Life in america @ the time the 2nd amendment was created

woodchips all day wrote:

history wrote:

It happens to be the case that we are teetering on the brink of a dictatorship, and it happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue expanding their political power, we will soon be over that brink.

You really think the military would be afraid of pot-bellied diabetic red staters and their ar-15s?

ever heard a shot fired in anger or even seen an AR-15? No? Then STFU

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

history wrote:

history wrote:

Moral principles are universal. Human beings have an inalienable right to arm themselves in self-defense regardless of where they live or what time period they live in.

Moral rights and man-made laws are not the same thing.

You are saying that the right to bear arm is also a universal law as well as a legal statute?

Where does this come from? What makes arms universal, and the right to own slaves not universal?

Because every human has the right to live their life how they are fit, as long as they are not infringing on others' rights. Simply owning a gun does not do this.

Haven't you been paying attention to the whole gay marriage issue the last 5 years? That is the whole point...people have a right to live how they see fit, provided they don't infringe or stop anyone else from doing likewise by use of force.

Now, owning slaves...can't you see how "owning" another human and not allowing them to do anything besides work for you is infringing on their rights?

woodchips all day wrote:

You really think the military would be afraid of pot-bellied diabetic red staters and their ar-15s?

Ignoring the dumb stereotypes you have chosen to use, the military is very afraid of militia armed with simple AR-15s and homemade weaponry, ie pipe bombs and the like. Maybe you haven't paid attention to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't care if you're armed with grenades, rocket launchers, tanks or whatever fancy modern weaponry the military can provide. Unless you have no sense of self-preservation, confronting an armed man or woman ought to give you pause.

Typical gun control argument:

Gun-control activist: You guys are dumb.

Gun-rights activist: No you're dumb.

Control: No.... you're dumb.

Rights: No........ you're dumb.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ad infinitum

anapaix wrote:Because every human has the right to live their life how they are fit, as long as they are not infringing on others' rights. Simply owning a gun does not do this.

Simply owning a ground-to-air missile doesn't infringe on others' rights either. Should every American citizen over the age of 18 who hasn't been declared mentally incompetent therefore be entitled to own their own Stinger missile?

If someone ever decided that the government had become tyrannical, such missiles would come in very handy for killing aircraft or helicopter-borne members of the police and military.

I want a grenade launcher.

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

woodchips all day wrote:

You really think the military would be afraid of pot-bellied diabetic red staters and their ar-15s?

ever heard a shot fired in anger or even seen an AR-15? No? Then STFU

Coming soon to a thermal scope near some helo pilot: your bloated outling cowering in some hastily made bunker seconds before being snaked by a 20mm shell.

anapaix wrote:

Because every human has the right to live their life how they are fit, as long as they are not infringing on others' rights. Simply owning a gun does not do this.

Haven't you been paying attention to the whole gay marriage issue the last 5 years? That is the whole point...people have a right to live how they see fit, provided they don't infringe or stop anyone else from doing likewise by use of force.

Now, owning slaves...can't you see how "owning" another human and not allowing them to do anything besides work for you is infringing on their rights?

I want to grow anthrax culture in my basement.

And what is a handgun for anyway? hunting? No....it is designed to kill people. So how is a handgun different than an anthrax culture?

History is a puzzle for you people isn't it? The 2D Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to placate Southerners and to assure the legality of roving bands of "slave patrols" (Militias, get it?). As usual, the enlightened Founders had to dial back so as not to alienate the Idiot South.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery

Maker Of Salads wrote:

1-What was life like then and has are things different now?

2-Does the 2nd amendment need to be re-examined yet?

3-In 100,000 years are we going to have adjusted any of these things?

4-What about in 500,000 years?

5-Do you get my point?

Life in America @ the time the 1st Amendment was created

1-What was life like then and how are things different now? There certainly wasn't Facebook or twitter or even the internet back then. Also, modern printing presses are far more efficient than they were back then. I believe that the founding fathers meant that freedom of speech should only apply to the forms of speech that were present at the time. You should be limited to printing presses that produce documents at the same page rate as was available when the 1st Amendment was written.

2-Do you get my point?

RobertELee wrote:History is a puzzle for you people isn't it? The 2D Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to placate Southerners and to assure the legality of roving bands of "slave patrols" (Militias, get it?). As usual, the enlightened Founders had to dial back so as not to alienate the Idiot South.

The article you link does not present any evidence to demonstrate the proposition. The article talks about militias and slave patrols, but never shows that the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights "to placate Southerners and to assure the legality of roving bands of 'slave patrols.'"

In fact, the 2nd Amendment is derived from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which provided "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;...." This same law applied in the English colonies before the American Revolution and was not an innovation of the 2nd Amendment.

The OP is clearly unaware that most American conservatives insist times have not changed since the Old Testament was made up.

nmhm wrote:

Maker Of Salads wrote:

1-What was life like then and has are things different now?

2-Does the 2nd amendment need to be re-examined yet?

3-In 100,000 years are we going to have adjusted any of these things?

4-What about in 500,000 years?

5-Do you get my point?

Life in America @ the time the 1st Amendment was created

1-What was life like then and how are things different now? There certainly wasn't Facebook or twitter or even the internet back then. Also, modern printing presses are far more efficient than they were back then. I believe that the founding fathers meant that freedom of speech should only apply to the forms of speech that were present at the time. You should be limited to printing presses that produce documents at the same page rate as was available when the 1st Amendment was written.

2-Do you get my point?

You have no point. There is no such thing as semi-automatic speech. Speech, while potentially insulting, does not have the capacity to to kill. Until the NRA politicized guns, everyone (The Supremes, et al) believed that The National Guard satisfied the militia and that the Second did not proscribe a right to gun ownership.

nmhm wrote:

1-What was life like then and how are things different now? There certainly wasn't Facebook or twitter or even the internet back then. Also, modern printing presses are far more efficient than they were back then. I believe that the founding fathers meant that freedom of speech should only apply to the forms of speech that were present at the time. You should be limited to printing presses that produce documents at the same page rate as was available when the 1st Amendment was written.

2-Do you get my point?

Why don't you spell out your point? That changes in technology since the drafting of the Constitution should have the same consequences for the right to bear arms as the right to free speech? That people should now be able to bear all arms that are now available? All man-portable arms like the Stinger missile?

In the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights, in 1791, no amendment received less attention in the courts than the Second, except the Third. As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

Although these laws were occasionally challenged, they were rarely struck down in state courts; the state’s interest in regulating the manufacture, ownership, and storage of firearms was plain enough. Even the West was hardly wild. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” Winkler writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token.” In Wichita, Kansas, in 1873, a sign read, “Leave Your Revolvers at Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.” The first thing the government of Dodge did when founding the city, in 1873, was pass a resolution that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” On the road through town, a wooden billboard read, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.” The shoot-out at the O.K. Corral, in Tombstone, Arizona, Winkler explains, had to do with a gun-control law. In 1880, Tombstone’s city council passed an ordinance “to Provide against the Carrying of Deadly Weapons.” When Wyatt Earp confronted Tom McLaury on the streets of Tombstone, it was because McLaury had violated that ordinance by failing to leave his gun at the sheriff’s office.

Positivist wrote:

Why don't you spell out your point? That changes in technology since the drafting of the Constitution should have the same consequences for the right to bear arms as the right to free speech? That people should now be able to bear all arms that are now available? All man-portable arms like the Stinger missile?

The point is that there should not be an assumption that the amendments are only applicable to the times when they were written. For some reason gun opponents try to use this logic on the 2nd amendment, but the logic quickly breaks down when applying it to any other amendment.

That's not to say that everyone should have a right to Stinger missiles, just as a person's speech isn't protected for screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, there are limits to the amendments. But to say that people should be limited to muskets because that was the technology available at the time of the writing is ridiculous.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

history wrote:

Moral principles are universal.

Incorrect. 170 years ago US citizens had the inalienable right to own slaves. Now they do not. Women were not allowed to vote (Its not in the constitution!). All of these "moral rights" are the result of consensus.

The 2nd amendment should be repealed. It makes no sense in a world of NSA spying and smart drones. USG already can take you out without you having any idea. An armed citizenry is one that has allowed themselves to be easily placated.

Right now the consensus would be against repealing it. This will not always be the case....just like slavery.

You just can't stop proving you're an idiot. Go study up on 'inalianable right' and then come back and apologize for your stupidity

read the text again.

the 2nd amendment is for organized militias in the states. it was always interpreted as a collective right until the current supreme court, which has chosen to ignore the phrase, "a well-organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..."

lol,

Real non biased source you cite.

If we want to reexamine guns? OK...lets also reexamine immigration policy, laws, and enforcement. Deal?

Clearly long ago we had reasons to accept/encourage immigrants to come here. Those days are past. No? Same argument as for guns. Just because the Statue of Liberty says bring em on 150+ yrs ago, doesnt mean that is still valid right?