The 2nd Amendment

[spartan]

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

OOOOORRRRRRR........ he evolved?

That's quite a revelation for him to have had in less than 4 months.

You mean like Gay Marriage?

So Washington and Obama are similar in your view? That's perhaps the only positive thing I think you've ever written about the president. 

All deflection aside, your initial premise was that because Washington led a rebellion he supported the right to rebel against the Union. His letter suggests otherwise, and now you are suggesting that his position had changed completely from October of 1786 to February of 1787. Seriously here, spartan, you have to see the absurdity of such a suggestion. All evidence points to the clear position that armed insurrection against the Union was not a supported ideal among the founders.

The rebellion against England was fought due to the lack of representation and say in the direction of their own destiny imposed onto the colonies by British government. By creating their own country under the rule of representative government, they essentially removed from society what they perceived was the cause of their rebellion. The Constitution was written under the assumption that it would eliminate just cause for rebellion in the eyes of the founders. Disputes with the policy and direction of the country were to be taken up in the assembly halls and the voting booth, which is what the founders would have preferred to have done with England rather than a full on rebellion. The Constitution was not written with the notion that a perpetual state of fear of rebellion by the government is a good thing. That's a ridiculous suggestion to make, and there is absolutely no factual evidence that supports such a suggestion. The best any of you have been able to come up with is a bunch of random quotes, that are either used out of context or are not even verifiable to have ever actually been spoken.

Um, if you look back all I have said is that even if what you say is true, just like the current President, in between time A (writing the letter) and Time B (writing the 2nd Amendment) he could have changed his mind.

As for the letter itself, Washington advises that the grievances should be addressed if they are legitimate, if not then the rebellion should be crushed. He then goes onto say that if the grievances are legitimate and they are ignored,  the rebellion will garner more and more support and alludes, legitimately so.

[Dolorous Jason]

The black hole has re-opened after a brief reprieve...

[CBWx2]

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

OOOOORRRRRRR........ he evolved?

That's quite a revelation for him to have had in less than 4 months.

You mean like Gay Marriage?

So Washington and Obama are similar in your view? That's perhaps the only positive thing I think you've ever written about the president. 

All deflection aside, your initial premise was that because Washington led a rebellion he supported the right to rebel against the Union. His letter suggests otherwise, and now you are suggesting that his position had changed completely from October of 1786 to February of 1787. Seriously here, spartan, you have to see the absurdity of such a suggestion. All evidence points to the clear position that armed insurrection against the Union was not a supported ideal among the founders.

The rebellion against England was fought due to the lack of representation and say in the direction of their own destiny imposed onto the colonies by British government. By creating their own country under the rule of representative government, they essentially removed from society what they perceived was the cause of their rebellion. The Constitution was written under the assumption that it would eliminate just cause for rebellion in the eyes of the founders. Disputes with the policy and direction of the country were to be taken up in the assembly halls and the voting booth, which is what the founders would have preferred to have done with England rather than a full on rebellion. The Constitution was not written with the notion that a perpetual state of fear of rebellion by the government is a good thing. That's a ridiculous suggestion to make, and there is absolutely no factual evidence that supports such a suggestion. The best any of you have been able to come up with is a bunch of random quotes, that are either used out of context or are not even verifiable to have ever actually been spoken.

Um, if you look back all I have said is that even if what you say is true, just like the current President, in between time A (writing the letter) and Time B (writing the 2nd Amendment) he could have changed his mind.

As for the letter itself, Washington advises that the grievances should be addressed if they are legitimate, if not then the rebellion should be crushed. He then goes onto say that if the grievances are legitimate and they are ignored,  the rebellion will garner more and more support and alludes, legitimately so.

You might have had a point, if only Washington hadn't have used a standardized, federally controlled militia to put down another rebellion about 5 years later. Suffice it to say, Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion suggests that he didn't change his mind...

Letter from George Washington to Charles M. Thruston: August 10, 1794 (Excerpt, regarding the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania) Philadelphia, August 10, 1794.

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 21st. of June came duly to hand. For the communications contained in it, I thank you....

...[As in Kentucky,] similar attempts to discontent the public mind have been practiced with too much success in some of the Western Counties in this State .... Actual rebellion against the Laws of the United States exist at this moment notwithstanding every lenient measure which could comport with the duties of the public Officers have been exercised to reconcile them to the collection of the taxes upon spirituous liquors and Stills. What may be the consequences of such violent and outrageous proceedings is painful in a high degree even in contemplation. But if the Laws are to be so trampled upon, with impunity, and a minority (a small one too) is to dictate to the majority there is an end put, at one stroke, to republican government; and nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected thereafter; for Some other man, or society may dislike another Law and oppose it with equal propriety until all Laws are prostrate, and every one (the strongest I presume) will carve for himself. Yet, there will be found persons I have no doubt, who, although they may not be hardy enough to justify such open opposition to the Laws, will, nevertheless, be opposed to coercion even if the proclamation and the other temperate measures which are in train by the Executive to avert the dire necessity of a resort to arms, should fail. How far such people may extend their influence, and what may be the consequences thereof is not easy to decide; but this we know, that it is not difficult by concealment of some facts, and the exaggeration of others, (where there is an influence) to bias a well-meaning mind, at least for a time, truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light.

