HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's a punch in the fac...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:07 PM

 

Here's a punch in the face from Thomas Jefferson to today's 2nd amendment crowd

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

162 replies, 16064 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 162 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's a punch in the face from Thomas Jefferson to today's 2nd amendment crowd (Original post)
MightyMopar Dec 2012 OP
villager Dec 2012 #1
Recursion Dec 2012 #2
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #5
happyslug Dec 2012 #78
Ian62 Dec 2012 #81
Recursion Dec 2012 #82
JackRiddler Dec 2012 #144
Bucky Dec 2012 #160
Ed Suspicious Dec 2012 #3
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #4
vaberella Dec 2012 #150
Hoyt Dec 2012 #6
Erose999 Dec 2012 #9
ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2012 #16
calimary Dec 2012 #112
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #12
CTyankee Dec 2012 #15
stevenleser Dec 2012 #97
CTyankee Dec 2012 #110
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #162
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #122
CTyankee Dec 2012 #128
CTyankee Dec 2012 #17
tpsbmam Dec 2012 #26
CTyankee Dec 2012 #30
samsingh Dec 2012 #27
otohara Dec 2012 #32
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #35
otohara Dec 2012 #36
Hoyt Dec 2012 #54
pangaia Dec 2012 #37
Recursion Dec 2012 #83
_Liann_ Dec 2012 #38
CreekDog Dec 2012 #44
cliffordu Dec 2012 #84
Logical Dec 2012 #94
Hoyt Dec 2012 #96
pitbullgirl1965 Dec 2012 #101
Skittles Dec 2012 #85
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #86
tavalon Dec 2012 #93
pitbullgirl1965 Dec 2012 #98
Cherchez la Femme Dec 2012 #108
SunSeeker Dec 2012 #109
vaberella Dec 2012 #151
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #7
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #92
gcomeau Dec 2012 #105
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #8
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #10
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #14
Tab Dec 2012 #21
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #46
Iggo Dec 2012 #127
JoeyT Dec 2012 #23
CTyankee Dec 2012 #34
JoeyT Dec 2012 #39
CTyankee Dec 2012 #47
JoeyT Dec 2012 #64
a2liberal Dec 2012 #111
pipoman Dec 2012 #124
Igel Dec 2012 #11
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #19
Bake Dec 2012 #25
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #29
JoeyT Dec 2012 #42
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #69
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #88
jody Dec 2012 #13
2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #152
green for victory Dec 2012 #18
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #20
mbperrin Dec 2012 #24
secondvariety Dec 2012 #55
billh58 Dec 2012 #31
SWTORFanatic Dec 2012 #33
paleotn Dec 2012 #45
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #114
pipoman Dec 2012 #126
SWTORFanatic Dec 2012 #131
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #40
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #59
evilhime Dec 2012 #22
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #120
boomer55 Dec 2012 #28
rppper Dec 2012 #41
Gman Dec 2012 #43
harmonicon Dec 2012 #48
jody Dec 2012 #50
harmonicon Dec 2012 #87
jody Dec 2012 #49
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #51
jody Dec 2012 #60
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #65
jody Dec 2012 #68
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #71
jody Dec 2012 #73
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #76
jody Dec 2012 #79
tabasco Dec 2012 #91
Larry Ogg Dec 2012 #118
Frosty1 Dec 2012 #135
Larry Ogg Dec 2012 #159
jody Dec 2012 #156
Larry Ogg Dec 2012 #158
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #53
jody Dec 2012 #62
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #67
jody Dec 2012 #70
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #72
jody Dec 2012 #74
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #77
jody Dec 2012 #80
stevenleser Dec 2012 #99
jody Dec 2012 #100
stevenleser Dec 2012 #102
jody Dec 2012 #103
stevenleser Dec 2012 #119
jody Dec 2012 #138
stevenleser Dec 2012 #141
jody Dec 2012 #142
stevenleser Dec 2012 #143
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #52
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #58
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #66
harmonicon Dec 2012 #95
jody Dec 2012 #106
harmonicon Dec 2012 #113
Gregorian Dec 2012 #56
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #57
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #121
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #147
DallasNE Dec 2012 #61
jody Dec 2012 #63
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #116
jody Dec 2012 #117
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #139
jody Dec 2012 #145
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #153
jody Dec 2012 #154
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #132
Godot51 Dec 2012 #75
Divine Discontent Dec 2012 #89
ProudProgressiveNow Dec 2012 #90
radarluv Dec 2012 #104
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #115
Kablooie Dec 2012 #107
matchoo Dec 2012 #123
Hoyt Dec 2012 #129
Iggo Dec 2012 #125
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #130
pipoman Dec 2012 #136
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #137
pipoman Dec 2012 #148
jody Dec 2012 #146
Jefferson23 Dec 2012 #133
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #157
Javaman Dec 2012 #134
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #140
vaberella Dec 2012 #149
jody Dec 2012 #155
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #161

Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:09 PM

1. how will the gun worshippers square this with their love of Scalia and Thomas!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:12 PM

2. Jefferson was against the Constitution to begin with, for that matter

That's why they shipped him off as ambassador to France, so he couldn't make trouble

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:14 PM

5. Turned all those French guns, navy and soldiers were needed.

 

The biggest army at Yorktown was the French one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:18 PM

78. Virginia Milita outnumberd the French Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

At time of the Surrender of the 6000 British soldiers to the 7,800 American Regulars, 3000 Viginia Militia and 8000 French Regulars, most of the Virginia Militia had sent home, they had dug the entrenchments and were no longer needed.

