When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Of course, I don't think I suggested that the Founders were intending for lone individuals to make determinations of just or unjust governance. They did write quite a bit on the principles of just revolution, you know...something they were keenly interested in, for very personal and practical reasons.
They did, and they were.
I keep coming back to the fact that the US Constitution is amazingly specific in most matters which its authors felt were of importance. Things like the office of the President, the structure and rules of Congress, the authority of the Federal government to regulate trade and money, and... the military.
Every single reference to the military (or the militia) in the main body of the Constitution, as well as in the Articles of Confederation and related documents, describes the militia as an armed force which is trained, equipped and regulated by the government. And every reference to its function relates to the enforcement of the laws of the union and to the protection of the country from threats both internal and external.
There is not one single hint that the authors of the Constitution intended to put into place the framework for an armed rebellion to overthrow the government. And why would there be? The whole point of revolting against the crown was to establish the best possible system of government, and to establish a structure to protect it and ensure its continuity.
The didn't want a standing army, in fact they were very much opposed to that idea, so they wanted all men to be ready at arms in case the nation needed to be defended at a moments notice, in case the Navy didn't do a good job defending our borders. But they also knew that just having arms wasn't good enough, so it was vital people had some sort of training. Jefferson went as far as wanted to require military training at part of schooling.
also consider the context: the bill of rights are the inalienable rights of the people. If they didn't want the people to bear arms, anything about the militia and right to arms would have just been in section 8. but they thought it was that important so it was the 2nd. It was also something added into the English Bill of Rights. And again, there's just too much writing on the subject from all the founders, before during and after, and all the original state's constitutions, for me, to ever interrupt it in any other way.
I've always liked this section on wiki on it: the early drafts:
The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[104]
Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:
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 but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[113]
On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[114] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[115] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[116]
In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[117]
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[118]
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[119]
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[120]The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
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.[121]
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.
We haven't had any school massacres, largely because guns aren't readily available to disturbed youths, so I'd say the banning of guns is definitely working for us.
I say again, if the 2A is so great, why has NO-ONE else adopted it?
We're butting heads on this because you're very passionate about your right to bear arms but to me, and the rest of the world, it seems like paranoid schizophrenia (I had to double check the spelling of that) and the consequences are abominal.
Dude, this isn't the United Federation of Planets. The USA doesn't have to do what the "rest of the world does". The rest of the world puts mayo on their fries. The rest of the world uses the metric system. The rest of the world drives tiny cars and live in tiny houses and have tiny breakfast. "The rest of the world" is extremely left leaning.
Yet somehow the rest of the world wants to get in US borders.
But I will agree with you that the consequences of losing the right to bear arms is abominable. I hear one of the side effects is going on internet forums and telling other countries how great things have been working out for your country even though it is still a commonwealth which equates to still living in your parents basement at the age of 50.
I say again, if the 2A is so great, why has NO-ONE else adopted it?.
No country is just going to give up power and hand it over to the people like the GREAT US of A -- and it wasn't just handed to us. It's no coincidence that the newest country with the most unique doctrine EVER in the history of mankind, quickly became a massive super power.
I'm passionate about keeping my rights, because no other ******* country in the world has any left, then you're all brainwashed into thinking having no rights is a good thing -- and you'll say this as you're dining on some zoo animals just to stay alive.
the rest of the world doesn't have the greatest document ever written, a document that specifically tells the govt what it can do and only what it can do, giving all the rest of to the power, and gives unalienable rights to the citizens that the govt cant do **** about -- one being taking away our guns.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world jails their citizens for saying mean things on the internet because a bunch of dumb liberals think the best way to fight terrorism is to invite the bomb tossing ******** into their countries and them treat them like royalty. If I lived in the UK I'd surely be in jail today just from the stupid **** I say on this website.
Dude, this isn't the United Federation of Planets. The USA doesn't have to do what the "rest of the world does". The rest of the world puts mayo on their fries. The rest of the world uses the metric system. The rest of the world drives tiny cars and live in tiny houses and have tiny breakfast. "The rest of the world" is extremely left leaning.
Yet somehow the rest of the world wants to get in US borders...
The rest of the world puts mayo on their fries. The rest of the world uses the metric system.
In all seriousness, have you tried mayo on fries?