I have a great regard for General Morgan, and respect his military talents, and am persuaded if a fit occasion should occur no one would exert them with more zeal in the service of his country than he would. It is my ardent wish, however, that this Country should remain in Peace as long as the Interest, honour and dignity of it will permit, and its laws, enacted by the Representatives Of the People freely chosen, shall obtain.

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

[Durango 95]

So what part of his shifting position are we at now? Smaller clips and no AR-15's or just do away w/ the 2nd amendment altogether?

[CBWx2]

So what part of his shifting position are we at now? Smaller clips and no AR-15's or just do away w/ the 2nd amendment altogether?

I haven't shifted anything. My argument has been the same from day 1. You, on the other hand, have attempted to change the focus of discussion into about a half dozen different directions. Are we still talking about mental health? Or are we talking about a different random, unrelated statistic that you've decided to toss into the arena?

[Durango 95]

So what part of his shifting position are we at now? Smaller clips and no AR-15's or just do away w/ the 2nd amendment altogether?

I haven't shifted anything. My argument has been the same from day 1. You, on the other hand, have attempted to change the focus of discussion into about a half dozen different directions. Are we still talking about mental health? Or are we talking about a different random, unrelated statistic that you've decided to toss into the arena?

The mental health issue doesn't satiate the demands of your political whim but If you were truly interested in discussing the causation then you would dismount this silly circle jerk of yours and welcome possible causations instead of foolishly trying to read the minds of the founding fathers to suit your own personal agenda at the expense of the kids that were killed. Not one word from you on the studies that have been posted. Instead you deceitfully started a new thread on the second amendment to stay clear of anything that doesn't suit YOUR agenda..

[spartan]

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

Or had the power to differentiate between legitimate rebellion and all and any rebellion? And for the record, it is your opinion that Washington agrees with you. Personally I think you are taking an extreme and narrow viewpoint with no possibility of their being any middle ground.

[spartan]

You know, it really does not matter what people think of the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has already decided all about militias etc, so all discussions should be framed in that perspective.

[Dolorous Jason]

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

If the father of our nation agreed with you we'd still be a colony of Great Britian , you horse's ass.

Only the black hole would attempt to make the argument that the man who LED a rebel army against his countryman , would be against rebellion under any circumstances. LOL.

Brilliant argument. You are really on to something here !

[CBWx2]

So what part of his shifting position are we at now? Smaller clips and no AR-15's or just do away w/ the 2nd amendment altogether?

I haven't shifted anything. My argument has been the same from day 1. You, on the other hand, have attempted to change the focus of discussion into about a half dozen different directions. Are we still talking about mental health? Or are we talking about a different random, unrelated statistic that you've decided to toss into the arena?

The mental health issue doesn't satiate the demands of your political whim but If you were truly interested in discussing the causation then you would dismount this silly circle jerk of yours and welcome possible causations instead of foolishly trying to read the minds of the founding fathers to suit your own personal agenda at the expense of the kids that were killed.

How dare you accuse me of doing anything at the expense of the kids that were killed, you self righteous, hypocritical prick. Let me ask you a question. Is there any reputable evidence that Adam Lanza was actually prescribed any psych medication at the time he committed these shootings? Or perhaps was this a rumor that was picked up on and ran with by those who wish to cast shade on the issue of guns and violence and shift the focus onto something else, like the conservative media and the NRA perhaps?

The police found no prescription meds in Lanza's home, and all sources that Lanza was on any psych meds at the time of the shooting have been discredited. So it would seem that you never really cared as to the actual causation of this event, and simply clung to the meme adopted by those who agree with your personal political viewpoint on this issue.

What I find hysterically hypocritical and outright revealing about your motivations is the fact that you are arguing that a weapons ban is a futile endeavor because you cannot hope to prevent all gun violence by banning firearms, yet have shifted focus on even less obtainable goals, such as ending poverty and resource deprivation and seeking to accurately diagnose and effectively treat 100% of mental health issues.

Of course, the truly revealing part doesn't lie in you suggesting these things, it lies in your framing it as an either/or. As if we as a society have to choose between gun control or fighting poverty and advocating mental health reform. As you are so keen to point out, England has high violent crime rates, even though they have substantially lower murder rates. A logical person would view this and say that you cannot combat one and ignore the other. You have to both control the firearms, and address the social issues that lead to violent crimes. But of course, when the goal is to deflect from the gun control issue to satiate your political agenda, things tend to be framed in either/or fashion rather than a logical, common sense approach involving all of the above.

Not one word from you on the studies that have been posted. Instead you deceitfully started a new thread on the second amendment to stay clear of anything that doesn't suit YOUR agenda..

