Outlawing guns in the US ...

[Member2019]

Again ...

xxx

There is not one, single mention of a single article of the Constitution where slavery is even defined, addressed or otherwise considered. You have only select Acts and other legislative laws ... nothing in the US Constitution itself. Property was defined by the states.

Again, and getting back to the context you're making, by the same argument, the 2nd Amendment sanctions murder. That's exactly what you're correlating them, in this very thread, under this very context.

It is just as much of a stretch.

 

[Member2019]

Going nowhere and fast ...

well you could argue that the 2nd amendment only gives you the right to own guns, it doesn't say that you can shoot them or in any other way dictate the manner of their use.

And that is relevant?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't define arms or anything else either. Hell, you can use property to do many things either. And you cannot have your property seized for that matter, without compensation and/or due process -- even in the case of an alleged crime or harm to others.

The state defined the property. This was well before the US Federal Government could assert Civil Rights over states (or other states over states of residence for that matter). This was even before the 13th Amendment.

A lawyer was able to prove, via state definition of property, new Common Law and precedent. It was not remotely sanctioned by the articles of the US Constitution, but the US Supreme Court was bound to not seize property by the 5th Amendment without compensation and due process.

It's important to recognize those last, two pieces there. Had compensation and/or due process been involved, he may have gone free. That has also been debated, and heavily.

 

[Member2019]

Btw ...

The term "held to service" is still applicable today. It is relevant definition to both private contracts as well as public services. I.e., it meant far more than just slaves.

 

[bodie54]

I don't see it as that kind of stretch at all.

The Constitution only sanctioned the right to property, not slavery.

Yes the constitution sanctioned the right to property. And slaves were property. Therefore though the constitution was silent on slavery it's guarantee of property became inextricably linked with the slavery issue. At least in the minds of southernors, who feared Lincoln as a tyrannical usurper of their rights. When southern soldiers were asked why they were fighting they often replied "for my rights". What in your opinion did they mean if not in main their property rights, as symbolized most emphatically and controversially in that region by the slaves of wealthy land owners? Surely the common man saw the threat to the property of the wealthy as a looming threat to his own property, and was willing to fight to defeat that.

 

[calpoon]

Re: Going nowhere and fast ...

And you cannot have your property seized for that matter, without compensation and/or due process

what is the legal definition of property then? As you know the state seizes many things without compensation and due process. But then I guess that depends on how you define "due process and compensation" doesn't it? "because we say so, and here's your receipt" I suppose is adequate.

I'm telling you, it's absurd. it makes no sense. we need to forget about it.

 

[Member2019]

Yes the constitution sanctioned the right to property. And slaves were property.

Yes. In one state, they are property. In another, they are not.

The Constitution sanctioned the right to bear arms. In states such as Texas, you have the right to kill someone on your property. In another state, that would be considered murder.

So the Constitution sanctions murder, because some states define it as murder, while it upholds it in states where they do not define it as murder.

Therefore though the constitution was silent on slavery it's guarantee of property became inextricably linked with the slavery issue. At least in the minds of southernors, who feared Lincoln as a tyrannical usurper of their rights ... cut ...

Again, this is all US Supreme Court rulings, over things the US Federal Government (at the time, prior to the 13th Amendment) had no authority over.

When southern soldiers were asked why they were fighting they often replied "for my rights". What in your opinion did they mean if not in main their property rights, as symbolized most emphatically and controversially in that region by the slaves of wealthy land owners? Surely the common man saw the threat to the property of the wealthy as a looming threat to his own property, and was willing to fight to prevent that.

Like the people who want the 2nd Amendment overturned because they see it as sanctioning murder.

It's the exact, same viewpoint -- 100%.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Going nowhere and fast ...

what is the legal definition of property then? As you know the state seizes many things without compensation and due process. But then I guess that depends on how you define "due process and compensation" doesn't it? "because we say so, and here's your receipt" I suppose is adequate.

And you wonder why those rights are being eroded?

HINT: It's because the same arguments were used prior to abuse the right, and laws and rulings have been chipping away at them.

We reap what we sow.

This is civics at its finest gentlemen. Don't discuss with me to just try to "disagree" or "say I'm wrong." This is a lesson in understanding how we've fucked ourselves out of our own rights.

By abuse and, correspondingly, giving the US Federal and/or State Government ways to enforce "new rights" that override our original rights. That's why they do it.

Because we do it to ourselves.

Our only and continued "defense" is to pass new Amendments that explicitly address, and override, as the new Supreme Laws over any and all prior rulings on those matters.

 

[calpoon]

Re: Going nowhere and fast ...

By abuse and, correspondingly, giving the US Federal and/or State Government ways to enforce "new rights" that override our original rights. That's why they do it.

That's kind of the point that I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Going nowhere and fast ...

That's kind of the point that I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong.

To date, there's only a handful. And look how much damage they have caused.

Civil rights is one (one we all causes by not being responsible at the state/local levels).
The war on drugs was almost as bad.
The war on terror is only mopping up a few things the war on drugs missed.