I didn't until I was in Germany, but now I ask for it whenever I'm dining at an establishment which both serves fries and is likely to have mayo on hand. If you mix a tiny bit of ketchup into it, and squeeze in some lemon (hint: request lemon with whatever you're drinking), you wind up with something that sort of resembles proper fritessaus.
Originally Posted by Braineack
It's no coincidence that the newest country with the most unique doctrine EVER in the history of mankind, quickly became a massive super power.
I'm sure that access to then-unfathomable amounts of natural resources (mature forest, arable land, coal and oil, metal ores, gold for international trade, etc.) had little to do with it.
But in all seriousness, the comparison to Australia is actually quite relevant here. Both countries were founded as British colonies at around the same time, and both have evolved into stable first-world economies with large industrial sectors.
I would like to ask a question of the Australians in the group:
Here in the US, we have forfeited the majority of our domestic manufacturing capacity to Asia. Electronics, washing machines, light bulbs, small engines, tools... Pretty much anything you can buy of that nature in the US these days is going to say "Made in China" on it unless you are shopping at a boutique store and deliberately paying a premium for it.
From personal experience, I know that in western Europe, Eastern Europe has become the China of the US. Lots of cheap goods are manufactured in Romania, Poland, Hungary, etc. for sale in Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, etc. Wages and standards of living are still depressed in these areas, a remnant of the politics of the latter half of the 20th century.
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
SCHOOL SHOOTING - CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
Hello everyone, this is a writer for the Department of Memes. I'm writing to inform you about an active shooter situation happening at my university. The shooting happened two minutes from where I live. Currently, the shooter is still at large and is reported to be wandering around some railroad tracks, which are possibly the ones right next to where I'm typing this message.
I'm only writing right now because I know the vultures w...ill come and try to use this as an excuse to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. I've already seen students use the situation to push for more gun control and the bodies of the two reported victims aren't even ******* cold.
I can tell you, the only thing I'm thinking about right now is that I wish I had a gun to protect myself with.
While the police are scattered and looking for the shooter, he could wander into my dorm hall and potentially end my life and there's not a single ******* thing I could do about it because I respect the law and don't have any kind of weapon for self-protection.
Don't ever let anyone tell you that you don't deserve to protect yourself. Don't ever let the vultures use victims to guilt you into submission.
you must also remember, it's not a bunch of criminals out there fight for their right to keep their unalienable right -- it's law abiding citizens who simply want to protect themselves from the criminals.
also I can think of one easy approach to limiting deaths/crime by guns:
Here's the fundamental flaw with the whole gun control argument:
1) There are bad people who want to hurt good people. This is a fact of life and will never change.
2) It is impossible for the government to stop every one of those bad people from hurting good people. They can stop some, but not all, probably not even most.
3) Therefore, it is necessary for free individuals to take responsibility for defending themselves and their families from bad people. This is a fact of life and will never change.
4) Bad people use many means to hurt good people; guns, knives, trucks, bombs, baseball bats, axes, ect.
5) The simplest, most effective, and in most cases the only effective means of defending against the vast majority of the bad people armory is a gun. It allows a 98 lb woman to very effectively defend herself against a 250 *******; nothing else affords this level of equalization.
6) Since the government is incapable of preventing all acts of violence against every single person, it is a grave injustice for the government to also remove this means of good people from defending themselves against bad people.
To me, this is where the argument ends. You can go on and on about whatever else you want to talk about, but you will never get around the fact that it is a grave injustice to remove a free person's ability to defend himself from bad people when you know full well you can't protect him yourself. A perfect example is Chicago. More people are shot by guns in Chicago EVERY FREAKING WEEK than even the worst planned massacre. How is gun control saving lives there?
So, if you want to stop these massacres from happening, arm AND TRAIN the good people so they can kill the bad people. It's really not complicated. You'll never stop bad people from trying to kill good people; but you can kill them quickly and efficiently when they poke their filthy head out of their shitholes.
Statistically, the rate of murders committed using a rifle or other long-gun is strongly correlated with the per-capita consumption of beef in the US:
I suggest that, in order to protect the children, we must place strong regulations on the possession and sale of cattle.
In fact, the US beef industry really ought to be nationalized. Big agri-business, and the many corporations which exist under it, contribute far more money each year to political campaigns than the firearms industry. It's pretty clear to me who *really* owns the politicians in this country, and nothing is actually going to be done about the hamburger epidemic until the money-chain is broken.