Actually, I started this thread to have this debate without bringing Sandy Hook into the discussion. You, who ironically have accused me of making arguments "at the expense of the kids who were killed", seem incapable of not constantly bringing them into the debate. What a sad, pathetic road you've decided to travel, Durango.

[CBWx2]

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

If the father of our nation agreed with you we'd still be a colony of Great Britian , you horse's ass.

Do you even know why the Revolutionary War was fought, you imbecile? Odds are on no. I see some made up quotes from the founders getting posted again to set me straight...

[VinBucFan]

You know what is really funny, hilarious if you will.  It is that some folks just feel they own the moral high ground by declaration and from that location they can insult the other side into agreement because they feel they own all the best information.   

lol

[VinBucFan]

In 2010 33,000 committed suicide. 8.5k of them by hanging. Last year, 11.5k people were murdered using a firearm. Therefore, rope is almost as lethal as a gun. Let's ban rope.

32k died in car crashes last year. Lets ban motor vehicles. If we can't, let's ban high capacity coaches. Each time one of them crashes a lot more people die than if it was simply a 5, 6 or 7 seater. If we didn't squeeze so many folks into a single coach, not so many people will die. Just yesterday a high capacity coach crashed killing 9 people and injuring 38 others in Oregon. How long before these death machines are taken off the highways!

Another very funny thing is watching someone so committed to an (untenable) position that they advance ridiculous argument in support of that position.  Spartan, at the risk of stating the obvious:

1. rope serves a non-violent purpose in society
2. cars serve a non-violent purpose in society
3. the only purpose of a gun is to kill things

Here's how tortured the argument has become. Gun advocates such as you acknowledge that "more guns equals more gun violence" yet you don't want to do anything to reduce the number of guns. In fact, a segment of gun advocates actually argue -- and this proves my point about supporting untenable positions --- that the solution to reduce gun violence is to HAVE MORE GUNS.  The "solution" is not, for example, to do away with assault rifles that are used to saw down 6 year olds, the solution is to arm the 6 year olds (lol) well, at least to arm the adults that care for the 6 year olds.

Here, let's just try some simple common sense:

1. The reason that guns are the weapon of choice for armies around the world is because a GUN is a more lethal killer than swords, knives, bows and arrows, baseball bats etc.  Guns are the most effective  INTENTIONAL killing weapon commonly available in society

2. Guns are also the most lethal ACCIDENTAL killer of humans (out of the universe of weapons). A child playing with a baseball bat is unlikely to get killed even though a baseball bat can kill. That same child is much more likely to die playing with a loaded gun.

3. Guns are also the most lethal weapon for CRIMES OF PASSION (crimes that may not be committed but for a temporary frame of mind)  A drunk angry man is more likely to be successful killing his "cheating wife"  or her "boyfriend" with a gun then with a knife or a bat.  Can he kill her with both the knife and the bat? Sure, but the gun is more lethal.

4. Because #1 and #2 and #3  are true, simple common sense says MORE GUNS EQUALS MORE DEATH.  You don't need a Harvard study to tell you that, although they exist.  The more guns that exist in society the higher the number of deaths BECAUSE guns are very efficient at causing death whether INTENTIONALLY, ACCIDENTALLY or by CRIME OF PASSION. Can other weapons be lethal? Yes, but guns are the most lethal. That is the very essemce of a gun.

5. Add to this that guns are DEMONSTRABLY more efficient at mass murder than other commonly-available weapons. This simple undeniable truth should be obvious if for not other reason than that the killers of Columbine, VA Tech, the Batman premier and Newtown ALL CHOSE GUNS to perform their deed to great "success." Can someone fashion a bomb? Sure, but that takes some expertise. It only takes money to buy a gun and indeed many guns are sold on the basis that they are easy to use.

So here's the question: How in the world can anyone argue with a straight face that the "solution" is to have more guns? That the solution is to have more guns so more people can be armed to stop people like Adam Lanza?  Isn't it OBVIOUS  -- that's right OBVIOUS -- that what ever defensive benefit might be gained by arming everyone in society, it would be offset or potentially eliminated by the undeniable truth of #1,2,3 and 4 above. Arm everyone and we may stop the next Adam Lanza, but more children will die happening across a loaded gun by accident, more people will use an EFFECTIVE gun to kill someone in a CRIME OF PASSION, more people (who did not have guns before) will use guns to INTENTIONALLY KILL others.

MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH.  No one says that we have to take away every gun, but why in the world should we NOT reduce the number? So a small group of people can enjoy target practice? So an even smaller group of people can feel "secure" about the impending apocalypse?  Sorry, from a common sense perspective, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[mwk]

You know, it really does not matter what people think of the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has already decided all about militias etc, so all discussions should be framed in that perspective.

Spartan,

And what happens when Obama gets to appoint 2 or more Supreme Court Judges during this term?

mwk

[dbucfan]

You know what is really funny, hilarious if you will.  It is that some folks just feel they own the moral high ground by declaration and from that location they can insult the other side into agreement because they feel they own all the best information.   

lol

gesundheit