Welcome to Gaia! ::


Wendigo
[

They don't want te federal government to have any control of a large standing force. Period. The citizens do not trust a large standing force until just before ww2. Then we had a large standing for. The militias are not for the federal government it is for the states. As the states should have more power then the federal government.
Read a little farther in the Constitution. Congress can call it into federal service, and the President can command it - like the National Guard, which it was replaced by. Among the reasons, to prevent what you were describing earlier, the "people fighting against a tyrannical government," or in other words, an "insurrection."

As for the states being stronger than the federal government, we did indeed try that...until 1789, when the current Constitution replaced it.

What your speaking of is true they can be federalized now. Not then. It wasn't until after the civil war in which a standing army was then desired. The original intent no, the militias was for the states to loan to the federal overestimated if requested which it could deny such as taxes. Which was changed again. Still doesn't stop the fact that states were intended to maintain full rights over governing over its people. The second amendment still maintains that the people have control over its government by having the same fire power as it does to a degree. In today's army yes the national guard can be federalized very quickly when DoD requests it. Back before the civil war yeah had to request from the states.
And yes the militias were called up to fight insurrection within the states amazing what being a state entity you have to put that stuff down for social order. This argument is truly about the fact that the federal government has taken too many rights from states and is subsequently trying to take complete control over everyone. Which is a bad thing. Thus the second amendment is there so we the people can fight against that kind of abuse.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
iamzergling

What your speaking of is true they can be federalized now. Not then. It wasn't until after the civil war in which a standing army was then desired.

Now you're just talking garbage. Article 1, Section 8, unchanged since the original document:

Quote:
Under "Powers of Congress"
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


Article 2, Section 2, also unchanged:

Quote:
Under "Powers of the President"
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


Quote:

The original intent no, the militias was for the states to loan to the federal overestimated if requested which it could deny such as taxes. Which was changed again. Still doesn't stop the fact that states were intended to maintain full rights over governing over its people.
That was changed because the Articles of Confederation led to bankruptcy and revolt. It was replaced with the Constitution we have now, the one ratified in 1789, the supreme law of the land. If you think that the law should be something else, hold a Constitutional Convention. It's provided for in the Constitution.

A "well-regulated militia" just ain't what you think it is. It never was.

Quote:
This argument is truly about the fact that the federal government has taken too many rights from states and is subsequently trying to take complete control over everyone.
No, what this argument is about is a bunch of Neo-Confederate bologna that's been floating around since the Confederacy lost a war they started to keep their slaves.
Once again you are wrong in many ways. Powers of the president can bring up a militia yes like I said it was not intended to. Militia is a state organization. Yes the president can say yes I want this unit the state can say ******** you. Like I've been saying.
Two your statement on neoconfederates is quiet humorous as I'm not one for the confederacy even though the civil war was over states rights not slavery as you believe. Slavery wasn't even on the minds of people when it began. It began over taxation of the Souths products and it going to northern causes. Slavery was for te most part contained in the south and not a big issue. It wasn't until the north was losing the war that to gain public support it shifted to a we shall free the slaves. So again wanting states rights is not a new thing as founding fathers desired it. The whole militia argument doesn't matter as yes in this day the president does federalize national guard. Gun rights are for the citizens to fight the federal government just like the south did in the 1860s. They legally succeeded from the union and the union wanted to stay together thus the civil war. As I stated again I do not sympathize with the south I just actually have researched this topic throughly. Though I can not currently post the sources I would suggest looking at the legacy of Lincoln and research a lot.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
iamzergling
Two your statement on neoconfederates is quiet humorous as I'm not one for the confederacy even though the civil war was over states rights not slavery as you believe. Slavery wasn't even on the minds of people when it began.
You find the one that doesn't mention slaves and slavery for me.

I recommend CTRL F for slave, and then reading the sentences in which the word or some variant appears.

Conservative Genius

8,925 Points
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Partygoer 500
The first thing to understand is that guns are not the cause of violence in society. They may be facilitators, but behind the gun is a person. And people are products of their environment. So if the person is desperate and cannot make ends meet as a result of his material conditions, chances are that person will turn to crime. And crime rises proportionally to social inequality. Thus why the most unequal societies are the most violent and crime-ridden.

So taking guns away from people merely sidesteps the real issue at hand, AND it gives the state a monopoly on violence, which, as we have seen, they do not hesitate to use, even in regards to peaceful protesters. So if they can hurt and kill us, it makes sense that they do not want us to be able to fight back. Thus why gun control is a reactionary and statist policy.

To summarize, gun control is not the answer. The end of capitalism and the inequalities it aggravates, as well as the state and its monopoly on violence, is.

Conservative Dabbler

Dermezel2
Years ago a study/article was published in the law review noting that the Second Amendment was largely a tool to enforce slavery.

I'm not trusting a source that calls itself "the vast left-wing conspiracy."