Fortunately, the US Supreme Court seems to counter many of them when the exact arguments come up (thank God).
The war on terror is making some of the damages from the war on drugs apparent, and seeing those reversed as well.
Unfortunately these things don't happen overnight.

Due process is a slow, but necessarily so, reality.

 

[bodie54]

The similarity I see between those two positions is that both harbor emotional, irrational undercurrents to one degree or another. But while the 2nd amendment clearly doesn't sanction homicide nor empower anyone to murder, the 5th amendment was used as a rationale to enslave.

 

[Member2019]

But while the 2nd amendment clearly doesn't sanction homicide nor empower anyone to murder

Hmmm ...

the 5th amendment was used as a rationale to enslave

Hmmm ...

There are many people who honestly believe the 2nd Amendment does sanction murder, or at least some form of criminal manslaughter. They regularly use Florida and Texas gun laws as evidence, protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The terms of the legal killing of someone else are set by the states, just like the terms of the ownership of property. In another state, those same terms would be considered murder, or at least a form of criminal manslaughter, just like in another state the slave would not be property.

The right to bear arms is then the justification, just like the right to no illegal seizure without compensation and due process.

Honestly, I cannot make this more direct. I have repeatedly heard that exact argument from people who want to not necessarily repeal the 2nd Amendment any more than the 5th Amendment, but see the US Federal government redefine it so it prevents any actual use of firearms to kill, just like use of people as slaves.

Because they absolutely and rabidly disagree with Florida and Texas as other did with southern states before the 13th Amendment. They want another Amendment that doesn't repeal the 2nd Amendment, but prevents it from being used by individual at all to kill anyone, for any reason (even self-defense), period. It is always murder, or some form of manslaughter whereby the person who killed is guilty of the crime.

 

[marquis2]

Hmmm ...

Hmmm ...

There are many people who honestly believe the 2nd Amendment does sanction murder, or at least some form of criminal manslaughter. They regularly use Florida and Texas gun laws as evidence, protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The terms of the legal killing of someone else are set by the states, just like the terms of the ownership of property. In another state, those same terms would be considered murder, or at least a form of criminal manslaughter, just like in another state the slave would not be property.

The right to bear arms is then the justification, just like the right to no illegal seizure without compensation and due process.

Honestly, I cannot make this more direct. I have repeatedly heard that exact argument from people who want to not necessarily repeal the 2nd Amendment any more than the 5th Amendment, but see the US Federal government redefine it so it prevents any actual use of firearms to kill, just like use of people as slaves.

Because they absolutely and rabidly disagree with Florida and Texas as other did with southern states before the 13th Amendment. They want another Amendment that doesn't repeal the 2nd Amendment, but prevents it from being used by individual at all to kill anyone, for any reason (even self-defense), period. It is always murder, or some form of manslaughter whereby the person who killed is guilty of the crime.

I live in a country with firearms restriction (though in living memory there was none) but I do have a nicely equipped kitchen which includes some rather large knives.
I have a right to own these but there exists no right to stick them into another human being , even if he is an intruder.This is as it should be because when a society values property above life it's in a sorry state.

 

[Will E Worm]

I have a right to own these but there exists no right to stick them into another human being , even if he is an intruder.This is as it should be because when a society values property above life it's in a sorry state.

If someone is an intruder and is going to murder you, you do have a right to protect yourself and kill him first. To protect yourself, your family, and your property.

That's not a "sorry state".

 

[marquis2]

If someone is an intruder and is going to murder you, you do have a right to protect yourself and kill him first. To protect yourself, your family, and your property.

That's not a "sorry state".

This is self defence , of course if you have very good reason to believe he's going to murder you then use whatever it takes to prevent this.But the vast majority of intruders are simply after valuables and money.

 

[titsrock]

And...the opinions of this guy are his of his own free will. Take it with a grain of salt.


Hey titsrock, his opinions are his and yours are yours. Who are you to say his are worthless? Before you say that you didn't say that, you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted that.

For starters, I am not "all-knowing." I find the Prof to be unreadable and unpindownable because he tries to overwhelm any discussion or debate with deviation, sidetrack, anecdotes and unsubstantiated claims. This tactic creates an "all-knowing" sage-like persona for him. It's like debating with the Wizard or Oz, only once we turn back the curtain....:flame: My frustration gets the better of me sometimes.

 

[Facetious]

Attention Freeones Citizens of the World.

The views expressed by the Prof are his and his alone. They more closely resemble historical fiction or fantasy rather than historical fact. He is no more a historian or political scientist than am I a pornstar. I do not want you to gain a warped sense of America or American history from his meanderings.

Take his "analysis" with a grain of salt. It carries no more weight than that of a tea leaf.

I don't know that the poll results support your claim. :dunno:

 

[Will E Worm]

I don't know that the poll results support your claim. :dunno:

No, and I don't think any Amendments of the Bill of Rights should ever be repealed, 126 is a majority rule.

Did you watch the videos?

 

[titsrock]

Re: Say all you want ...

At least I provide some analysis. You're generic "disregard their views because it was over 200 years ago and they wore wigs" doesn't provide for much of an argument in comparison. By the same regard, should we disregard everything from the Magna Carter (which the US recognizes as a base document in our country's own history) to the works of John Locke as well? And not stopping there, should we just make everything about the "here'n now," adopt simple majorities and do everything else that some people have called "Real Democracy?"

