Jump to content
TedderVision
Shiggy

I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Cal Palmer said:

I fully agree with the right of citizens to bear arms, and as the amendment provides, if a state maintains a militia or decides to in the future, they can call up citizens with proper firearm training/experience to join.  (A couple of asides: first, a militia in this context is decidedly not a bunch of survivalist idiots shooting tin cans on the weekend and plotting the overthrow of the “fedrul guvmint”.  In fact, even when organized by the states, Art 1 Sec 8 gives the federal government the right to suppress rebellions (See: U.S. Civil War).  Second, most of the Supreme Court cases dealing with the 2nd amendment actually ruled against conscientious objectors who refused state militia service.  If state militia service were to make a comeback, I would definitely want to see conscientious objectors get more respect.)

 

Can you show any historical evidence to show the the founding fathers only meant state militias and not private ownership?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cal Palmer I can give historical evidence that the Founding Fathers DID NOT intend the 2nd amendment to only be for military and militia use but definitely private ownership.

 

1) 

On 3/19/2018 at 8:15 PM, David Parker said:

It must also be understood that the Framers categorically rejected a large standing Army, instead relying on local militias called to service on demand. For a well-regulated militia to be in fact well regulated, it must possess arms suited to militia use.

The entire revolutionary war was won with private gun owners who would rise to fight in the case of protection. It was THIS style of militia that was used by states after the revolutionary war and it was THIS militia is being mentioned.......NOT modern national guards. 

 


2) There is this quote from Samuel Adams............

Quote

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

 

3) here is a letter to then President James Madison in which the question was raised "could merchant ships carry cannons in order to defend themselves from  pirates and the British?".........The answer from Madison and congress (as seen in the letter) was a resounding YES. That is what the founding fathers and congress intended the 2nd amendment to mean......especially since it was Madison who was the primary author of the 2nd amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal Palmer said:

Would strong 2nd amendment advocates be ok with nuclear weapons in private hands?

 

Logical Fallacy of appealing to the most extreme example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logical fallacy according to you.  I would say an AR-15 with a bump stock is a pretty extreme example, and yet it remains perfectly legal in private hands, in some cases without a background check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal Palmer said:

Or is it ok only if it looks like a gun?  Because clearly the technology of guns has changed.  The Las Vegas shooter was able to create such carnage in such a short amount of time that would have been unimaginable with the firearms available in the 1790s.

 

1) .....Says the guy using the internet to express his freedom of speech which definitely did not exist in 1790..........that is the most intellectually dishonest and intellectually insulting argument I have ever heard.

2) As stated earlier......James Madison in granting PRIVATE merchant ships to carry cannons........he absolutely did NOT intend the 2nd amendment to only be muskets.

3) There were other weapons besides muskets in the 1700s before the 2nd amendment was even written............and news flash........those guns were automatic weapons (Automatic meaning at 1 pull of the trigger 1 bullet is fired and another bullet is chambered ready to fire)

 

1718 - Puckle Gun: Revolving flintlock, 63 shots in 7 minutes. 
1770 - Ferguson Rifle: Breech rifle, 6-10 shots in 1 minute. Not a musket! 
1777 - Belton Flintlock: Automatic flintlock, 20 shots in 5 seconds............In fact, the Continental Congress wanted to buy 100 of these rifles in an 8-ball configuration, but apparently it cost too much. 
1779 - Girandoni Air Rifle: Airgun, 22 shots in 1 minute(?). I can't tell if it was really known at the time, or if Lewis and Clark just happened across a copy that came from Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not arguing against private ownership of guns, for cripe’s sake.  You guys all have your pat responses at the ready, and don’t fully engage with the arguments being made.  What I DID say is that the idea that private arms ownership should be completely unregulated and unlimited is not consistent with our legislative and judicial history or with how we interpret our other fundamental rights, such as speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal Palmer said:

 I would say an AR-15 with a bump stock is a pretty extreme example, and yet it remains perfectly legal in private hands, in some cases without a background check.

 

 

Um...................except every mass shooter who used an AR-15 (INCLUDING Paddock in Las Vegas) were legally bought after passing a background check.

try again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal Palmer said:

What I DID say is that the idea that private arms ownership should be completely unregulated and unlimited is not consistent with our legislative and judicial history or with how we interpret our other fundamental rights, such as speech

 

Ok I understand your argument. 

Can you give any historical evidence to back up such a claim to the intentions of the founding fathers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article addresses some of this better than I can without droning on and on:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856?o=0

One thing I would add is that when the Supreme Court finally recognized an individual right to own guns independent of militia service in 2008, the author of that decision (Scalia) made clear that it did not mean that the federal government could not regulate the ownership, sale, etc. of guns.  In other words, over the entire history of US jurisprudence, it has never been held that there is an absolute right to own arms independent of militia service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cal Palmer said:

This article addresses some of this better than I can without droning on and on:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856?o=0

 

1) That article makes claims about the intentions of the founding fathers without citing actual historical evidence to back it up meaning it is useless as a source. 

2) The article does not actually directly cite any of the founding fathers, but instead quotes later case law to back up a claim making it a circular argument. 

 

Do you have any historical evidence to show that the founding fathers intended to put limits on the 2nd amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts.

Ignoring the fact that "judicial review" is an usurped power, the Dick Act in 1903 unconstitutionally turned the militia into a second-echelon reserve component of the Armed Forces. The "dual role" the National Guard goes on so much about is puerile sophistry. A militia either IS a militia or is NOT a militia.

 

Mandatory background checks are unconstitutional, too. Fourth Amendment? Firearms are private property and as such gun rights are property rights. Dred Scott, as immoral as the conclusion was and as unconstitutional as "judicial review" is, was based on a reasonably sound interpretation of common law. Property is property, and should be left to the owner's discretion to dispose of as he sees fit, in general.

 

I have thought for some time that the Second Amendment was superfluous; as no power to regulate any sort of firearm was delegated to the US Government in the Constitution, the US Government possesses no such power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated in the article you are disregarding, the overwhelming common usage of the phrase “bear arms” at the time was related to military service, not private ownership/use apart from it.  So it would be a bit hard for me to find a handy quote from the Founding Fathers opposing the modern hackneyed interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means.  Additionally, as the article stated (along with countless others that have citations- remember the line about law review articles, for example), firearm regulations and restrictions were common throughout the 1800s (when Founding Fathers would have been alive to object).

Here’s some additional support:

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-5-gun-laws-that-the-founding-fathers-supported-2017-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cal Palmer said:

As stated in the article you are disregarding, the overwhelming common usage of the phrase “bear arms” at the time was related to military service, not private ownership/use apart from it.


Yes and I understand the claim that the article is making in that regard.......but the article did not give one iota of historical evidence to back up that claim. They only made the empty claim on its own. 

So I am asking you @Cal Palmer if you can provide such historical evidence to back up such a claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cal Palmer said:

So it would be a bit hard for me to find a handy quote from the Founding Fathers opposing the modern hackneyed interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means. 

Exactly.......you can give no historical evidence of your claim......I on the other hand did give you quotes from several founding fathers as well as other sources.....all of which directly refute your absurd historically revisionist claim with zero historical evidence.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shiggy said:


Yes and I understand the claim that the article is making in that regard.......but the article did not give one iota of historical evidence to back up that claim. They only made the empty claim on its own. 

So I am asking you @Cal Palmer if you can provide such historical evidence to back up such a claim?

 

4 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

Exactly.......you can give no historical evidence of your claim......I on the other hand did give you quotes from several founding fathers as well as other sources.....all of which directly refute your absurd historically revisionist claim with zero historical evidence.. 

 

so to sum up..............

Unless you @Cal Palmer can show me historical evidence proving that the founding fathers did not intend the 2nd amendment to be about private ownership and simply about militias, and thus refute my sources in the form of quotes from founding fathers themselves who stated that "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms", You are just making an empty and baseless claim for which you cannot show any evidence whilst standing your baseless claim as being historical fact. 

I am sorry, but you too have failed to change my mind.........(unless you can show me said historical evidence instead of simply copy/pasting articles that also do not cite any historical evidence other than making baseless speculative claim to the intentions of the founding fathers.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn’t want to have their mind changed isn’t going to.  As pointed out by another person, the James Madison anecdote could just easily be used as evidence for the opposite point of view (why did they need permission from Madison?).  I’ll continue to stand with the overwhelming evidence of case law, state and federal legislative history, etc., and agree to disagree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cal Palmer said:

Anyone who doesn’t want to have their mind changed isn’t going to.  As pointed out by another person, the James Madison anecdote could just easily be used as evidence for the opposite point of view (why did they need permission from Madison?).  I’ll continue to stand with the overwhelming evidence of case law, state and federal legislative history, etc., and agree to disagree.

 

So in other words........you have no actual evidence to prove the outragios claim you made and instead make a cheap drive-by attack on my argument before leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cal Palmer said:

Anyone who doesn’t want to have their mind changed isn’t going to.

 

Not so............I just wont be convinced by fraudulent claims made with no evidence........the same as if you tried to claim that the earth was flat while giving zero scientific evidence to disprove a round earth. 

It sounds more like you are just upset because nobody will accept what you believe simply because you say it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context, context, context.

 

The Framers consciously and specifically rejected a standing army. Their idea was that local militias (locally funded if not privately funded) would be called to service in time of emergency. The modern idea  of a formally military militia only really dates to 1903 and the Dick Act. Before, militias were generally county based. John Brown Gordon was a coal mine operator in Northern Alabama in 1860; as a leading citizen he was a frontrunner for the Captaincy of his  county's militia company in the 6th Alabama in 1861. And up North, some militia companies were fielded and funded by factories or local railroads. Even State provided equipment besides maybe obsolete flintlocks was almost unheard of; the average militia member provided all his own equipment and would only be paid for "summer camp" or if called to actual service.

 See, in a true militia officers were elected as they were considered to be a para-civil authority; even as recently as the 20th century some rural sheriff's departments required deputies to purchase their own equipment. Some counties were so miserly that Sheriffs and deputies were paid by arrest and citgation; Tennessee's McMinn County War was fought in part over a corrupt Sheriff's abuse of this policy. The real life Barney Fife owned his own uniform, holster, revolver and one bullet. And might have been paid 50 cents (or some amount) per parking ticket he wrote.

Edited by David Parker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×