Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[Chucklehead]

Yeah, but even the constitution was created by men. Rich men in power I might add. Hell the first senate wasn't even elected, it was appointed. There wasn't much equality or democracy involved.

James Madison - 1787
"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."

Madison came right out and said it. The rich and powerful (opulant) need to be protected from the majority (the rest of us). The Senate should be the body that ensures that.

Everyone and everything created by man has a Bias. Nothing is perfect, nothing is above questioning.

You are going down a very dangerous line of thinking when you start looking at the world through an identitarian/Marxist lens.

Your first paragraph is very disturbing. You are implying that the greatest government document that has ever existed is somehow fundamentally flawed simply because of the identity of the people that wrote it. If you accept that premise, there is nothing stopping that ideology to invalidate its utility all because of its origin.
Your last paragraph all but cements the this argument: "The US constitution was written by men with bias. It must be disposed of so those without bias may usher in the utopia." That's where that line of thinking ends.

I believe the US Constitution is the greatest grantor of freedom and prosperity the world has ever seen. Not some thinly veiled power grab by the wealthy.

 

[orionthehunter1]

1st, I really don't have to give up any comparison. 2nd, I never stated I wanted to give up any rights (but of course this some how always seems to happen to anyone who doesn't fall in line with the "real freedom lovers". 3rd, I happen to love this country quite a bit. Don't have any plans on moving anywhere.

This is devolving quickly.

You might not want to give up on any of your rights, but you've clearly stated that people should give up theirs because you don't feel comfortable with certain people owning certain weapons.

 

[brocksw]

You are going down a very dangerous line of thinking when you start looking at the world through an identitarian/Marxist lens.

Your first paragraph is very disturbing. You are implying that the greatest government document that has ever existed is somehow fundamentally flawed simply because of the identity of the people that wrote it. If you accept that premise, there is nothing stopping that ideology to invalidate its utility all because of its origin.
Your last paragraph all but cements the this argument: "The US constitution was written by men with bias. It must be disposed of so those without bias may usher in the utopia." That's where that line of thinking ends.

I believe the US Constitution is the greatest grantor of freedom and prosperity the world has ever seen. Not some thinly veiled power grab by the wealthy.

My god, this happens every time. The ability to twist shit around.... and the next thing you know....

You obviously haven't read all my posts. In an earlier post I outright condemn marxism.

Addionally, I didn't write that sentence, it appears you just decided to write your own and put quotations around it...quite the job paraphrasing there.

Alright I'm out. Seems like all the good conversation has happened already.

 

[ewade07]

How has this drivel made it 23 pages without being shutdown?

 

[BjornF16]

To compare potential outcomes due to the restrictions of rights in the USA with any other country is a waste of everyone's time.

Disagree vehemently!

Dems want the US to go the way of UK, AUS, and NZ.

There are lessons to be learned from those countries regarding their gun grabs and gun control mentality.

 

[Hoodie]

You are going down a very dangerous line of thinking when you start looking at the world through an identitarian/Marxist lens.

Your first paragraph is very disturbing. You are implying that the greatest government document that has ever existed is somehow fundamentally flawed simply because of the identity of the people that wrote it. If you accept that premise, there is nothing stopping that ideology to invalidate its utility all because of its origin.
Your last paragraph all but cements the this argument: "The US constitution was written by men with bias. It must be disposed of so those without bias may usher in the utopia." That's where that line of thinking ends.

I believe the US Constitution is the greatest grantor of freedom and prosperity the world has ever seen. Not some thinly veiled power grab by the wealthy.

I don´t think he´s advocating a Marxist worldview. He mentioned the horrific outcomes of state run agriculture in a previous post. He also called the Constitution a work of ¨other level genius.¨

That´s just a quote from James Madison. It says what it says. Real life is complicated. We can put historical figures on a pedestal all we want. It doesn´t change reality.

Thomas Jefferson wrote some of the most eloquent quotes on liberty of all time. The dude was also a slave owner.

It´s not dangerous to acknowledge that. It´s probably dangerous to ignore it.

FWIW I agree with you in general about the US Constitution and the great men who produced it. But I can do that and still acknowledge they weren´t perfect.

 

[Kilboars]

I’m missing Trump already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BjornF16]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but what constitutes "arms" is open to debate.

Arms should be anything. Again any law abiding citizen should be able to own anything the government can. Why people are ok with infringements of any kind is mind boggling to me.

I've already posted what 18th Century definition of "arms" was in another post, but here it is again:

From Noah Webster's 1824 American Dictionary of English Language:

arms - 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. 2. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another. A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

ordnance - noun [from ordinance.] Cannon or great guns, mortars and howitzers; artillery.

firearms - noun plural Arms or weapons which expel their charge by the combustion of powder, as pistols, muskets, etc

pistol - noun A small fire-arm, or the smallest fire-arm used, differing from a musket chiefly in size. Pistols are of different lengths, and borne by horsemen in cases at the saddle bow, or by a girdle. Small pistols are carried in the pocket.

infringe - 1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. 2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

"If the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded."
- Noah Webster

 

[Okhotnik]

Ok cool, well according to some others if you interpret the the 2a literally, that's also Tyranny. Because it was the government infringing on our constitutional rights. Yet, here were....eating and living well...without machine guns.

Additionally, what are your thoughts on the Patriot Act? Or Presidential Policy Directive 20, National Security PD- 54, Homeland security PD-23. The laws that gives the Federal government and their intelligence apparatuses permission to spy on everything we do, say, buy....every text, email, phone call, credit card swipe.....EVERYTHING. Not just spy, but store it....all of it.

The Patriot Act (ironic name just like the affordable care act) and following surveillance acts and orders are terrible as is the abused FISA warrant program.(I ve written two affidavits in support of a FISA warrant and they used to be almost impossible to get approved).

 

[BjornF16]

To all who keep making the argument that unrestricted 2A means mortars, howitzers, tanks, A-10's, etc...

Please stop.

What you are describing is what was considered "ordnance" in the 18th and 19th Centuries, and were separate and distinct from "arms". Ordnance was clearly not entertained by the Founders as part of the 2A.

Here is how these terms were defined by Noah Webster in 1824:

arms - 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. 2. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another. A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

ordnance - noun [from ordinance.] Cannon or great guns, mortars and howitzers; artillery.

firearms - noun plural Arms or weapons which expel their charge by the combustion of powder, as pistols, muskets, etc

pistol - noun A small fire-arm, or the smallest fire-arm used, differing from a musket chiefly in size. Pistols are of different lengths, and borne by horsemen in cases at the saddle bow, or by a girdle. Small pistols are carried in the pocket.

So by today's standard, arms would include: AR-15, M-4, M-16, Glock 18, Bowie knife, switchblade, body armor, sling shot, etc.

It would not include: Mortars, cannons, artillery, RPG, airborne artillery (A-10, F-16, GBU-38 500 lb JDAM, GBU-31 2,000 lb JDAM, Mk-82 "dumb" bomb, etc). These clearly were NOT included in the Founders' discussions.

Including these are a straw man argument, possibly from ignorance (not condemnation but truly lacking understanding of the terms of their day) or simply a puerile argument.

 

[william schmaltz]

Disagree vehemently!

Uh, ya dude. When you take it out of context and interpret it like that I disagree too.

I was referring to a comment where someone was basically saying there has been no sign of govt tyranny in AUS after a gun grab so likely would be none if a US gun grab were to happen. His comment was irrelevant b/c no country is like the US in the way we have freedoms and our govt's desire to remove them freedoms from the people. A gun grab in the US will absolutely go hand in hand with govt tyranny.

So I stand by my point. If a gun grab happens in AUS or any other country and there is no sign of tyranny, I don't care. That's not a point I'm willing to hear. I'm not willing to take a chance of our govt. just taking our guns such as in AUS and everyone lives in mutual happiness while govt has unchecked power over us.