What you call analysis, I call distraction. You claim to possess this deep knowledge of civics and like to claim that others don't, but most of your reasoning supports positions on issues which someone who sides with a conservative ideology would support without such a deep regard for civics.

Why do you want to discuss the Magna Carta and John Locke? Did I dispute or claim anywhere that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are American-only creations and have no basis or foundation anywhere? You're just name-dropping.

Since our population has exploded, since natural resources are being lost, since our country is being ruined by Corporations and Lobbyists, yes, the time has come to "tweak" certain aspects of the Bill of Rights (starting with 2nd Amendment, then 1st Amend to address petition gov't) and also pass new legislation which protects modern Americans from threats which exist today.

Globalization has created a firm need for a strong FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Apparently States agree with me since they are calling out to the Federal Gov't for assistance rather than handle financial crises within their own states, which is a view you have expressed you would prefer State Gov'ts do before in other threads.

I am fine with representational democracy. I certainly don't want "everything" to be decided by simple majority. Who would want that?

 

[Member2019]

Re: Say all you want ...

What you call analysis, I call distraction. You claim to possess this deep knowledge of civics and like to claim that others don't, but most of your reasoning supports positions on issues which someone who sides with a conservative ideology would support without such a deep regard for civics.

And I'd question their reasons all the same as well. Don't throw me in with them just because some of my answers are the same.

Why do you want to discuss the Magna Carta and John Locke? Did I dispute or claim anywhere that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are American-only creations and have no basis or foundation anywhere? You're just name-dropping.

The point was made that we don't care about what happened 200+ years ago and how it doesn't apply. Locke's views are even older.

Since our population has exploded, since natural resources are being lost, since our country is being ruined by Corporations and Lobbyists, yes, the time has come to "tweak" certain aspects of the Bill of Rights (starting with 2nd Amendment, then 1st Amend to address petition gov't) and also pass new legislation which protects modern Americans from threats which exist today.

Then get a supermajority of Americans to agree with you. As far as "lobbyists" go, I think even Obama has now re-affirmed and utterly proven that you can't avoid lobbyists. You think the term "lobbyist" is some discrete, separate thing, failing to realize that lobbyists are often people who merely have experience and expertise in an area.

Globalization has created a firm need for a strong FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Apparently States agree with me since they are calling out to the Federal Gov't for assistance rather than handle financial crises within their own states, which is a view you have expressed you would prefer State Gov'ts do before in other threads.

If the US Federal Government didn't take the money from the citizens of their respective states in the first place, they wouldn't need to ask. Which do you think is more efficient, the federal takes it from the citizens of a state, and then gives it back to the states? Or the state takes it directly? And who do you think is more accountable? Closer to the tax payer?

I am fine with representational democracy. I certainly don't want "everything" to be decided by simple majority. Who would want that?

Then get a supermajority to agree with you and overturn things. Although I'm still waiting (and have been waiting a long time) on what is a "lobbyist." They are filing into the Obama cabinet, despite his prior promises. You live in the dream world. Obama finally woke up to the reality, which required him to break his promises, because they were impossible to keep.

Is it sad that politicians must lie about things they can't do? Or it is even sadder that the voting public believes there are black'n white things like "lobbyists"?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Re: No!

No! In the US a court can not overturn a Supreme Law, not even the US Supreme Court. A Supreme Law is established, Common Law (by prior rulings at the higest levels) which can be and is always overruled by articles in the US Constitution, including its Amendments. That means it requires an Amendment to overturn a Supreme Law.

When a law goes against a Supreme Law, it is struck down -- repeatedly -- by the US Federal Courts and, if needbe, the Supreme Court. The highest ruling is something that is ruled Unconstitutional, which means it has directly violated an article in the US Constitution. There is absolutely no way around that, just like the recent DC gun ban being ruled Unconstitutional.

I don't know what it makes them, but it does make someone saying such a pessimist. Ironically, I fear the ignorance of the general public and their lack of simple knowledge (or even acknowledgement) of civics as the "root cause of all issues."

Totalitarism is always born out of popularism.

You are taking my words at an extremely literal meaning. My point was, what ever they do, they sure as hell aren't going to have an easy time of it...IF the words I hear from all of the gun owners I know, and read, including on this site are true.

While I sadly must admit, my knowledge on what you speak of, is far from as advanced as it should be on this subject matter, considering my devout belief in the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment, I do know that executive orders, are powerful things, and in many cases, are used to bypass due process, and push forward agendas. I believe Obama has already stated a desire, or willingness...hell, most likely a steadfast intent to use executive order to pass a new AWB. The fact is, I am extremely pessimistic of the upcoming President, his cabinet, and their inability to focus on what needs to be done, versus their uncontrollable desire to put forth all of their agendas and rules BEFORE they fix the things that need it. I have no faith in his promises to put things right, and every belief he will put it all on the back burner until he has made the country what he wants it to be, before making it what it needs to be. If that makes any sense to you.