Yet more random thoughts... put 'em here

Anyone who thinks it’s not possible to repeal amendments is sadly mistaken as it’s happened multiple times.
Which multiple times would that be? Pulling Prohibition only counts as once.
 
Only point I was trying to make is, possible, it’s just not likely.
That my friend, was part of the debate that went on in Philadelphia. If the delegates to the Constitutional Convention just went there to rubber stamp an already assembled document, the Constitution would have read verbatim from the Federalist Papers.
 
Last edited:
Just reading that 3\5ths law is like a step back in time and strange to read in 2019. But it was real at one time.

I realize times have changed and the debate on the thread has progressed beyond that. Just scroll on by and carry on.
 
@r3gulator3 isn't completely off the mark about the 3/5th's though, as it was removed via the 13th Amendment.

Just reading that 3\5ths law is like a step back in time and strange to read in 2019. But it was real at one time.

I realize times have changed and the debate on the thread has progressed beyond that. Just scroll on by and carry on.
It was the best compromise the largely anti-slavery northern states could get to help keep the South from totally dominating National politics (in their bid to preserve slavery.) Even with it, the South still dominated until the Civil War, although not as much as the South had hoped, as the northern states grew at a faster rate. That growth trend continued as the Second Industrial Revolution reached full steam, drawing more immigrants to the northern (and later midwestern) cities where industry was concentrated.
 
@r3gulator3 isn't completely off the mark about the 3/5th's though, as it was removed via the 13th Amendment.


It was the best compromise the largely anti-slavery northern states could get to help keep the South from totally dominating National politics (in their bid to preserve slavery.) Even with it, the South still dominated until the Civil War, although not as much as the South had hoped, as the northern states grew at a faster rate. That growth trend continued as the Second Industrial Revolution reached full steam, drawing more immigrants to the northern (and later midwestern) cities where industry was concentrated.
The premise of the argument is that the consequences of the Civil War should have every gun owner scared that Big Brother is coming to take their hawglegs away.

Huh???

After all the blood and destruction of those 5 years, how could the government walk away without the Reconstruction Era Amendments? The fact that they passed has more to do with the timing of their passage than anything else: representatives of the South were not reseated in the Congress until well after their ratification, and the Southern states were not consulted since their status was in limbo. Of course the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed and ratified!

That has nothing to do with the paranoia of the gun lobby over attempts to regulate gun violence in the cities, and the over-the-top response of the NRA. There are far too many gun owners among both sides for repealing the 2nd Amendment to ever gain popular support, despite the braying of certain prominent politicians.
 
Last edited:
There are far too many gun owners among both sides for repealing the 2nd Amendment to ever gain popular support, despite the braying of certain prominent politicians.
They don't have to repeal it. They can just ignore it like they've been doing all along.
 
They don't have to repeal it. They can just ignore it like they've been doing all along.
I hadn't noticed that the states were prevented from establishing and maintaining a militia (national guard.)

Oh! That's right! Your precious, non-activist, originalist SCOTUS has redefined the meaning of the Amendment into some kind of individual right which the authors never intended. Then all y'all dumbazz gun nuts came along, and assume that means it's a blanket right for you to own and brandish any kind of projectile weapon without regard to the safety and security of anyone else in society.

Pardon the rest of us. Our children are busy doing duck and cover exercises in their classrooms today. Since they cant be secure enough to study reading, writing or arithmetic because you might be inconvenienced.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't noticed that the states were prevented from establishing and maintaining a militia (national guard.)

Oh! That's right! Your precious, non-activist, originalist SCOTUS has redefined the meaning of the Amendment into some kind of individual right which the authors never intended. Then all y'all dumbazz gun nuts came along, and assume that means it's a blanket right for you to own and brandish any kind of projectile weapon without regard to the safety and security of anyone else in society.

Pardon the rest of us. Our children are busy doing duck and cover exercises in their classrooms today. Since they cant be secure enough to study reading, writing or arithmetic because you might be inconvenienced.
Your wrong here in one way. The amendment is for an individual to bear arms. Exactly what it was intended for. The forefathers never saw us allowing ourselves to be ran by the corrupt ass system we have now. Backed up by one of the better armed forces on the planet.

It is still possible to to add and remove amendments in the constitution. It IS and ALWAYS will be possible. It’s just not likely. That is the only point being made. You want to be complacent and let a government that doesn’t give a **** about you make all your life choices...go for it hoss. You’re obviously way smarter than anyone alive on this rock.
 
Your wrong here in one way. The amendment is for an individual to bear arms. Exactly what it was intended for. The forefathers never saw us allowing ourselves to be ran by the corrupt ass system we have now. Backed up by one of the better armed forces on the planet.

It is still possible to to add and remove amendments in the constitution. It IS and ALWAYS will be possible. It’s just not likely. That is the only point being made. You want to be complacent and let a government that doesn’t give a **** about you make all your life choices...go for it hoss. You’re obviously way smarter than anyone alive on this rock.
You need to read some history, instead of taking the NRAs bullshit talking points as truth.

The Constitutional Convention was worried about a standing national army overthrowing the government, and wanted a citizen's militia to defend the country. The 2nd Amendment reserved the government's right to form a militia.
 
You need to read some history, instead of taking the NRAs bullshit talking points as truth.

The Constitutional Convention was worried about a standing national army overthrowing the government, and wanted a citizen's militia to defend the country. The 2nd Amendment reserved the government's right to form a militia.
I have read history. You need to not be a grumpy old ass who has to be right about everything.
 
Let’s break this down.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (now days known as the national guard. They are a state ran militia and not a fed ran militia. While they may be trained by the Fed national guard is funded by state)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (For the people not the militia, pretty plain English.)
 
Let’s break this down.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (now days known as the national guard. They are a state ran militia and not a fed ran militia. While they may be trained by the Fed national guard is funded by state)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (For the people not the militia, pretty plain English.)
Let's break it down: It's one of the most horribly composed statements every committed against the English language. The predicate appearing before the subject pretty much muddies the entire meaning of the statement, and has allowed people to read whatever they want into it - including what you're posting right now.

The debate at the Philadelphia Convention clearly shows the authors (it wasn't Madison) were referring to the establishment of a militia. What is recorded of the debate, and the letters of the participants make that abundantly clear.

Now I'm going to agree with you....

You can't have an armed civilian militia if the boys don't show up with their guns. The major reason this is so confused some 230 years later is that the founders could not conceive of a world where citizens would turn those guns on each other because they are POd that mommy didn't hug them enough, they are POd because women won't give them any, they're POd because the religion /color/ creed of those fellow citizens is somehow offending to them, etc., and we just might want to restrict ownership of machine guns or whatever in downtown NYC/Chicago/etc, or that little Johnny is a sick puppy and shouldn't have access to weapons.

A gun to them was a tool just like a hammer/axe/shovel. *Common Sense* said you are a human being in a frontier society with dangerous animals or hostile people around - you owned and carried a gun.

Madison thought even the desire to have words establishing the Bill of Rights written down was so ridiculous that it was tantamount to retarded stupidity. This stuff was just so evident by the nature of the world and society, that it didn't need to be written down.

In the 21st Century, SCOTUS has declared by judicial fiat. that it means the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Because of the current makeup of the court, that interpretation is unlikely to change for the rest of our lives.
 
A gun to them was a tool just like a hammer/axe/shovel.

This is how I was raised, in a farm family. It’s protecting your heard from predators, it’s putting food on the table when money is tight, and it’s a last resort means to protect your patch of dirt. And up until probably the early 60s that was how it was viewed. The tool didn’t change, the people did. A claw hammer in the hands of the wrong person can be just as deadly. Now, do I think average joe civilian should be able to own class 2 weapons. I think it ridiculous that they would want to. Who hunts deer with an M249, M240B, a full auto mack10 or the like? No one. Now for competition shooters sure I can see an exemption made. But if we limit that then the thought process is that opens the door to a standard rifle or shotgun and that is why far right factions like the NRA are so against it.
 
The word "People" appears numerous times in the Bill of Rights. Those who are averse to individual ownership of firearms claim that only in the Second Amendment, "People" does not mean individuals. If "People" means "Individuals" in all of the other Amendments in which the word is used, it's pretty obvious that "People" also means "Individuals" in the Second.

When the Amendment was written, the People were the militia. And the militia (the People) were the defense of a free state. It was specifically written to prevent tyranny by a large central government.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Top