The remaining 3000 Virginia Militia were the "Regulars" of the State of Virginia, not your normal Southern Militia but an elite Militia (These Elite Virginia Militia was considered as good as the New England Militia which was considered as good as "Regulars", unlike the normal Southern Militia, considered worthless except to terrorize slaves).

Please note, if the commander of the normal Southern Militia knew they weakness and work around it, the normal Southern Militia could be effective, but these were NO WERE AS GOOD as the New England Militia of the 1700s and poor troops if used in open combat against Regulars. The Reason for this was simple, the Militia was tied in with the Sheriff's Patrol, a duty all white males had to due, but it was to guard certain areas to make sure no illegal activities were occuring. In New England the Sheriff's patrol was barely in use, while the Militia drilled every week in the 1700s, in the south, the Militia rarely drilled, insterd the emphasis was on the Sheriff's patrol, where men would meet once or twice a month and "Patrol" to make sure no illegal activities were occuring, and in the South the illegal activity people worried about was a Slave Revolt or a Slave escaping. Thus the Southern Militia mostly beat up Slaves instead of drilling, thus superior as a slave capturing and controling mechanism, inferior to the New England Militia when it came to actually doing military activtivies.

Thus most of the Virginia Militia were sent home to keep an eye of the slaves, the only militia units that remained were true militia units NOT groups of white males used to beating up slaves.

On the other hand, these normal militia had been used to dig the entrenchments, so not a complete loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:24 PM

81. Benjamin Franklin was the Ambassador to France

 

Jefferson DRAFTED the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:27 PM

82. Not during the Constitutional Convention. He came back; Jefferson replaced him.

Franklin attended the Constitutional Convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:32 PM

144. Oh Jeez. Jefferson did not draft the Constitution.

The 1787 Federalist convention, led by Madison and Hamilton, drafted the constitution. At the time, Jefferson was the ambassador in France. Jefferson was not a Federalist. He drafted the Declaration of Independence (1776). On the Constitution, he was lukewarm at best, more against it than for it. Okay?

Franklin had preceded Jefferson as ambassador to France. He was the one who landed the big French support in the war for independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:49 AM

160. Your timeline is a little screwed up.

He was offered the job of Minister to France in 1784, because Franklin was old & wanted to come home. The movement for even considering a new Constitution didn't start until 1786, when the Annapolis Convention fell apart and left Hamilton & Madison a lot of spare time to sit around chewing the fat and brainstorming about how to fix the country's enui.

Jefferson was mildly opposed to the 1787 convention's final product (although he stayed quiet about it), but absolutely not opposed to the convening of a body to rewrite the Articles of Confederation. He called the Philadelphia convention a meeting of "demigods" when he got a look at the rolecall. Like most Virginians, his opposition was rooted in the Senate leaving the old "one state-one vote" balance intact. Like most big-state critics of the Constitution (eg, George Mason & Sam Adams), he only later rested his reservation on the firmer ground of a lack of a Bill of Rights.

Politically, Jefferson was much closer to the people who pushed for the Constitution than with those who resisted it, although he was generally out of factional politics for the three years preceding the debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:13 PM

3. If I recall correctly, he wanted all legislation to have an

expiration date of around 17 years.

(sorry if that's not quite right. It's a vague memory and I can't be arsed to google right now)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:14 PM

4. More or less correct

New constitutions every generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:27 PM

150. That's more in line to how the French constitution works.

They update and redraft it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

6. Photo of yahoos standing in line this weekend hoping to buy an assault weapon, a week after tragedy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:00 PM

9. I haven't seen that many mad white people since they cancelled Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:42 PM

16. You just had to go there, didn't you?

Now I'm pissed off all over again. To cancel Cheers was a travesty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:27 AM

112. Hmmm - that's the first thing I noticed. All a bunch of white men standing in that line.

As far as I can see, that is. Perhaps there are women in that line, and maybe other non-whites. But sheesh - the glaringly obvious demographic. And what does THAT say about America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:23 PM

12. Yuk

Knuckle dragging cretins

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:38 PM

15. I have to love your user name. How come you chose it (I know what it means...)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:37 PM

97. Certain restaurants in France call appetizers "amuse bouche" I found that pretty funny.

It is a great username. I wonder if that person got the idea from that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:36 AM

110. I am sure he/she did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:24 PM

162. Not to get too technical

but amuse bouche or amuse gueule are also served in US fine dining restaurants ( like the last on in which I was sous chef )

It was actually not really an appetizer where I was, just a complimentary bite of something upon being seated, a spoonful of taste to welcome the guest and whet the palate.