Originally Posted by Braineack
also I can think of one easy approach to limiting deaths/crime by guns:
(infographic which blames the negroes)
I'm totally on board with that one.
All you colored folks, into the camps you go. Sorry about the whole due-process thing.
Consider a joint federal study showing that 63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes; as often as not, mass shooters are simultaneously suicidal. Robert Sampson, a Harvard sociologist, has observed that urban violence is concentrated in neighborhoods with mostly single-parent homes. A Michigan State University study found 75 percent of examined adolescent murderers were from fatherless homes. The Centers for Disease Control says 85 percent of children with behavioral disorders have only a mother in the home. Wilcox also says children with both married parents around are less likely to drop out of school, to become drug addicts or to grow up impoverished.
Children of single mothers are more likely to be in special education classes in school, more likely to drop out of school, more likely to experiment with drugs and alcohol at an early age, and more likely to become delinquent and to be incarcerated. There are no men on death row from intact families. Children of single mothers are more likely to witness domestic violence in their homes and more likely to repeat the pattern of domestic violence. Children born to a married couple are more likely to attend college, less likely to be abused, and more likely to grow up mentally and physically healthier. A child born to a single mother has close to a 40% chance of growing up in poverty while a child born to a married couple has less than 4% chance of growing up in poverty. Children of single mothers are 14 times more likely to suffer abuse and if the mother lives with a man who is not the father of the child, the chances of abuse increase to 33 times that of a married couple. Worse, the children of single parents are more likely to grow up and repeat the pattern, a pattern that is detrimental to children. Despite what the liberals have told us, children need fathers in their lives and in their homes.
the degradation of the family has also done wonders for the black community. Might even be why the stats are the way they are as above...
All you colored folks, into the camps you go. Sorry about the whole due-process thing.
To be fair, the chart pretty much included all brown skinned people. Into the camp buss ya go, Joe.
Edit: Brain, I agree with that last part completely. My wife is a teacher's aid for "exceptional" kids. Almost all of them are on psychotropic drugs, and about 2/3 of them are fatherless.
******* Russians Australians trying to rig our election.
Bernie Sanders has been fined by the Federal Election Commission for illegally accepting contributions from the Australian Labor Party.
The FEC discovered in early February the Australian Labor Party paid for students to fly to the United States to volunteer for Bernie’s campaign in 2016. Bernie’s foreign laborers received $8,000 in stipends from the Australian government, as part of an educational program.
The Sanders campaign received $25,000 of donated contributions from the socialistic foreign party. The FEC fined the Sanders campaign $14,000 in civil penalties in accordance with violating federal election law.
Vice News reported a Sander’s spokesman said the Vermont senator accepted the ruling to avoid further legal expenses, but won’t admit to violating the election law.
“During the course of the campaign, thousands and thousands of young people from every state and many other countries volunteered. Among them were seven Australian young people who were receiving a modest stipend and airfare from the Australian Labor Party so they could learn about American politics,” the spokesperson said.
“The folks on the campaign managing volunteers did not believe the stipend disqualified them from being volunteers.”
The Australian Labor Party also denies violating the American election law.
“All parties send observers to overseas elections. It has happened for decades. This is a new and very strict interpretation,” an ALP source told the Australian press. “We don’t believe any rules were broken.”
A man has been found guilty of murdering a teenager due to an argument on WhatsApp over gay insults.
Jordan Wright, 19, was stabbed to death by Paul Akinnuoye, 20, from Tunbridge Wells in Kent, U.K. after an escalation of trading homophobic slurs in a WhatsApp group called “Ice city boyz.”
Akinnuoye called Wright a “batty boy,” a Jamaican slur against gays, whilst Wright responded by saying “On your mum’s life I’m straighter than you.”
The pair then arranged to meet up for a fight in Blackheath, South East London on April 19 last year. Three others were with them.
The two fought at Shooters Hill but, unbeknownst to Wright, Akinnuoye had armed himself with a small knife, which he used to fatally stab Wright with. Wright, the court heard, was under the impression that the fight was a “fist-fight ting.”
Wright was stabbed repeatedly during the fight and collapsed near a road junction whilst Akinnuoye fled the scene in a taxi. Part of the knife was left behind, however, and was identified by a specialist sniffer dog called Dizzy as belonging to a set of knives owned by Akinnuoye.
03-01-2018, 11:33 AM
0
