The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

[spartan]

There is no need to repeal it, nor do I support such a thing. I have no problem with arms being owned for the purposes of security. But the question is, what is appropriate for the purposes of security? I'm not suggesting that the 2nd amendment is an all or nothing concept. That's what your side seems to be doing.

Repealing the 2nd and banning pretty much everything is the only thing that will prevent the events of last week from happening again.

No it isn't.

So what is your proposal then?

Edit: And would you ban this?

[olafberserker]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong.

jesus, spin and spin and spin

[CBWx2]

There is no need to repeal it, nor do I support such a thing. I have no problem with arms being owned for the purposes of security. But the question is, what is appropriate for the purposes of security? I'm not suggesting that the 2nd amendment is an all or nothing concept. That's what your side seems to be doing.

Repealing the 2nd and banning pretty much everything is the only thing that will prevent the events of last week from happening again.

No it isn't.

So what is your proposal then?

Stricter regulations on the manufacturing and proliferation of firearms  and ammunition. It is unnecessary for weapons to be sold to individuals that are designed for the swift killing of dozens of people in a matter of seconds, nor is it necessary for individuals to own a personal armory. People should own firearms for hunting game or for their own security as stated in the constitution, not in anticipation of a war against their government, or to shoot off for fun. Guns are tools aimed at inflicting deadly force, not toys. We should start treating them as such. Seems like a good place to start.

Edit: And would you ban this?

Don't know. What are the specs?

[CBWx2]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong.

jesus, spin and spin and spin

How is this spin, olaf? What do you suggest Washington's position was based on the comments posted? Here's yet another chance to prove yourself capable of presenting an insightful and fact based argument. I am not hopeful, but I'm sure one day you will surprise me. The sun shines on a dogs ass every once in awhile.

[CBWx2]

I'd also add that it is irrelevant to the purposes of this discussion whether or not some think that an assault weapons ban, or a semi-automatic firearms ban would be effective in eliminating mass shootings. This is a subjective opinion that isn't based on any fact or statistical data, because there isn't even any legislation in congress at the moment in which to base this assessment on. Simply looking at the previous ban is insufficient, because all that is required is different language in a new bill to illicit an entirely different outcome.

What is being argued here, is not what the effects of a ban will do, but whether or not a ban is constitutional, or an infringement on the 2nd amendment and sufficient cause for revolt. I know spartan, that you have conceded that it is constitutional, however, many on this message board seem to think it within their constitutional right to open fire on federal authorities that come to enforce a federal ordinance. History suggests that this assertion is beyond asinine.

[Biggs3535]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

[olafberserker]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong.

jesus, spin and spin and spin

How is this spin, olaf? What do you suggest Washington's position was based on the comments posted? Here's yet another chance to prove yourself capable of presenting an insightful and fact based argument. I am not hopeful, but I'm sure one day you will surprise me. The sun shines on a dogs ass every once in awhile.

you wouldn't know an insightful post if it smacked you in the face ...... spin, spin, spin

[olafberserker]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

it's just another attempt at a circle jerk argument to avoid that fact that he can't back up his original one

[spartan]

I'd also add that it is irrelevant to the purposes of this discussion whether or not some think that an assault weapons ban, or a semi-automatic firearms ban would be effective in eliminating mass shootings. This is a subjective opinion that isn't based on any fact or statistical data, because there isn't even any legislation in congress at the moment in which to base this assessment on. Simply looking at the previous ban is insufficient, because all that is required is different language in a new bill to illicit an entirely different outcome.

What is being argued here, is not what the effects of a ban will do, but whether or not a ban is constitutional, or an infringement on the 2nd amendment and sufficient cause for revolt. I know spartan, that you have conceded that it is constitutional, however, many on this message board seem to think it within their constitutional right to open fire on federal authorities that come to enforce a federal ordinance. History suggests that this assertion is beyond asinine.

Which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a proposed ban or not, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment. If a ban is implemented and existing weapons also made illegal it is a personal choice if those people wish to comply or not. Just as it is peoples choice whether to comply with existing laws now or not.

At least we know what you want now and that is a ban of every semi automatic weapon.

[CBWx2]

I'd also add that it is irrelevant to the purposes of this discussion whether or not some think that an assault weapons ban, or a semi-automatic firearms ban would be effective in eliminating mass shootings. This is a subjective opinion that isn't based on any fact or statistical data, because there isn't even any legislation in congress at the moment in which to base this assessment on. Simply looking at the previous ban is insufficient, because all that is required is different language in a new bill to illicit an entirely different outcome.

What is being argued here, is not what the effects of a ban will do, but whether or not a ban is constitutional, or an infringement on the 2nd amendment and sufficient cause for revolt. I know spartan, that you have conceded that it is constitutional, however, many on this message board seem to think it within their constitutional right to open fire on federal authorities that come to enforce a federal ordinance. History suggests that this assertion is beyond asinine.

Which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a proposed ban or not, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment. If a ban is implemented and existing weapons also made illegal it is a personal choice if those people wish to comply or not. Just as it is peoples choice whether to comply with existing laws now or not.

The emboldened section is 100% correct. For example, it is a drug dealer's choice to comply with law enforcement or open fire on DEA agents in a drug raid. But the drug dealer isn't claiming a constitutional right not to comply with drug laws. Those who threaten revolt at the passage and enforcement of an assault weapons ban are.

At least we know what you want now and that is a ban of every semi automatic weapon.

I haven't really kept it a secret, but perhaps it was missed in the other thread.

[mwk]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[Chief Joseph]

The sun shines on a dogs ass every once in awhile.

I recommend you use sun block.

[CBWx2]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

Nothing at all, except for the inconvenient fact that had he believed the 2nd amendment to have provided these men with the constitutional right to rebel against the government, he probably wouldn't have written it.

[CBWx2]

it's just another attempt at a circle jerk argument to avoid that fact that he can't back up his original one

Yeah, because you've done such a stellar job at proving that I haven't backed up my original argument. Also, if you are going to steal my insult, at least use it correctly.