You gotta pay for the appetizers!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:18 AM

122. Thanks

I picked it because, given a choice in life, as in food, I would much rather have one fabulous bite to a bowl full of meh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:47 AM

128. A lovely philosophy! I'm just jealous that I didn't think of it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:42 PM

17. what a sad photo! All those young men with no dreams, no hopes...probably no future...

Holding a gun close to you, as if it were an object of your love and affection...how utterly tragic they all look. They are so young...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:41 PM

26. And a young woman with a stroller/baby carriage.....

ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:59 PM

30. a sad commentary on utter hopelessness in american life today...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:46 PM

27. there brave sacrifice for their country is evident

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:08 PM

32. If They Were Brown or Black

I doubt they'd be labeled gun-enthusiasts - which is what I've seen over and over again the past few days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:14 PM

35. They'd be "gangbangers" and their deaths would be celebrated with Gungeon happy dances

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

36. Do You Have The Link to This

sad pathetic picture of scared white men story?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:49 PM

54. It's Atlanta journal, search under line for gun show.

I'm on phone right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

37. What do you supposed the collective IQ is of this group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:28 PM

83. What do you suppose it was, and why?

Now I'm curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:29 PM

38. Just means more guns to confiscate when the mandatory sanity tests begin... NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _Liann_ (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:12 PM

44. before you were saying tests for mental illness, now you're saying tests for sanity, which?

you've never indicated that they are different (a completely ignorant and unjustified thing for you to say).

have we now convinced you that mental illness is not a disqualifying characteristic, no more so than saying having a cold is the same as having a debilitating illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:29 PM

84. The most astoundingly bad photoshop hack job forever....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:50 PM

94. You think it is fake? Proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:02 PM

96. Sorry, my friend, but it's no photoshop. Atlanta Journal Constitution has photo above and others.


Southern yahoos waiting to buy an assault rifle, just week after tragedy. Here's another photo for you and link to AJC article is below.






Actually wish it were a photoshop, but it's not. I grew up with f#$kers like this, and have no respect for their love of guns and bigotry. These are also the same fools walking around on our streets with guns. I'll bet most of those in the photos hit the gun shows/stores after 2008 and 2012 elections too.

Article: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cobb-gun-show-attracts-scores-looking-for-semi-aut/nTdMm/

Merry Christmas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:57 PM

101. "Wheeling out cases of ammunition"

WHEELING CASES OF AMMUNITION. Who does this? Who needs an assault rifle and a magazine that fires off 30 rounds without reloading?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:04 PM

85. yup

I have no doubts they lined up for chicken sandwiches a while back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:07 PM

86. Look at all those pathetic losers.

Not a real man (or woman) among them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:41 PM

93. What the hell is wrong with those people?

They seem to lack the empathy chip. I guess that makes them sociopathic pod people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:38 PM

98. Look like future terrorists to me!

NRA needs to be classified as a hate group. I like to target practice but that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:22 AM

108. All testoserone filled youngish white males

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Except that woman way in the back with her stroller no less!

There's always one, isn't there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:33 AM

109. Idjits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:28 PM

151. I'm sorry...this pic reaffirms why at times White men scare the shit out of me.

Why do they need that gun? The British aren't coming for a home invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:51 PM

7. Seems equal opportunity to me. I can imagine turned on free speech advocates just as well.

Or privacy or freedom of religion in response to the perception of a "muslim threat".

Of course we shouldn't be slaves to the dictates of the long dead and law should be seen more as a living thing as we grow and discover but such logic applies universally so having clarity of one's convictions and reading the law written upon our own hearts endowed by being sentient pieces of the universe or from its creator is beyond critical.

Sometimes a clear conscience means breaking with the old, other times it means sticking with them, and other times it means they must expand or evolve, while remaining in place.

There is some baked in conflict between the concepts of rule of law and democracy at work here. Rule of law leans toward fixed interpretations because it needs such things to have a grasp on the world and democracy leans toward will of the majority in a given moment.

I think both viewpoints are needed when dealing with millions of people. Neither is insane at the root but without a comprehensive mix tyranny of one sort or another sets in.

I don't think my problem with Scallia is that he is originalist but rather says he is but tends to be a radical inventor or a just willfully opposes chunks and ignores them from his version of original. Scallia isn't rabid about search and seizure or privacy or separation of church and state or due process or anything but twisted property rights of the wealthy.
What he is, is anti-democratic and anti-democratization of power, far closer to the right of kings than the rights of the people. More rule than self determination and as such I find his rulings on the right to keep and bear arms as more exception than rule and full of caveat reflecting that conflict.

