The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[danielpalos]

That is the point.
That is like having a complaint department at a store, that does nothing.
When all peaceful means of conflict resolution have failed, there is no other choice than to resort to force.
That is simple historic reality.
It always has to happen eventually.
The fact force is not desirable does not change the fact it eventually becomes necessary.
And eventually this is always true.
As far as those murdered or imprisoned by illegal wars, abusive police, etc., it is already way beyond the point where rebellion is warranted.
The only reason why we should not already be committed to armed rebellion is not that it is unwarranted on a scale of justice, but that not enough have been abused by the system for a rebellion to currently have much chance of succeeding.
The only reason to not wage armed rebellion right now, is not legal, moral, or ethical, but ONLY due to the practical reason that is would likely fail.

Due Process applies in federal venues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I am saying is that people in favor of gun control are not progressives, but authoritarians.
When Hillary supported gun control, she declared herself as authoritarian, not left wing.

Problem here is you use the classic, not current, defitnion of "left wing" and "progressive".
Hillary, et al, are unquestionably, progressive left-wing authoritarians.

 

[Rigby5]

Due Process applies in federal venues.

If we had "due process", then not a single person would be imprisoned for federal drugs or weapons charges, which clearly are outside of any possible federal jurisdiction.

The government was drafting people for WWI, which was clearly illegal, resulting in wrongful deaths.
The Axis were the good guys in WWI, and we were on the side of the terrorists, murderers, and theives.

 

[Rigby5]

Problem here is you use the classic, not current, defitnion of "left wing" and "progressive".
Hillary, et al, are unquestionably, progressive left-wing authoritarians.

The whole Progressive movement is not just a historical reality that can't be changed, but is defined by its focus on individual liberties and populist focus.
It is wrong to let the democrats abuse what not only is an important legacy, but basic word meanings.
Individuals should not be allowed such cultural appropriations.
It is like how the word "Semitic" has been taken over to mean "Jewish" when in reality it means "Arab".
Such appropriations must be denied.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The whole Progressive movement is not just a historical reality that can't be changed, but is defined by its focus on individual liberties and populist focus.

Unless you mean "progressive" as the term is currently in use in the west. These people are authoritarian socialists.
You can complain that the people have distorted the tern as originally used, but you cannot deny its current meaning.

 

[Rigby5]

Unless you mean "progressive" as the term is currently in use in the west. These people are authoritarian socialists.
You can complain that the people have distorted the tern as originally used, but you cannot deny its current meaning.

Sorry, but socialist also can not mean or imply to "authoritarian" either.
Socialism is a decentralized, populist movement to prevent a wealthy elite from forcing economic slavery on poor workers.
Again, it is just populist representation.
Authoritarian means without populist input or representation.
Socialism requires populist input and representation.

If current figures like Hillary call themselves one thing when they are another, the appropriate response is not to accept their misuse of terms.
The meaning of terms can not instead be allowed to change.
That would make language gibberish, where everyone made their own meaning of words.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, but socialist also can not mean or imply to "authoritarian" either.

In practice, ever socialist country has been authoritarian, and so it is entirely possible to have an authoritarian socialist.
Like Hillary.

 

[Rigby5]

In practice, ever socialist country has been authoritarian, and so it is entirely possible to have an authoritarian socialist.
Like Hillary.

I disagree.
Every aspect of socialism in all countries, whether it involved production like Sweden, or is just some limited social service like public schools in the US, can never be authoritarian.
Any time anything is authoritarian, it is not socialist, by definition and logical reality.
Authoritarians who claim to be socialist simply are trying to fool people with propaganda, and that has to be resisted.
You can't let people change the meaning of words, or else no words mean anything.
Socialism can never be authoritarian.
That are exact opposites, as black is to white.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I disagree.
Every aspect of socialism in all countries, whether it involved production like Sweden, or is just some limited social service like public schools in the US, can never be authoritarian.

The USSR, North Korea and China disagree.

 

[Rigby5]

The USSR, North Korea and China disagree.

None of these countries were ever even remotely socialist.
The Germans sent Lenin into Russia to get them out of WWI, and he was just a German agent, who along with Stalin, were capitalists who killed all the socialists.
These countries were centralists, serving a wealthy elite. That is capitalism.
That is the opposite of populist socialism that is supposed to be egalitarian.

Before one can even consider having socialism or something else as your economic plan, you first have to have democracy, so that leaves these countries out from day one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of these countries were ever even remotely socialist.

M'kay. Thanks.

 

[woodwork201]

How do you know there were not state or municipal laws restricting juveniles from packing guns in public back then?
There likely were.
But that is not an infringement in any way, because kids likely should not normally be armed.
So preventing kids from being armed in public infringes upon nothing.
Kids do not have an inherent right or need to be armed in public, and should instead be protected from lethal harm by armed adult parents.

And you are wrong about the Bill of Rights. Rights are infinite, so it is wrong to ever try to list any rights at all. So that is not what the Bill of Right was for. It was only about dividing jurisdiction between federal and all other.
Again, a reasonable restriction is NOT an infringement.
For example, speed limits are reasonable restrictions, so not an infringement.
I agree militias were by states or municipalities, so feds should have nothing to do with gun laws, but again, juveniles did not belong to militias either.
So there would be no infringing on the militia to not allow juveniles to own guns.

But I am not Libertarian. Far left actually, more Socialist or Green Party really.
But I can get along with most Libertarian ways of thinking.
The far left and the far right sort of come full circle.
But Gary Johnson was governor from 95 to 2003, and I did not get to NM until 2015.

I agree that individual inherent rights are the only source of legal authority.
But we can delegate some of our individual authority to peace keepers, as long as they just defend rights when they come into conflict.
And surely you have to agree a conflict of rights can happen with firearms.
For example, a drunk shooting into the air on the 4th of July should probably get arrested?
Don't you agree?

I'm not wrong about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights defined a set of rights protected explicitly and then the 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the Bill of Rights, basically said what you said - that rights exist beyond those identified explicitly and that those were protected just as much as those listed. That's why there was so much debate over whether or not there should even be such a thing.

Many felt that having a bill of rights would later be interpreted that things not listed would not be protected; government would claim that only those rights listed are protected. And they were right; there are many who suggest the government can do something because it isn't explicitly protected in the Constitution. On the other side, there were those who felt that if there was no bill of rights, the government would claim the authority to control things not intended for it to control. And they were right. Imagine gun rights today if there was no 2nd Amendment. How many are claiming that your phone is not protected or your online activity? So, both sides of that debate were right; both recognized that government would feed itself.

As for the gun side of your argument, if there were laws against children owning guns, share them. The argument has been made, even wrongly upheld in the Supreme Court, that children do not have constitutional rights. Similarly, many, especially self-proclaimed conservatives, argue that non-citizens and especially illegal aliens don't have constitutional rights. But the government only has the power granted in the Constitution so where would they have any power at all to have any interaction with an illegal alien? The government has the power that is in the Constitution, period. It doesn't matter where in the world or with anyone from anywhere in the world, the Constitution is the same. Whether a person is child or adult, white or black, citizen or illegal alien, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Parents, on the other hand, are not limited by the Constitution and they are the ones who can choose whether or not to allow their children to have guns.

As for your other argument, about shooting recklessly, shooting is not protected by the Constitution. There are rights, as you suggest, that are not included in the Constitution and the right to shoot your gun in defense of life, or perhaps for property, would fit in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Shooting recklessly, though, is not a right.

And not exactly in response to your post but related to the topic, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still be protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. If those were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would always be a right, an inalienable right, and government cannot take that away. They can punish a person and use force and threat of force to prevent exercise of the right but the right remains...

 

[woodwork201]

M'kay. Thanks.

That's the problem with American Socialists. In fact, it's what is wrong with every socialist since Stalin. They all think they're smarter and they can make it work. If we just do socialism right; if we just do it their way, it will work.

You know, like Bernie Sanders' way. Those three homes of his could house a dozen good socialist families. That's why he recently bought that lake house - to hold for the day when he can put in 4 families of illegal aliens.

And then there's Patrisse Khan-Cullors, self-described socialist founder of BLM who bought 4 homes while heading BLM. I'm sure those were for housing a dozen or more black families after we start to do socialism right.

So, I'm sure, if we just do socialism right, if we just do it Bernie's, Patrisse's, and Rigby5's way, then it would work.

 

[woodwork201]

I disagree.
Every aspect of socialism in all countries, whether it involved production like Sweden, or is just some limited social service like public schools in the US, can never be authoritarian.
Any time anything is authoritarian, it is not socialist, by definition and logical reality.
Authoritarians who claim to be socialist simply are trying to fool people with propaganda, and that has to be resisted.
You can't let people change the meaning of words, or else no words mean anything.
Socialism can never be authoritarian.
That are exact opposites, as black is to white.

It is impossible to separate socialism from authoritarianism. When the government enforces by force, by guns, and by the threat of imprisonment, the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work, then the government is authoritarian. If the government does not enforce, by all those means specified, the payment of taxes then they would have absolutely no revenue or means of redistributing the wealth. All that would remain would be charity - that help given to those who have less out of the kindness of the hearts of those who have more.

The only other way, many would claim, is full communism - where the state owns the means of production, therefore there is no tax. The government takes the fruits of all labor and doles it out according to the government's opinion of need. But that doesn't work without the authoritarianism, either. When someone who works sees those who do not work getting equal share of the fruit, those who once worked would quit working. Communism, of course, cannot stand that. As the owner of the means of production, they own the people and must use force to make at least some of the people work else there would be no fruits to dole out.

Socialism must be authoritarian. They are two sides of the same coin.

 

[danielpalos]

If we had "due process", then not a single person would be imprisoned for federal drugs or weapons charges, which clearly are outside of any possible federal jurisdiction.

Why are there Congressional laws?

 

[woodwork201]

Why are there Congressional laws?

What in the hell is a Congressional law?

Maybe this will help you:

 

[2aguy]

None of these countries were ever even remotely socialist.
The Germans sent Lenin into Russia to get them out of WWI, and he was just a German agent, who along with Stalin, were capitalists who killed all the socialists.
These countries were centralists, serving a wealthy elite. That is capitalism.
That is the opposite of populist socialism that is supposed to be egalitarian.

Before one can even consider having socialism or something else as your economic plan, you first have to have democracy, so that leaves these countries out from day one.

I usually enjoy your posts...but claiming the socialists are actually capitalists is just silly.

The point of socialism is the government controls the means of production...that requires the power to force people to do what the government wants.....that leads to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.....putting power in the hands of a few people...who then refuse to give up that power.

 

[danielpalos]

I usually enjoy your posts...but claiming the socialists are actually capitalists is just silly.

You misunderstand. Socialists need to merely learn how to use Capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern economic times. Metadata for the general welfare!

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not wrong about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights defined a set of rights protected explicitly and then the 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the Bill of Rights, basically said what you said - that rights exist beyond those identified explicitly and that those were protected just as much as those listed. That's why there was so much debate over whether or not there should even be such a thing.

Many felt that having a bill of rights would later be interpreted that things not listed would not be protected; government would claim that only those rights listed are protected. And they were right; there are many who suggest the government can do something because it isn't explicitly protected in the Constitution. On the other side, there were those who felt that if there was no bill of rights, the government would claim the authority to control things not intended for it to control. And they were right. Imagine gun rights today if there was no 2nd Amendment. How many are claiming that your phone is not protected or your online activity? So, both sides of that debate were right; both recognized that government would feed itself.

As for the gun side of your argument, if there were laws against children owning guns, share them. The argument has been made, even wrongly upheld in the Supreme Court, that children do not have constitutional rights. Similarly, many, especially self-proclaimed conservatives, argue that non-citizens and especially illegal aliens don't have constitutional rights. But the government only has the power granted in the Constitution so where would they have any power at all to have any interaction with an illegal alien? The government has the power that is in the Constitution, period. It doesn't matter where in the world or with anyone from anywhere in the world, the Constitution is the same. Whether a person is child or adult, white or black, citizen or illegal alien, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Parents, on the other hand, are not limited by the Constitution and they are the ones who can choose whether or not to allow their children to have guns.

As for your other argument, about shooting recklessly, shooting is not protected by the Constitution. There are rights, as you suggest, that are not included in the Constitution and the right to shoot your gun in defense of life, or perhaps for property, would fit in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Shooting recklessly, though, is not a right.

And not exactly in response to your post but related to the topic, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still be protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. If those were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would always be a right, an inalienable right, and government cannot take that away. They can punish a person and use force and threat of force to prevent exercise of the right but the right remains...

I don't really disagree with most of that.
But all rights are subject to some restrictions, based on "police powers", which imply that if you infringe on the rights of others, then you can legally be restricted by judges/courts/governments/police.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't really disagree with most of that.
But all rights are subject to some restrictions, based on "police powers", which imply that if you infringe on the rights of others, then you can legally be restricted by judges/courts/governments/police.

There's a different between "restrictions' and "inherent limits"
Inherent limit: You do not have the right to commit murder with a firearm
Restriction: Background check for purchase of a firearm

Many people conflate the two, when they are different things.