Holy shit people.....

 

[Dos Perros]

I am convinced that the downfall of this country, if it happens, won't be because of some infringement on 2a, probably not even 4a or 1a. But it will be the American people and their biases, pitting themselves against each other inspite of themselves. Heads in the sand with an arm up pointing the finger at the other side. Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini...a fundamental belief that the other side, the side that looked different, believed in something different, talked different, held a different opinion about something, that they were the enemy and they needed to be enslaved, eliminated, controlled, overthrown, etc. The 2a might be the vessel but that seems beside the point. Neither side really ever taking the time to understand the other.

I agree there will be camps, sides, etc. One side mostly wants to be left alone and do what they want. The other side wants to tell them what to do and how to live their life. The downfall will be when they succeed.

 

[BjornF16]

Yeah, but even the constitution was created by men. Rich men in power I might add. Hell the first senate wasn't even elected, it was appointed. There wasn't much equality or democracy involved.

The men who founded this nation initially forgot to throw in the right to not be the property of another human being. They also forgot to throw in the right to vote regardless of your race or gender.

The founding fathers did a bang-up job on the constitution, but if we´d left it exactly as it was founded, we´d have made some very serious mistakes.

This isn´t meant to say anything one way or the other on gun legislation. You and I probably pretty much agree on that. It´s just to illustrate that we´ve been making changes basically since the inception of this country. That´s why I don´t like to just point at the 2A and talk about the wisdom of the founding fathers. The 2A is important and the founding fathers were wise. Stuff has still needed to change over time, so I think it´s worth arguing in favor of the 2A in terms of data in modern America.

I would note that the Preamble to the Constitution says ..."in order to form a more perfect union".

It doesn't say "create a Perfect union" because that is nigh impossible.

It is a sad state of affairs that we had to compromise regarding slavery. If not for that compromise, the Republic of the United States of America would't exist.

Ponder this...if the USA didn't exist, what would have been the outcomes of WWI and WWII? What other great deeds of good would have been missing from the last 230 some odd years?

Was the compromise worth it? I say yes!

Did it need to be changed? Absolutely yes!

The Founders' knew it wasn't a perfect document...but it was certainly revolutionary for the period. So they put in a mechanism to amend it, thankfully!

However, I don't agree that we should be amending the Bill of Rights. There is nothing wrong with them. In my view, they are perfect (except for their punctuation...gives us fits today).

Regarding the "appointment" of Senators...that is how the original Constitution was worded. State legislatures appoint the Senators from their state. The idea was to make the Senators beholden to the State, not the fickle voters directly and certainly not to lobbyists. Voters had an indirect influence on the Senator picks since they voted the legislature into office in the first place. (WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, BUT A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC).

The 17A changed that to a direct vote by the people. Now, Senators are beholden to big money and lobbyists, not necessarily their state's interests.

I support repeal of the 17A and make Senators more responsive to their State Legislature wishes.

 

[Hoodie]

I would note that the Preamble to the Constitution says ..."in order to form a more perfect nation".

It doesn't say "create a Perfect union" because that is nigh impossible.

It is a sad state of affairs that we had to compromise regarding slavery. If not for that compromise, the Republic of the United States of America would't exist.

Ponder this...if the USA didn't exist, what would have been the outcomes of WWI and WWII? What other great deeds of good would have been missing from the last 230 some odd years?

Was the compromise worth it? I say yes!

Did it need to be changed? Absolutely yes!

The Founders' knew it wasn't a perfect document...but it was certainly revolutionary for the period. So they put in a mechanism to amend it, thankfully!

However, I don't agree that we should be amending the Bill of Rights. There is nothing wrong with them. In my view, they are perfect (except for their punctuation...gives us fits today).

Wholeheartedly agree. Acknowledging some of the initial oversights of the document wasn't meant to detract from it's general value. More so to highlight a low-hanging fruit counter argument to complete and total deference to it.

Also appreciate the distinction you posted between arms and ordinance. That's certainly helpful in interpreting the 2A's original intent.