To be honest I find the politics around the issue puzzling as far as the bedfellows and who is pushing in which direction to the point of believing it to actually be a proxy in something deeper but largely left unspoken.
Maybe related to the metro/rural conflict but only in part, role of government in part, maybe it is totem for definition of government in some fundamental way but there is something well beyond the issue for folks playing out here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:16 PM

92. I can't help but wonder what lies in between all the dots...

there are quite a few splices in that quote.

sliced, diced and karate-chopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:25 PM

105. Nothing that alters the message conveyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:54 PM

8. ...and a jab to ribs to the 1st. Amendment crowd.

 

I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:12 PM

10. Most other advanced nations have some variation of freedom of speech, guns not so much

 

The first amendment is very popular, I doubt the 2nd amendment as it's currently interpreted would survive a vote in today's electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:32 PM

14. I don't really have a dog in this fight...

 

I am not a gun owner so I'm not particularly hung up on the existence of the 2nd. Amendment; I was just pointing out that if you want to live by the sword (or start throwing punches and such), you might end up dying by it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:54 PM

21. Witness Nancy Lanza (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tab (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:19 PM

46. Cant she's dead...

 

Got a point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:09 AM

127. Obvious point is obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:08 PM

23. They have some variation of freedom of speech,

but it isn't the idea of "freedom of speech" that most Americans would recognize. That's why it comes up regularly in the context of holocaust denial, which is illegal in most countries. At which point the same people that call Americans crazy gun lovers usually call us "First Amendment absolutists".

Yeah, it's a crazy conspiracy theory propagated by hatemongers, but that's also what the right wingers said about us when we insisted Iraq had no WMDs. They couldn't actually stop us from beating that drum, and of course it turned out we were right, even though virtually no elected Democrats would admit it until much later.

The first amendment as Americans know it isn't all that popular either. Generally people in other countries think we're nuts for putting up with a lot of loathsome people that the 1A and only the 1A compels us to put up with, no matter how much we detest them. (Phelps is a good example.) Hell there have been posts here that demanded criminalization of speech of (admittedly awful) people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:10 PM

34. Our Constitution is outdated, IMO. And we have sacralized it to such a point that we cannot

look to other countries that have better working ones. We sit here in the U.S. smugly thinking our Constitution is better than all others but when you read some of the others you begin to see possibilities that are not allowed in ours, such as an enumeration of women's rights. We could learn from those countries, but we think we're too good to learn. We're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:00 PM

39. We can add amendments to it.

The problem isn't the constitution itself, really. It's that one third of the country hates the other two thirds, and one third of the country is completely apathetic.

Yeah, we'd love to learn from Europe, Australia, or Canada. And much of the right would love to learn from 1930s Italy and Germany. We'd love to have an enumeration of women's rights in the constitution, they'd love to make women's rights nonexistent in the constitution. We'd love to be rid of the 2nd amendment, they'd love to be rid of everything but the 2nd amendment.

The problem is we wouldn't be deciding what went in there by ourselves. The right would get an equal voice and probably bollocks everything up to the point we'd end up with something worse than we've got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:22 PM

47. Yes, being able to add amendments is a saving grace. Being able to establish constitutonal rights

by federal court decisions is too. Altho it is a disgrace that we don't include over half of the population in our country in our Constitution. It is an outrage that such 19th century misogyny is allowed to bar the ERA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:00 PM

64. Amen to that.

19th, 20th, and 21st century misogyny. It never goes away, but we're slowly winning over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:39 AM

111. This.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the 2nd amendment (yes I know I'll be called a gun nut for saying that...), but it frankly FREAKS me out that people are willing to throw everything out the window so quickly after a tragedy (instead of debate when emotions are calmer). Makes me wonder when some similar tragedy (say attacks on US soil because of a Koran-burner or something) will lead us to immediately start limiting the 1st amendment...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a2liberal (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:00 AM

124. The larger question

is what's next when any enacted gun control measures have no effect on anything...then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:16 PM

11. And due process crowd.

Separations of powers crowd.

Civil rights crowd.

Pretty much any crowd supporting any kind of "right" that they think exists apart from what a majority of people temporary deign to let you have.

There's the argument that all rights are granted by government. In a democracy, that means 50% + 1 of the electorate could decide that a minority is property, to be confiscated and used as the majority sees fit. Suddenly the absolute version of majoritianism they like when it suits them sounds worse than fascist, but that's one possible outcome of their logic, without a good defense. (Because any defense ultimately also demolishes their own cause.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:48 PM

19. So you think slaveholders and ethnic cleansers wrote a better consititution than we could do today?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:32 PM

25. I shudder to think what kind of constitution "we" would come up with today.

Separation of church and state? Probably never make it in.

Due process? I doubt it.

Any constitution created in a climate of fear is going to reflect that fear. And "we" are a sorry, fearful lot. So I think for now at least, I'll stay with what we have. Knee jerk reactions are usually WRONG.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:59 PM

29. Like there wasn't fear in 1786? Let's keep the failing system we have

 

We have such a great system with more people in jail per capita than any other nation even while we have a death penalty. Let's keep the highest murder rate of industrialized nations and a corrupt wildly expensive healthcare system with de facto death panels. Lets' keep the endless incredibly expensive political campaigns with huge corporate influence. BTW, lets keep corparations as people when it's good for them and as legal fictions when it benefits them. Let's keep gerrymandering, voter suppression, vulnerable voting methods and the bizarre electoral college that put Bush/Cheney in power. Let's just keep failing. Keep failing those kids in Newtown,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:06 PM

42. Well, given what you object to,

I can almost guarantee you due process wouldn't make it in. Cruel and unusual punishment wouldn't either. Neither party likes either of those.

What do you reckon the chances are of our freedom of speech surviving and corporate "free speech" being gotten rid of? If anything corporate "free speech" would remain while ours was removed.

I don't know why people think we can reform the constitution without the right and Big Whoever getting any sort of voice at all. If anything they'll be the ones controlling the "reform".

I'd like to see it reformed in the future, but we've got a lot of long fights ahead of us before we're ready to start that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:07 PM

69. There's still an inherent need for freedom of speech

The enumerated right for state militias to be armed, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:48 PM

88. Can't argue with that...

 

but the genie is a ways away from the bottle at this point and I'm not entirely sure it would be an easy thing to get him/her back in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:24 PM

13. Since you mention Jefferson don't ignore he and Madison wrote the KY & VA Resolutions and proposed

 

nullification as a state's right against a federal government threatening to gather all power unto itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:31 PM

152. Sorry to dash your hopes but Alabama (or any other state for that matter) will NOT secede

and the black guy will be your President for another four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:47 PM

18. you *really* want to play Jefferson quotes? Careful now...

 

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms .
Draft Constitution for Virginia (June 1776) This quote often appears with the parenthetical omitted and with the spurious extension, "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson



A free people their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate

He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God Eternal, hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"

Edit: Love your avatar- He's the guy that lead the first PNAC war! Whaddya think 'ol Thomas would think 'bout that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

20. That was before drones, robots and satellite driven tanks

 

Jefferson would see that guns aren't much resistance to government in today's world, they're just a way to kill and intimidate neighbors and family.

So killing kids is " inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.

BTW, so you're all for ethnic cleansing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:09 PM

24. Please quote accurately from your own source.

The quote is "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ."

The rest of it is spurious, false, added by another, not true. That's the part about the "strongest reason". Jefferson didn't write it. Says so right in your own source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mbperrin (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:49 PM

55. Good catch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:05 PM

31. And another Gungeoneer exhibits

their allegiance by quoting "I tow the line" smoke and mirrors NRA talking points. Keep 'em coming Bubba...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:09 PM

33. How many handheld guns would it take to stop one of these?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:18 PM

45. Nuff said!

...Heehee!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:57 AM

114. That's strange, in Civilization Revolution I have had tanks and bombers shot down...

by Archers and Riflemen. It HAS to be true!!! :-P

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:09 AM

126. Seems the Afghans have put up a pretty

effective resistance. Further, in cases of civil war there are always complete breakdowns in the military chain of command..sympathizers within the ranks and such..No, access to arms as a deterrent to government tyranny is much more subtle than B2 bombers and battle lines..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:05 PM

131. Even if I accept your premise (I don't), they ain't winning with guns

IEDs may be used in terrorist actions or in unconventional warfare by guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. In the second Iraq War, IEDs were used extensively against US-led Coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they had become responsible for approximately 63% of Coalition deaths in Iraq. They are also used in Afghanistan by insurgent groups, and have caused over 66% of the Coalition casualties in the 2001–present Afghanistan War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:03 PM

40. Which is mitigated by the quote in the OP

and all of the NRA's weaponry isn't going to even slow down the imposition of tyranny here (witness the last 20 years)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:54 PM

59. And the quote in the OP means he knew that future generations would be different,

and that if things changed, the Constitution and laws should be amended to reflect that.

The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:58 PM

22. Tell that to Scalia

and his other "originalist" buddies!!!! The wisdom of our founders was their willingness and ability to see a future might need revisions and providing for that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evilhime (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:02 AM

120. Dumbest Thing About "Originalism"

And this comes from Fat Tony himself. Originalism is an outgrowth of strict constructionism, but requires the "interpreter" (yeah, interpreting something that is supposed to be taken at its literal wording) to know what the framers were thinking 220 years ago.

Not only dumb, but way too convenient and intellectually lazy.

That pretty much describes Scalia though, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:59 PM

28. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:06 PM

41. Stealing this....great find!

Thanks and merry Christmas / happy holidays!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:09 PM

43. That just doesn't sound right

Link? I'd like to know more about the source and context. It's great if its an accurate quote. But I'm a little suspicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:26 PM

48. Fuck that slave-owning piece of shit.

Thomas Jefferson and his ilk were the absolute scum of the earth. Not only should we refuse to treat these criminal shits with reverence, we should loudly defame them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:33 PM

50. Include George Washington and many others. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:46 PM

87. Washington's definitely included in "his ilk." (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:30 PM

49. You conflate Constitution with Rights. BOR does not create rights because they preexist our

 

Constitution.

Our BOR however does obligate the government created by our Constitution to protect those rights that PA(1776) and VT(1777) declared in their constitutions.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

SCOTUS recognized those rights in UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

I've never read where Jefferson, principal author of our DOI rejected his statement
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:43 PM

51. So, Are You Saying That Owning Firearms Is A God Given Right or a Man Made Right?

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:55 PM

60. I don't need to say anything, PA, VT, & other states have said all that needs to be said. SCOTUS

 

agrees with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:02 PM

65. Thank You For Ducking The Question - Your Non Answer Speaks Volume About What you Believe

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:05 PM

68. And your inability to read and understand our Constitution, state constitutions, and SCOTUS opinions

 

speaks volumes about what you believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:09 PM

71. What I Believe And Know Is That All Law Is Not Writ In Stone - A Point That You Fail To Appreciate

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:11 PM

73. SCOTUS since 1876 has answered that question and given the courts preference for stare decisis it

 

seems unlikely that it will reverse its decision in UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK and later cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:13 PM

76. If The American People Decide That They Have Had Enough Of The NRA And Gun Apologists It Can Change

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:18 PM

79. Please stick to the OP which talked about our Constitution and the Second Amendment. What you seem to

 

want is to abolish all rights our government is obligated to protect in favor of a totalitarian government or a pure democracy where a simple majority imposes its will on a minority.

If that's what you want, please quit hiding and just state your goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:00 PM

91. If you want judge-made law to last forever...

then you want a non-elected panel to be the dictators.

FYI - society changes and so do laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:58 AM

118. It's amazing how many people treat the law as if it were a monolithic act of nature...

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

When bought and paid for sock puppet politicians (in both parties), hide behind the Constitution, wrap themselves in the flag, and legalize crime for rich people, banks, corporations, etc. Most people refuse to entertain the idea that there is something inherently wrong with those making the law, the law itself, and those who refuse to correct the law because of those who benefit from such laws.

Just suck it up; the law says it's OK! So what right do we have to question the idols who corrupt it, and or the idols who condone it? And if that’s not enough, most will go out of their way to sensor the truth, and find erroneous interpretations of the obvious corruption. As if it was best to see evil as something good, and necessary. Forbidding we see the great fraud that now pulls the strings of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larry Ogg (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:38 PM

135. Excellent point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frosty1 (Reply #135)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:35 AM

159. Thank you Frosty1

And have a great holiday!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larry Ogg (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:06 PM

156. Rights are not "law" created by our Constitution, e.g. "The right of the people peaceably to

 

assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' "

See UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK (1876)

The government created by We the People is supposed to protect the "rights" enumerated in our BOR and unenumerated by the Ninth Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #156)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:33 AM

158. I agree, rights are not law...

Although the laws of nature dictates certain inalienable rights are essential for the survival of life, mans laws are derivatives of ideological driven cultures that interpret the laws of nature in ways that either protect or go against the laws of nature, and certain inalienable rights.

Those who are in the position of authority over mans laws effect the essentials of life. For instance, authority can use the law to protect society from predators who would otherwise abridge the inalienable rights of others, or they could use the law to protect the predators from the victims they killed and looted. When the latter has happened, rest assured that predators have taken over the position of authority which dictates the law.

And when predators take over, the moral fabric, and sanity of society begins to decay, blood fills the streets, and the path is laid to the dustbin of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:48 PM

53. Heres more Jefferson quotes yuou usually don't hear

 

"Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:488

"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1000.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:57 PM

62. Nothing in your quote suggests rejecting rights that states have declared are natural, inherent,

 

inalienable/unalienable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:04 PM

67. Yes And We Have Already Established Your Preferences - Rights Are Bestowed By Man - Not God

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:09 PM

70. What you or I or others believe about rights doesn't matter. SCOTUS since 1876 has answered that

 

question and given the courts preference for stare decisis it seems unlikely that it will reverse its decision in UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK and later cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:11 PM

72. Precedent Can Be Overturned With New Precedent - No Law Lasts Forever - It Is Fundamental

To our jurisprudence system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:12 PM

74. Given the courts preference for stare decisis it seems unlikely that it will reverse its decision in

 

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK and later cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:13 PM

77. If The American People Decide That They Have Had Enough Of The NRA And Gun Apologists It Can Change

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:19 PM

80. See #79 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:49 PM

99. I have a right to be secure in my person. That right conflicts with the second amendment.

Those kind of conflicts are ones that appellate courts love to adjudicate.

Which one do you think they will think is more important, particularly as time goes on? The obsession with owning a portable piece of equipment that hurls small metal projectiles at lethal speeds, or the rights of citizens to be secure in their persons.

It's a no brainer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:52 PM

100. The issue is for the states to decide since they represented their citizens and delegated limited

 

powers to the state.

SCOTUS says rights preexist our Constitution and do not depend upon it.

If our Constitution does not grant rights, it should follow that it cannot take away rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #100)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:02 PM

102. It's an issue that very well may be decided at the SCOTUS. Hopefully one with 5 or more Liberal

judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:14 PM

103. If Heller were reversed, the dissent by Stevens and 3 other justices recognize RKBA was declared

 

by PA(1776) and VT(1777) to preexist our Constitution.

