http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny
Pensacola Discussion Forum
Sal wrote:Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
Actually, quite the contrary;
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”
It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
2seaoat wrote:I think an even higher percentage agree with justice Scalia that we can put restrictions and conditions on gun ownership......the background check restriction unanimity suggests that there is more in common than the alleged zero sum game of win everything....or lose everything......the middle is comfortable, and allows folks to keep their guns, and promotes improved safety.
2seaoat wrote:
I disagree. There is absolutely no constitutional constraint on requiring trigger locks, and you jump from the overbroad DC law to a specific conclusion which in fact was not the stated position of the court. I agree anybody can file a lawsuit. However, a properly drafted gun safety restrictions which is backed by sound scientific evidence that trigger locks save lives, when put into a proper context will allow congress to pass the same and in fact the Supreme Court will support the same. There absolutely is no precedent which bars congress from passing a safety law which involves trigger locks......none.
I would argue that Congress would only need to meet the rational basis test, but after congressional hearings and proper review of the data, they can easily meet the compelling state interest test, which is a higher standard afforded to fundamental rights, or in this case a right specifically set out in the second amendment.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery[/quote[/url]]Sal wrote:Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
Actually, quite the contrary;
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”
It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.
[url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
2seaoat wrote:Seaoat's mind is made up. He won't rescind his opinion despite FACTS being presented.
I am probably more familiar with this case than anybody on this forum.....I did not misspeak. I have consistently talked about trigger locks, chips, dynamic foid cards and control modules in vehicles because in fact I know these cases. First, please read the cases very carefully.....please look at the clear insertion.....as applied to self defense. Please read very carefully my discussion of the rational basis test and compelling state interest test and understand them before you try to interpret a case by simply reading into something which is not there.
First, we are not talking of requiring a gun to be taken apart. This is logical, and the government would be rendering a person without defense.....the supreme court is clear.....however.....nowhere does the Supreme Court ban biometric trigger locks which in no way hinder the use of a trigger by a person authorized to use that weapon. Biometric finger identification system allow for instant firing of the weapon, but more importantly the reason I have focused on the automobile as the control point is the very argument raised from the link I provided on the history of the second amendment going back to middle ages in England. However, to tie a bad and poorly written bill in DC which banned handguns and basically made a homeowner take their gun apart, or delay that person from using it in defense of their home......well we all can agree the Supreme Court is correct.
A biometric trigger locks which meets the compelling state interest test is available today, and the stats can back its safety and if congress passed the same, it would have unanimous support from the court because it would meet the test of Heller. More importantly the reason that I chose the nexus of gun safety at the vehicle level is that the Supreme Court has consistently used the rational basis test, and not the compelling state interest test when applying the same to conditions and privileges for driving......with weapons.
No Heller and Mac corrected overreach when hand guns were banned in their entirety, and when regulations hindered the core concept of self defense, and a non intrusive biometric trigger lock which only allows authorized folks to shoot the same are consistent with Heller, will not be overturned, and are smart and the proper course for this nation. I bet in five years we will be close to my model.....and biometric trigger locks will be part of that solution.
knothead wrote:Sal wrote:Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
Actually, quite the contrary;
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”
It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
*********************************************************
Very Interesting . . . . . learned something!
2seaoat wrote:Something false...but not surprising you chugged down the Kool Aid.
I would agree with you if it was offered as the whole answer....it is but one part of the answer.....nonetheless an important component, but the English traditions must be factored in which deal with the use of militias to challenge the king, the core concept of self defense, and a very angry group of colonist who had been abused by standing armies whose leaders had selectively taken away the rights of certain people to own arms....particularly catholics....as a means of controlling a portion of the population.....no there are many considerations which bring us answers to the 2nd amendment.....all of which are not too relevant, unless the US Supreme Court puts its faith in one of the many parts of what made up the 2nd amendment. Right now the standard is self defense....a concept going back to middle age England, and one that the Courts have been affirming and limiting governments right to ban.....but conditions and restrictions have always been on the table and Congress must be precise....they must foremost have honest sportsmen involved in the process....not gun merchants as the main impetus......common sense will prevail.
2seaoat wrote:My biometric control to open my computer 10 years ago cost $59 from a company call digitalpersona......I believe. My guess, as I have argued since the shooting, that it will take about a decade to properly implement the safety measures in vehicles and guns. The biometric trigger locks are available today. If the government gave a simple 100% tax credit on each trigger lock which was approved, my guess the initial cost would be under $100 per gun with a dollar for dollar credit at tax time.
Biometric controls have limits to the number of people approved. I had 10 fingers which I could register. My wife took five and I took five. A gun tied into a foid card, biometric trigger, and properly chipped would cut unauthorized and immediate shootings down dramatically. My guess in a decade between guns and vehicles we could save 25k people a year. Again, if you read my original proposal, I am not asking to ban guns, but simply keep guns in authorized hands. The idea that any of the recent Supreme Court cases will stop this march to safety is absurd. Poorly written arrogant laws which do not work are properly overturned by the court. Please do not misread, however the courts clearly will allow restrictions and conditions ....they will....they always have been allowed, but the state must show a compelling state interest usually which well thought out and simple statute....and the integration of state of the art technology which gets us where we have to go. The problem is that it must be gun owners, and those who love guns leading in this march to sanity....not gun merchants, or people who have never fired a weapon.
PACEDOG#1 wrote:2seaoat wrote:Something false...but not surprising you chugged down the Kool Aid.
I would agree with you if it was offered as the whole answer....it is but one part of the answer.....nonetheless an important component, but the English traditions must be factored in which deal with the use of militias to challenge the king, the core concept of self defense, and a very angry group of colonist who had been abused by standing armies whose leaders had selectively taken away the rights of certain people to own arms....particularly catholics....as a means of controlling a portion of the population.....no there are many considerations which bring us answers to the 2nd amendment.....all of which are not too relevant, unless the US Supreme Court puts its faith in one of the many parts of what made up the 2nd amendment. Right now the standard is self defense....a concept going back to middle age England, and one that the Courts have been affirming and limiting governments right to ban.....but conditions and restrictions have always been on the table and Congress must be precise....they must foremost have honest sportsmen involved in the process....not gun merchants as the main impetus......common sense will prevail.
We have a POTUS who thinks he is King unfortunately.
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|