 

[BjornF16]

Pertaining to the wording of the 2A pertaining strictly to the "militia" made up of citizens:

The historical evidence set forth in this work suggests that the Founders had a predilection for both a well regulated militia and an individual right to have arms, and that they envisioned that the two clauses of the Amendment would complement rather than be in tension with each other.

The Crown’s attempts to disarm the colonists as a contributing grievance in the chain of events leading to the American Revolution and the imperative of guaranteeing the right to have arms in bills of rights are themes that pervade the thinking of the Founders’ generation.

The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger ....” If keeping and bearing arms was a “right” only of “the militia, when in actual service,” the Framers certainty would have so stated.

Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognised by the General Government: but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States; From various parts of the Continent the most pleasing accounts are published of reviews and parades in large and small assemblies of the militia.... Such men form the best barrier to the Liberties of America.2

2. Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789, at 211, column 2.

 

[Chucklehead]

My god, this happens every time. The ability to twist shit around.... and the next thing you know....

You obviously haven't read all my posts. In an earlier post I outright condemn marxism.

Addionally, I didn't write that sentence, it appears you just decided to write your own and put quotations around it...quite the job paraphrasing there.

Alright I'm out. Seems like all the good conversation has happened already.

These things tend to happen because the fundamental bases of your two thoughts aren't lining up. I'm not twisting anything.

The post I'm reacted to directly contradicts anything you've may have posted previously. Hence why I responded.

Yes, that isn't your quote. And I wasn't intending to attribute it to you. If I was I would have used the quote box. That quote is, what I believe, the future narritive if those ideoigies manifest themselves the way they did in the 20th century.

And for the record, I believe the left and right both have their place. But I will call out dangerous/flawed ideas as I see them. Identity politics, left or right, ultimately lead to violence. I hope everyone can agree with that.

 

[Newtosavage]

I've already posted what 18th Century definition of "arms" was in another post, but here it is again:

From Noah Webster's 1824 American Dictionary of English Language:

arms - 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. 2. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another. A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

ordnance - noun [from ordinance.] Cannon or great guns, mortars and howitzers; artillery.

firearms - noun plural Arms or weapons which expel their charge by the combustion of powder, as pistols, muskets, etc

pistol - noun A small fire-arm, or the smallest fire-arm used, differing from a musket chiefly in size. Pistols are of different lengths, and borne by horsemen in cases at the saddle bow, or by a girdle. Small pistols are carried in the pocket.

infringe - 1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. 2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

"If the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded."
- Noah Webster

As I suspected, the term "arms" was designed to describe items that a person would use, in his hand, to defend themselves. I'm okay with that list. Musket hunting is certainly easier than hunting with my bows...

It's particularly enlightening that they had the term ordnance at the time, but chose not to use it in the 2A.

Personally, I consider any semi-auto weapons designed for warfare, to in fact be "ordnance" and not "arms."

 

[FLAK]

I may or may not have some neighbors with something in full auto. Makes me smile every time I hear them empty a mag.
Sounds like freedom.

 

[kentuckybowman]

As I suspected, the term "arms" was designed to describe items that a person would use, in his hand, to defend themselves. I'm okay with that list. Musket hunting is certainly easier than hunting with my bows...

It's particularly enlightening that they had the term ordnance at the time, but chose not to use it in the 2A.

Personally, I consider any semi-auto weapons designed for warfare, to in fact be "ordnance" and not "arms."

then i guess you consider free speech to be what can be written on parchment paper or yelled from the town square.

 

[orionthehunter1]

As I suspected, the term "arms" was designed to describe items that a person would use, in his hand, to defend themselves. I'm okay with that list. Musket hunting is certainly easier than hunting with my bows...

It's particularly enlightening that they had the term ordnance at the time, but chose not to use it in the 2A.

Personally, I consider any semi-auto weapons designed for warfare, to in fact be "ordnance" and not "arms."

So the first amendment should only apply to things written in quill pen?