The dissent would then mean an individual's RKBA is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

See my post written the day SCOTUS released the Heller opinion at Heller
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x177461

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #103)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:53 AM

119. Slavery was upheld multiple times too. Anachronisms like slavery and 'right to guns' eventually go

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #119)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:02 PM

138. Along with all the other enunerated & unenumerated rights government is supposed to

 

protect.

And while you dream add any privilege government might have granted you.

When those things come to pass, Abraham Lincoln's dream of a people's government will have perished and We the People will become the serfs and slaves of a despotic few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:08 PM

141. I'm sure you would have wanted to protect the right to own a slave and to keep women from voting

Of that I have no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #141)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:20 PM

142. Are you unable to conduct an intelligent discussion without insults? Goodbye nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:25 PM

143. Expect that kind of response if you are arguing original intent issues. That is what that means. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:43 PM

52. Jefferson - One Brilliant Man - Repeal The 2nd Amendment Now - Outlaw All Firearms

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:53 PM

58. I think we can gradually cut back the gun culture like we did the tobacco culture

 

Whoever thought we would have gay marriage or legal marijuana? Maybe some day military style weapons will will only be for actual well regulated militias. Maybe some day young people will look at guns with horror and disgust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:03 PM

66. Yes - Society, Attitudes and Expectations Can Change - The 2nd Amendment Is Not Cast In Stone

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:54 PM

95. Do puritanical bigots hate guns? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:38 PM

106. Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

 

Why did you use the adjective "puritanical"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:38 AM

113. Because it's puritanical bigots who pushed through anti-tobacco laws.

I don't think people should have the right to smoke wherever they damn well please, but I think the puritanical hatred of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs was the real driving force behind anti-smoking laws.

The same cannot be said for guns, so I think the hoped for equivalency isn't sound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:50 PM

56. Wait, you mean we can think?

Well I'll be damned.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:51 PM

57. In those days, the "liberals", like Jefferson, were for small government.

This was before the rise of the huge mega-corporations that made government regulation and oversight a necessity. Smaller government, in the context of the times, did make sense, as did leaving many things to local governments.

It was after the Civil War, when corporations really took off, that it really became necessary and made sense for the federal government to step in to rein it in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:07 AM

121. I never thought that 'small govt' meant size of govt or govt agencies,

I interpret it as meaning less intrusion. Kind of like 60's Liberals & feminists who wanted govt out of their bodies & private lives; less intrusive. I don't think the Founders meant 'small govt' in terms of size either because I doubt they envisioned things like the EPA & FDA etc. Govt agencies that are necessary for a changing world, for example. When the Founders spoke of 'small govt' I believe they were speaking about the opposite of tyranny, not govt agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:58 PM

147. That is true as well.

But I think Jefferson probably also would have been against a lot of the (federal) programs and regulations that we have now. However, he would have opposed them in the context of the 18th-early 19th century US, not the 21st century US. With a much smaller population, and a much more homogenous population, many problems COULD be handled by local governments.

A big reason why we've needed the federal government to step in is that the country has grown and changed. States simply cannot handle many of the things necessary to support diverse populations of millions of people. And Jefferson was well aware that things change and that as the country changed, the constitution and government should adapt to reflect that. He knew that future generations would face different problems that he and his contemporaries never thought of.

So even though Jefferson probably would have opposed having our federal agencies and regulations *in the 18th century*, he would recognize the need for other generations to determine what is best for them. More federal involvement makes sense today for our own generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:56 PM

61. The Original Intent According To Thomas Jefferson

And it warns against strict constructionist application of the Constitution. Here Jefferson is clearly calling it a living document to be viewed with an eye that "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:59 PM

63. Except our Constitution does not grant rights. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:07 AM

116. Really, those Amendments do not grant rights? Oh do tell...

Because as we have learned through centuries of human rule, rights don't just exist. They are voted on by representatives of the people and then enshrined in a document in which law enforcement of all types must abide. This means we get it wrong sometimes as we did with slavery and as we clearly do now with an outdated, archaic 2nd Amendment.

However if you're going to go the God route, stop right there. I question, nay, doubt seriously the existence of such God. Religion in particular is a different battle to have here but I will say this: If your God gave everyone such rights, why are so many people oppressed of said rights all over the globe under various forms of Government, including our own?

They who are in charge make the rules and our rules here in America reside in the rights issued to us in the Constitution for our legal system (mostly) abides by the presets in that document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:40 AM

117. UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542
The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:18 PM

139. Non-Constitutional law can be challenged and considering that ruling is outdated

It is beatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #139)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:33 PM

145. "outdated" shows you aren't well informed. Read SCOTUS opinion, dissent, and amicus briefs for

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:34 PM

153. So a right wing court agrees with your gun hawkishness and you consider that vindication?

You're on the wrong side of majority opinion. Time will bear this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #153)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:47 PM

154. Goodbye. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:11 PM

132. If God doesn't work for you then how about sentient aspect of the universe?

Right by consciousness.

The right of self awareness. I can't imagine that Sagan would have a quibble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:13 PM

75. This statement should be true...

... of religions, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:48 PM

89. rec 101

he is right!

and why not Wesley Clark, btw, for Sec of Def?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:51 PM

90. Great quote...

thx for posting..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:21 PM

104. If only this Jefferson statement was better known to more Americans than this one...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Jefferson sure set up a dilemma for some of us with these two statements. I have to agree with your post in view of today's America. I don't think anyone believes an assault rifle would stop a tyrannical government that has tanks or Stealth fighters in its arsenal, (maybe a few nut jobs in the mountains of Idaho). This is not Syria, but even if it ever came to that, why do some people believe that if we have given up our assault rifles that it's the end? If people can smuggle pot, heroin and people into this country, why not assault rifles?
I believe our institutions will and must advance but we have to get rid of some of our barbarous beliefs, and yes,
our liberty is worth blood, but only when all else has failed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radarluv (Reply #104)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:02 AM

115. The problem with "from time to time" is that those who despise the current leaders in government

choose to view that as "whenever we disagree" rather than random dates in history. He might have meant in 20 years, he might have meant in 200. There is a specific vagueness to his comment there and the problem with the other side is that they are like children: when you tell them 'we'll see' or 'I'll think about it' they think it is written in stone as yes because that would be the answer they prefer. Then they feign outrage at the reverse outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:58 PM

107. So much for the theory of originalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:47 AM

123. Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars

I have voted dem and green all my life, sometimes consider the dems to be not far enough left. However, I don't think taking guns away from folks is the answer. And yes, the op's post does fly in the face of those that use the constitution as a way of defending their right to have guns. Unfortunately, that misses the point. We all, as humans, have a right to defend ourselves, and frankly, the "assault rifle" is the best weapons we have to do so. Do I want one? No, but when we focus on the guns and not the underlying reason for these attacks then we miss the point and waste time ignoring the problem. Our society glorifies violence, and then we have the audacity to blame the weapons themselves? When we reduce the number of teachers, police, when we make violent music some of the most profitable income streams today, when we bomb brown babies over seas and incarcerate brown folks over hear for crimes that white folks get off on, when we reduce support for mental health services, what do you think will happen to us as a society? Geesh! I'm not one to have a cache of guns, but to call one an assault weapons and another not is just one more indicator of our ignorance. All weapons are assault weapons. Lets try to stop folks from fucking assaulting folks first. In all these recent gun crimes there were previous indications that that person might be unstable. And through I don't know ignorance, political correctness, or lack of caring, these folks took action that makes me cry just thinking about it. These people were someone's babies, brothers, fathers, where the fuck is the rest of society? We don't know our neighbors, our kids, our selves anymore. Please : progressive means to me looking forward. Prohibition is regressive and hasn't served us one bit. Think of the ban on drugs, war crimes, prostitution, illegal immigrants, etc. Change starts from within.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matchoo (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:42 AM

129. Guns are part of the problem, so let's include them in the solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:06 AM

125. See, ol' TJ just didn't understand the Gun Boner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:54 AM

130. Amendment II.

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.


It calls for regulations.

So if the NRA wants to keep ALL their guns then they can be forced into the military at any time, at any age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #130)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:40 PM

136. Actually

the militia is defined as: "The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

The question I have never heard answered is, if the second means that militia members only have a right to keep and bear arms, why isn't that what the second says? I mean a lot of ambiguity would have been eliminated if they were trying to be clear to have simply said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". No, that is not what they said or what they wrote. "the people" has and had a very definite meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:57 PM

137. UMMMMM ..........

So a 1903 law was in effect in the 1780's??

If you are going to define what the Second says then you have to use the facts that were in effect at that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #137)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:20 PM

148. The larger question nicely avoided..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:09 PM

146. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people

 

to procreate, shall not be infringed" would provoke interesting word-juggling among those who believe guns create crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:23 PM

133. Welcome MightyMopar to DU and touche on the OP.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:56 PM

157. Thank you for the warm welcome

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:24 PM

134. That's a 200+ year thumb in scalia's eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:28 PM

140. If the constitution was not intended...

to be a living document that progresses as we do, then the amendment process would not have been put in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:25 PM

149. Coming from a man that helped inact slavery but was "in love" with a Black woman.

In all honesty...I have the feeling he's saying this due to how these "men of the preceding age" looked at who was deserving as part of the Constitution versus those that were not more so than about guns. But is definitely a wide ranging statement that should be given the credence you give it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #149)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:57 PM

155. My white cousin married a black free woman circa 1850. Their descendants are my dearest friends and

 

pillars of our communities.

I and all my relatives have put past abuses of what we today call "laws of humanity".

Sadly it appears we have a long time to go before the rest of society will follow the trail we trod.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:51 PM

161. This quote is handy for many reasons. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread