Supreme Court hasn't spoken yet.

Regarding the 14th Amendment, you'd better have a chat with your fellow Constitutional absolutist JustineTime about that. (He thinks its a Commie plot or sumpthin like that). :tape:

BTW, where do we draw the line? Wouldn't want to deprive you of your sacred right to have an arsenal of machine guns, heavy artillery, maybe even a few nuclear weapons. :scared:

John A Roark
Nov 4th, 2007, 11:11 PM
If the government can have it, why can't I? Why should I not be allowed to own a complex multiple-missile array if the government can (aside from the astounding cost and total lack of utility)? No speculation on terrorism, thank you--address the question under the assumption that I am a law-abiding citizen who intends such devices for only lawful use, and please don't let your notions of "Well, why would he need that?" get in the way. It's an object, a tool, something inanimate until I use it...just like a camera, a car, or a shotgun.
A reasoned answer, if you please, not an appeal to public safety or a worst-case scenario involving mad scientist-nutjobs.

darrinbaker00
Nov 4th, 2007, 11:56 PM
If the government can have it, why can't I? Why should I not be allowed to own a complex multiple-missile array if the government can (aside from the astounding cost and total lack of utility)? No speculation on terrorism, thank you--address the question under the assumption that I am a law-abiding citizen who intends such devices for only lawful use, and please don't let your notions of "Well, why would he need that?" get in the way. It's an object, a tool, something inanimate until I use it...just like a camera, a car, or a shotgun.
A reasoned answer, if you please, not an appeal to public safety or a worst-case scenario involving mad scientist-nutjobs.
There is no reasonable answer to your question, because it's an unreasonable question.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 5th, 2007, 09:29 PM
If the government can have it, why can't I? Why should I not be allowed to own a complex multiple-missile array if the government can (aside from the astounding cost and total lack of utility)? No speculation on terrorism, thank you--address the question under the assumption that I am a law-abiding citizen who intends such devices for only lawful use, and please don't let your notions of "Well, why would he need that?" get in the way. It's an object, a tool, something inanimate until I use it...just like a camera, a car, or a shotgun.
A reasoned answer, if you please, not an appeal to public safety or a worst-case scenario involving mad scientist-nutjobs.



TR,

You never answered my question re ''lawful use''.

If a criminally racist punk like Mark Fuhrmann attacks you, then you have the right to use your weapons against him. Ain't that right? This is what all right wingers should be saying.

BUT YOU NEVER ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!


Now, before you criticize anyone else for refusing to answer a question, how about setting a good example and answering mine?

John A Roark
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:29 PM
Just figgered I'd resurrect an old thread and note that, indeed, the Supreme Court held the 2d Amendment to be an individual right and not a collective one, according to the recent decision.

Naturally.

*JR*
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Just figgered I'd resurrect an old thread and note that, indeed, the Supreme Court held the 2d Amendment to be an individual right and not a collective one, according to the recent decision.

Naturally.
But even the author of the 5-4 majority opinion (arch-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia) left the door open for that individual right 2B regulated. In fact one reason he gave was that its much easier to keep a pistol trained on an intruder while dialing the police than it is with a rifle, which weren't covered under the law they struck down.

Now maybe Congress will get off its ass and close the "gun show loophole", and we'll finally answer firmly a BS argument the NRA has used for years (that DC had both the toughest gun laws but the highest rate of gun crime). No surprise, when the criminals can just get their guns in next door VA. So long as there are no border controls between states, obviously the laws on commerce in guns (and ammunition) need 2B national, not local or by state.

And they didn't just leave your claimed right to keep howitzers, mortars, machine guns, nukes, etc. unaddressed, but thankfully left open the question of registration of both owners and weapons. (Just like with drivers and cars, another right that's individual, not collective). Sorry Jack, "Big Brother" may still come looking for your arsenal. :armed:

John A Roark
Jul 13th, 2008, 11:05 PM
Hey, those issues we'll deal with as they come; the point we rabid pro-gun fanatics have been pressing for years, that the prefatory clause to the 2d Amendment does not exclude it as an individual right as are the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, has been affirmed by the highest court in the land.
'Nuff said.

Richard_from_Cal
Jul 13th, 2008, 11:38 PM
Add in how US citizens have been systematically stripped of our Constitutional rights, the Framers concerns with abusive government seem quite prescient.
Too true. :sad:

*JR*
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:13 AM
Hey, those issues we'll deal with as they come; the point we rabid pro-gun fanatics have been pressing for years, that the prefatory clause to the 2d Amendment does not exclude it as an individual right as are the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, has been affirmed by the highest court in the land.
'Nuff said.
The American Revolution was a terrible MISTAKE. The Brits are free now, King George was often beaten in his own courts here (as in the Peter Zenger case on freedom of the press, circa 1764) and they peacefully let go of Canada in about 1867.

And if William Wilberforce's abolition of slavery had thus applied here as well as in the "mother country", the Civil War would have been avoided too. (Plus they have universal health coverage today and we don't).

So WTF did the Colonists actually achieve besides shedding a lot of blood on both sides then, in the War of 1812 (thru early 1815), and maybe a needless Civil War to do what the Brits did without one in terms of freeing the slaves? (Earlier than we did, BTW).
:confused:

John A Roark
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:20 AM
It was a philosophical thing... I refer you to Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain: "Every crown represents a crime."
It's that whole self-determination gig, y'know?
Vox populi, vox dei, at least so far as who's running the show. I personally don't care much for some chump(or chumpette) who gets a throne simply because of being the firstborn.

samsung101
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:57 AM
Militia, in that day, really meant citizenry.
The citizens were the militia.
So, the 'govt.' could not strip them of their
right to protect their property, family, lives.

We have gun control already, thousands of laws on the books
local, state, and federal.

WE don't have enough officers and personnel to enforce them,
track illegal weapons, break up gun trading online or overseas to
here, or to track criminals/parolees using guns, etc.

We do need better tracking, with high tech systems, to screen
out abusers and criminals from buying them in the first place
legally, and to try to get them at gun shows.

But, we do have gun laws.

The court decision said the very strict (you can't own them in
your own home even if you're a law abiding citizen) went too far.

The concern is that it was 5-4, the new President will replace at
least 3 Supreme Court justices. Democratic court appointments never
go conservative. Whereas, Republican appointments often do go liberal,
i.e., Stevens and Souter...

darrinbaker00
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:43 AM
It was a philosophical thing... I refer you to Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain: "Every crown represents a crime."
It's that whole self-determination gig, y'know?
Vox populi, vox dei, at least so far as who's running the show. I personally don't care much for some chump(or chumpette) who gets a throne simply because of being the firstborn.
When did you leave the asylum--er, I mean, resort?

Scotso
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:40 AM
The American Revolution was a terrible MISTAKE. The Brits are free now, King George was often beaten in his own courts here (as in the Peter Zenger case on freedom of the press, circa 1764) and they peacefully let go of Canada in about 1867.

And if William Wilberforce's abolition of slavery had thus applied here as well as in the "mother country", the Civil War would have been avoided too. (Plus they have universal health coverage today and we don't).

So WTF did the Colonists actually achieve besides shedding a lot of blood on both sides then, in the War of 1812 (thru early 1815), and maybe a needless Civil War to do what the Brits did without one in terms of freeing the slaves? (Earlier than we did, BTW).
:confused:

You're kidding, right?

*JR*
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:05 PM
You're kidding, right?
Hardly, as per my answer to Jack below. And again, even then the Brits (despite their harsh rule of non-whites in Africa, India, etc. well into the 20th Century) weren't such barbarians here, as the run of losses King George III was suffering in his own courts here in the decade or so B4 the Revolution shows.

It was a philosophical thing... I refer you to Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain: "Every crown represents a crime."
It's that whole self-determination gig, y'know?
Vox populi, vox dei, at least so far as who's running the show. I personally don't care much for some chump (or chumpette) who gets a throne simply because of being the firstborn.
Where the crown signifies actual control (as in the Arab monarchies we protected solely because they were our oil companies' partners) monarchy is indeed an outrage. But that was already waning in Britain in the 19th Century, wherin Prime Ministers like Disraeli and Gladstone were probably more powerful than Queen Victoria. (Of course today, the idea that QE2 wields any power re. policy is ridiculous).

And while their non-white colonies regettably had to fight for their independence (plus the Jewish settlers in Palestine as they then shared that land with the Arabs; and the Irish, as Britain considered that nearby isle a strategic refuge in the event of invasion by Continental powers) Canada was peacefully given its independence under the British North America Act of 1867; as we would have surely been too.

Of course under the leadership of William Wilberforce, Britain abolished its slave trade in 1807 and slavery period in 1833, a few years after his retirement from Parliament. (I guess had that meant earlier freedom for Scotso's and my fellow Jews instead of blacks, he might see things differently).

sfselesfan
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:41 PM
I'm a hard core liberal...which is why I believe that people should have the right to bear arms. It is NOT a conservative position...it's a civil liberty.

SF

John A Roark
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Hardly, as per my answer to Jack below. And again, even then the Brits (despite their harsh rule of non-whites in Africa, India, etc. well into the 20th Century) weren't such barbarians here, as the run of losses King George III was suffering in his own courts here in the decade or so B4 the Revolution shows.


Where the crown signifies actual control (as in the Arab monarchies we protected solely because they were our oil companies' partners) monarchy is indeed an outrage. But that was already waning in Britain in the 19th Century, wherin Prime Ministers like Disraeli and Gladstone were probably more powerful than Queen Victoria. (Of course today, the idea that QE2 wields any power re. policy is ridiculous).

And while their non-white colonies regettably had to fight for their independence (plus the Jewish settlers in Palestine as they then shared that land with the Arabs; and the Irish, as Britain considered that nearby isle a strategic refuge in the event of invasion by Continental powers) Canada was peacefully given its independence under the British North America Act of 1867; as we would have surely been too.

Of course under the leadership of William Wilberforce, Britain abolished its slave trade in 1807 and slavery period in 1833, a few years after his retirement from Parliament. (I guess had that meant earlier freedom for Scotso's and my fellow Jews instead of blacks, he might see things differently).

S'ok. Yer still not gettin' th' philosophical point. Practicalities are sacrificial, here. NO ROYALTY, and NO unresponsive government from hundreds of miles away. Your arguments are chronologically irrelevant. The men of that day were dealing with issues here and now; if you can rebut things on issues from 1740-1770, have at it. Canada's freedom and the abolition of slavery, both 19th-century concerns, are not eligible for discussion when the immediate needs of the late 18th-century day are at hand.

*JR*
Jul 16th, 2008, 12:55 AM
S'ok. Yer still not gettin' th' philosophical point. Practicalities are sacrificial, here. NO ROYALTY, and NO unresponsive government from hundreds of miles away. Your arguments are chronologically irrelevant. The men of that day were dealing with issues here and now; if you can rebut things on issues from 1740-1770, have at it. Canada's freedom and the abolition of slavery, both 19th-century concerns, are not eligible for discussion when the immediate needs of the late 18th-century day are at hand.
Ever hear of civil disobedience, Jack? Well the colonists were masters of it. The British Parliament would pass a tax bill like the Stamp Act or the Townshend Acts (all in the 1760's) they'd be ignored, and Parliament would repeal them in a few years.

They were enforced about as rigorously as today's "use taxes", wherein an American in one state who buys something shipped from a merchant in another is with a few exceptions supposed to pay her own state what its sales tax would have been if it were bought there. Almost nobody does, or is ever hassled on this.

Sure there were occasional acts of violence like the killing of 5 colonists rioting against the British military presence in 1770's Boston Massacre, but not much. (Even though the 1773 Boston Tea Party got famed rebels John Hancock and Sam Adams charged with treason for organizing it, they were never put on trial so as not to stir things up).

In other words, George III and Prime Minister William Pitt could say whatever they wanted, but the Brits in charge here who had to co-exist with the colonists basically ignored potentially troublesome orders. London tried to track what was going on via the internet, but (oh sorry, you DID say to restrict this to the 18th Century). :shrug:

Halardfan
Jul 16th, 2008, 12:43 PM
From what I understand, the bulk of the would be Americans were fairly neutral in the War of independence. Some took the revolutionary path, some remained loyal and sided with the British.

In the context of the time, the British administration of its then colony treated the white population perfectly well. The people with a more legitimate need and justification for revolution were the slaves, who were dreadfully treated by Brits and Colonists alike. Many escaped slaves also took the side of the British and even fought alongside them.

The noble words about freedom in the declaration of independence, have always been undermined by the slavery that continued to go arm and arm with it.

Its legitimate to ask a what if question, to say if there had been no war of independence, what might have happened to the place...Canada, Australia and New Zealand provide good clues.

miffedmax
Jul 16th, 2008, 02:51 PM
It's interesting speculation, but had the US remained relatively thinly populated like those countries, it might not have been so nice when the Germans or Soviets came a knockin' in the 20th century--of course once you start pulling threads out I suppose it's possible that those issues never come up.

Philbo
Jul 17th, 2008, 10:20 AM
Second Amendment to the US Constitution"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't want my next door neigbor owning a nuke, my likes and dislikes aren't inthe Constitution. The language seems pretty un-ambiguous. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Framers were, principally, concerned in protecting the citizenry FROM the government. Of course, it's arguable what the statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" actually means, but the government having an Army simply is NOT the same as ME having my own weapons.

Add in how US citizens have been systematically stripped of our Constitutional rights, the Framers concerns with abusive government seem quite prescient.

I really urge you to look closer at Ron Paul Volcana. This post could have been written by him during a hearing in Congress word for word!