Quote:
Now we have the Zimmerman trial, and at the same time, an African-American Florida woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison, after a mere 12 minutes of deliberation for firing the gun into the air to scare an abusive husband after invoking the "Stand your Ground" law: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

Yep, terrible.

Quote:
Quote:
Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.

Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation.

Warning shots don't legally exist and there was no evidence of abuse. Therefore, the sentence was legally proper, but still sad.

Quote:
To quote excerpts of the study:

Quote:
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. 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 planniheg 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."

The history provided seems factually accurate, except for the first paragraph. A state to the framers was a country. The article is so misleading its hilarious. Like this gem, where the author interjects explanations for statements despite these explanations not being accurate: "If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]." This is wrong. He was referring to Shay's Rebellion, which was a rebellion of soldiers, not slaves. This alone is enough for me to dismiss this whole article.

Quote:
It seems as though while many things have changed, the Second Amendment seems to still serve primarily as a tool of bigotry and oppression.

No reason to believe this whatsoever. If anything, it seems it is Stand Your Ground that is a tool for bigotry and oppression. Of course, it isn't necessarily, but whatever. Since we're deluding ourselves, let's go ahead and keep doing it!


That would be the people's fault, not the constitutional right's fault. That's like blaming the first amendment for people having racist beliefs.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Minor note; the Shays rebellion wasn't strictly "by soldiers," although Shays and others involved had fought in the revolution and been paid in scrip. It was a revolt by smaller land-owners against the state's attempts to levy taxes in hard coin to pay debts owed after the revolution. Which naturally rubbed veterans like Shays the wrong way. Rubbed everybody else the wrong way too, though.

Whiskey Rebellion, also by farmers.

Unlikely that we'd have any rebellions like that again, no farmers anymore.

Shameless Heckler

12,225 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Wendigo
iamzergling
Two your statement on neoconfederates is quiet humorous as I'm not one for the confederacy even though the civil war was over states rights not slavery as you believe. Slavery wasn't even on the minds of people when it began.
You find the one that doesn't mention slaves and slavery for me.

I recommend CTRL F for slave, and then reading the sentences in which the word or some variant appears.


You are playing semantics here, At the time these documents were written there was a gag order baring the mere mention of the word slave, slavery or any variation thereof in official documents, and all such documents would be tabled, preventing them from being read of discussed.
Dermezel2
Just a quick question, how are you relating the stand your ground law to the second amendment being racist?

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
washu_2004

You are playing semantics here, At the time these documents were written there was a gag order baring the mere mention of the word slave, slavery or any variation thereof in official documents, and all such documents would be tabled, preventing them from being read of discussed.
Discussed in what, now?

Shameless Heckler

12,225 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Wendigo
washu_2004

You are playing semantics here, At the time these documents were written there was a gag order baring the mere mention of the word slave, slavery or any variation thereof in official documents, and all such documents would be tabled, preventing them from being read of discussed.
Discussed in what, now?


Read the article in the link ...

here is the text of the rule in question.

Quote:
Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way or to any extent whatever to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon.


link

Thus the official declarations of succession would not contain references to the gagged subjects since this would of rendered them invalid. On a related note this rule was put forward by pro-slavery politicians in order to stifle debate on the topic by preventing the numerous petitions asking for abolition or stricter regulation of slavery being presented from being acted upon.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
washu_2004

Read the article in the link ...

here is the text of the rule in question.
What I want to know is how rules for discussions in Congress are relevant to the declarations of the causes of secession.

These are documents that never touched Congress, nor even passed by especially close. State legislatures, y'know. One might as well apply the Parliamentary debate rules to the Declaration of Independence. (Not to link the 19th century secession movement to the revolution, as the revolution at least had legitimate grievances.)

Quote:
Thus the official declarations of succession would not contain references to the gagged subjects since this would of rendered them invalid.
I will suggest to you what I suggested to your friend there. CTRL F. South Carolina mentions slavery literally in the first sentence, Georgia in the second, Mississippi at the start of the second paragraph, and Texas in the third paragraph, after explaining that it's a sovereign nation with an in-built right to secede. (Which is dubious, as it was originally a rebellious chunk of Mexico.)
The 2nd Amendment is certainly not a tool of oppression and racism.


I believe you'll find that gun control, however, has deeply racist roots.

This Reconstruction Era law in Louisiana is a perfect example:

Quote:
"No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and endorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol."


Later, because laws could not explicitly prohibit gun ownership by blacks, due to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1875, more subtle methods were employed in order to keep blacks disarmed.

In the case of the Gun Control Act of 1968, one provision of the law was a ban on the importation of small, inexpensive handguns. It didn’t apply to domestically manufactured firearms, but at the time that market was served almost exclusively by imports. As noted by Roy Innis, of the Congress of Racial Equality, this law had the same malicious intent as its Reconstruction Era predecessor:

Quote:
“To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you’re putting a money test on getting a gun. It’s racism in its worst form.”



Former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley had some views on the subject:

“Outside the suburbs in the city, we have control, but what the hell, in the suburbs, there are — you go out to all around our suburbs and you’ve got people out there, especially the non-white, are buying guns right and left. Shotguns and rifles and pistols and everything else. There’s no registration. … There’s no, and you know, they’ve had trouble with this national gun law, but after the president’s assassination, someone ought to do something.”



Additionally, the 2nd Amendment was referenced in the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, which denied US citizenship to African Americans.

Quote:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.



I would also point you towards the story of The Deacons For Defense And Justice and their role in the Civil Rights Movement.
Sohisohi
Dermezel2
Just a quick question, how are you relating the stand your ground law to the second amendment being racist?


He is, once again, utterly ignoring the fact that Stand your Ground was not even used in the Zimmerman case, and in the case of the woman, if you feel you are safe enough to fire a warning shot, that completely contradicts stand your ground, which clearly notes that you feel you are imminent danger of grievous/serious bodily harm/death.
If you can pop off a warning shot, obviously you aren't at that state yet.
Quote:
The ambiguous reading of the Second Amendment notwithstanding, gun control is as old as the Republic, and the amendment was not interpreted as an absolute in the early days of the United States. There was a balance between individual rights and public safety.

For example, slaves and freed blacks were barred from gun ownership, reflecting fears that African-Americans would revolt. At the same time, the founders proscribed gun ownership to many whites, including those who would not swear their loyalty to the Revolution. And contrary to legend, the “Wild, Wild West” had the most severe gun control policies in America.

Meanwhile, the Black Codes of the post-Civil War South were designed to disempower blacks and reestablish white rule.

This included the prohibition on blacks possessing firearms—a law which was enforced by white gun owners such as the Ku Klux Klan, who terrorized black communities. The Northern framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the first Civil Rights Act viewed gun rights as fundamental to upholding the constitutional protections of the freedmen.

When Prohibition-era organized crime led to the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934—the nation’s first federal gun control laws—the NRA not only supported restrictive gun control measures, but drafted legislation in numerous states limiting the carrying of concealed weapons. When NRA president Karl Frederick was asked by Congress whether the Second Amendment imposed any restrictions on gun control, he responded that he had “not given it any study from that point of view.”

Frederick said he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” He helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model law which required a police permit to carry a concealed weapon, a registry of all gun purchases, and a two-day waiting period for firearms sales.

In the 1960s, the NRA continued to support gun control, a wave which was fueled by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and the racial strife and violent uprisings in the nation’s urban centers.

The organization actively lobbied in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned gun sales by mail, and enacted a system of licensing those people and companies who bought and sold firearms. Franklin Orth, then the executive vice president of the NRA, said that although certain aspects of the law “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

During that time, the NRA and conservative politicians such as California Governor Ronald Reagan supported gun control as a means of restoring social order, and getting weapons out of the hands of radical, left-leaning and revolutionary groups, particularly the Black Panther Party.

Responding to the perceived failures of the nonviolent civil rights movement, the Black Panthers took a more militant and uncompromising approach of the fallen leader Malcolm X. Led by figures including Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, the Panthers’ “by any means necessary” approach included a most aggressive gun ownership policy to protect their communities from police abuse.

Beginning in 1966, the Panthers carried out police patrols, in which they rushed to the scene of an arrest with their loaded weapons publicly displayed, and notified those being arrested of their constitutional rights. California state legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the state law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public if they were openly displayed. Mulford had the Panthers in mind with this legislation.

On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers protested the bill by walking into the California State Capitol Building fully armed. In response, the legislature passed the Mulford Act. And Gov. Reagan, who was a major proponent of disarming the Panthers, signed the bill into law, effectively neutralizing the Panther Police Patrols.

Yet, in the 1970s the NRA began to shift their direction rightward and actively lobby for gun rights. Their chief lobbyist, Harlon Carter, was a former border control agent and staunch supporter of gun rights. In 1977, Carter and his faction staged a coup within the NRA, against an establishment that wanted to shift away from gun control and crime in favor of conservation and sportsmen’s issues.

With the Black Panther Party and other left wing gun control foes out of the picture, the new hardline NRA feared the government would similarly take away their guns. Further, these predominantly white and conservative gun rights advocates in the NRA shared the Panthers’ distrust of the police.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan—who had signed the Mulford Act to disarm the Black Panther Party—changed his stance and advocated for guns as a defense against state power.

“So isn’t it better for the people to own arms than to risk enslavement by power-hungry men or nations? The founding fathers thought so,” Reagan said in a radio commentary in 1975.

In 1980, the NRA endorsed Reagan for president, the first such endorsement by the group. On March 30, 1981, President Reagan and three others were shot and injured by John Hinckley, Jr., 25, outside the Washington Hilton Hotel.

(link)

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum