BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
First they came for the 2nd amendment, then they came for the 1st, 4th, 5th and others. The founders were pretty clear that in those days a militia wasn't some huge army. They were also unequivocal in their other writings about the fact that the 2nd is pretty dogmatic. As should be the 1st. The 1st is being usurped by PC and speech codes and the like. But this only happened after the 2nd has been under attack for years. Myself, I'll take one full helpful of the whole damn Bill of Rights. I don't think there is much gray when it comes to either of these (or any of them), else you end up on a slippery slope that ultimately leads to tyranny. The Founders were also pretty clear that it wasn't self-defense just against bandits, but against tyrannical government. It's a lot easier to strip further rights when no one is armed or when you know who is armed and precisely what they have and where they have it.
The 1st and 2nd amendments originally were tied together. But that many people had all sorts of opposing arguments. Its not like today, were you might see just two opposing sides on the debate of an issue. It was like a seven way argument. The history books show that these people tried a few more different ways of incorporating the concepts of the 1st and 2nd together, before agreeing on making it two separate amendments (a compromise?). I recall reading about each of the versions, and that the original ideas are very different from the final drafting before the signing.
The idea of the militia was not to be a standing army. Then again, women couldn't vote and blacks were worth 3/5th of whites. The militia was set up as a local unit of those in the town. Cites would have several militia-like units based in their localized area. And that these groups can be called up to band together to operate as a larger unit against what ever threat was before the good citizens; domestically or foreign. In 'today's terms', such an idea would be both unpractical and more expensive, than if we had a standing military force to handle foreign issues; and police forces to handle domestic.
The 1st amendment has had to contend with the change of culture, technology, and the manner in which ideas could be conversed. The founding fathers would not have been able to fore-tell how radio and television, let alone, the Internet would change America's ability to communicate. However the 2nd doesn't follow the same idea. If we are using the 18th century idea of the 2nd and not the modern day; the only firearms a US Citizens could have protected by federal bans/restrictions, would be those belonging to a standing militia in good standing with the state (...well regulated...). People want to ignore the first half the 2nd because its inconvenient to their argument. How about the FBI ignores the first half the 1st amendment, and see what happens? The second half of that amendment is directly tied to the first half. The amendment doesn't mention whether or not someone could have a gun for hunting, since that would be covered under state laws and regulations.
So hypothetically speaking, if you were a member of an actual "...well regulated militia..." and had two guns (one for your duties in the militia and the other for hunting). The first would be protected under the 2nd and the second arm would not be; UNLESS, you could prove the second firearm is used in your duties as part of the militia (good luck). People didn't have a problem with other people having firearms back in those days. So there was never really a need to distinguish between the two roles of the firearm. As in some cases the arm used for hunting was ALSO used in their duties of the militia. In modern day, a hunting rifle and an assault rifle have definitions on how they are classified and different from the other. Most people do not go hunting with assault rifles.
The Founding Fathers were very clear on the nature of the militia. They wanted an actual military force, but needed some way to navigate around it for the 'low information voters' of that time not to realize. While its a popular idea to say the 2nd was to protect the nation from a tyrannical government taking form. In practical terms, it was to handle problems on a larger scale that just one sheriff. We don't see highwayman, bandits, mass Indian attacks, nor foreign powers invading our lands do we? We have many '...well regulated militia...' groups to oppose those forces.
Finally, no one is stripping anyone of their rights (unless you happen to be the GOP/TP on voting issues). As I said, if you ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment and reinterpret the second half anyway you want; yes, individuals could have firearms. And as I pointed out, if we (or the government) can ignore the first half and reinterpret the second half of the 2nd amendment, could we do that for other amendments. And I even asked how many here would we 'ok' with the first 2/3rds of the 8th being ignored and the remainder reinterpreted by the government. Didn't see one person say "Hell yeah, that's a good idea"! If we cant do it on the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights, nor the other sixteen amendments that follow, we cant do it for the 2nd....EITHER!
This again.
You ignore the fact that everyone involved in writing the 2nd disagrees with you.
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine
People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|
RE: Punched in face after admitting he was UNarmed - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread