|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard during the Civil Rights demonstrations. Seems they were called out by Washington, D.C.? The constitution makes the president the Commander-in-Chief of the state militia. The governor can call on the guard for order keeping purposes and to help during natural disasters, but the governor cannot use the guard to defy the president.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard during the Civil Rights demonstrations. Seems they were called out by Washington, D.C.? Maybe you have heard of the President of the United States. He can nationalize the National Guard.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes & Theodoric help me make my tiny point. Thanks.
The National Guard is not really controlled at the state level. The POTUS actually is the plenipotentiary here. Therefore, to use the National Guard as an example of the current modern America's exercise of the intent of the 2nd Amendment to prevent the government from disarming the citizenry, as crashfrog has argued, is flawed. RAZD has made a good argument for most of the issues raised - particularly for finding a way for gun freaks to get to have their fun, but it fails under crashfrog's criterion.
....obligatory Dylan quote:"I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more. No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more. Well, he puts his cigar Out in your face just for kicks. His bedroom window It is made out of bricks. The National Guard stands around his door. Ah, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more." Edited by xongsmith, : attribution props to his Bobness- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xongsmith,
Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard during the Civil Rights demonstrations. Seems they were called out by Washington, D.C.? and yet ... Little Rock Nine - Wikipedia
quote: and ... LBJ Sends Federal Troops to Alabama - HISTORY
quote: So it was the failure of the governors to call out the National Guard to preserve order that precipitated the federalization of the guard by the presidents. The National Guard units are under the jurisdiction of the states unless - and until - they are federalized. Federalization was intended to be a temporary thing, in a time of need. This basic process that separated the militia\guard units and federal military units has been woefully overreached with Schrubbia's calling up and using the guard for foreign invasions. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Thanks, RAZD. Sorry to make you do my dirty work.
Those were the days indeed. But my nitpick remains - the POTUS can take over the National Guard.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How do you know it is accurate? HE GIVES A TON OF REFERENCES for crying out loud. He quotes Kings and Parliamentarians and legal writers and state governors and others on the subject. How would anybody know anything is accurate? By considering the EVIDENCE.
This a fallacious argument. Oh brother, you have no appreciation for what real scholarship is all about. Just read some of it, skip through it at least.
The paper shows his interpretations of the evidence. THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID INTERPRETATION, Theodoric, everything you read involves interpretations. The question is whether the evidence supports them or not and my claim is it does in this paper. But you have to READ the thing to know, you can't just make blanket judgments without doing that much.
It is an interpretation. There are many legal scholars and historians that come to different conclusions. But very likely not from the same historical evidence. READ THE THING AND DECIDE FROM THERE.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
Just when I think it can't get more bizarre
... apparently some states have done so. ... Out of curiosity, which ones? Texas? Arizona? Is ALEC\NRA involved? http://thearizonasentinel.com/...aw-will-other-states-follow Sounds like an ALEC\NRA kind of bill ... it will be interesting to see if this holds up.
... The constitution does reserve the power to create, train, and regulate militias to the States. and the authority to appoint the officers that maintain order within the militias. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
NoNukes writes: The Supreme Court has interpreted our constitution in such a way that strong gun laws such as the ones which existed in the District of Columbia and Illinois will be struck down as unconstitutional. There is simply no realistic political path to adopting laws here that match those in the UK. Your constitution can of course be changed if there is a political will in the country to do so. I suppose the lack of political will can only be because the majority of Americans want to keep their guns. If that's true then, sadly, you all have to live with the consequences. In the UK, after Dunblane, the majority view was 'get rid of the guns as fast as you can, we don't want them here anymore'.We find it hard/impossible to understand any other position. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1394 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined:
|
Could someone pretty please tell me why a civilian would ever need a rapid-fire gun? How on earth can such a weapon ever be justified?
I do know that many people have hunting for a hobby but arent hunting rifles and shotguns for that purpose. I personally would not shed a single tear if each and every firearm was confiscated and melted. This message is not actually meant for Tangle but as a general wandering. Edited by saab93f, : Added reply info.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
but that does not imply that I will not need to be armed by that logic you should carry around an RPG, and maybe a tactical nuke... and some ricin,Y'know.. just in case
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Tangle writes: Your constitution can of course be changed if there is a political will in the country to do so. Yes, exactly. Regardless of the founders' intent in the 2nd amendment, about which there is much debate, we can amend it. The founders believed many things that feel strange to modern minds, such as that some people were actually only 3/5 of a person and that women shouldn't vote, but we amended the constitution and we can do so again. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Kofh2u,
This thread isn't about welfare or planned parenthood, but I didn't want to let another of your errors go by without comment:
kofh2u writes: The decline was due to the rise in Abortions starting in 1972, after Roe Vs Wade. This cut the Single Mother trend in half, so we saw a correlation with a drop in violent crime. The number of single mothers has been increasing since the 1970s and is still increasing, yet youth crime has been declining for the past 20 years. This thread is about gun control. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
We are speaking in the terms of an invasion. So was I. I was specifically referring to the countries we've invaded, the native populations of which have held us at bay with the exact weapons - automatic and semi-automatic rifles - currently under discussion. It's worth noting, it seems to me, that the rate of firearms ownership in Iraq is roughly the same as it is in the US.
How about arguing against my statements not what oyu want to argure against. I'll make whatever arguments I feel support my point, Theodoric. You're not in a position to dictate the terms of discussion, whatever you may believe.
Now how about showing a non-single shot Fun fact:
quote: Oh, actually, not so fun:
quote: Still, though. Sure, I'm not going to be able to show you a box-magazine short-recoil semi-auto handgun from the Revolutionary War, since those weapons weren't invented until 1909 or so. But firearms technology was growing even during the Revolutionary War, and there's absolutely no notion in any writing of the Founders that they envisioned a Second Amendment that applied only to the specific firearms technology that existed at the time. That would have been completely at odds with their conception of the Constitution as a document for the future of the country, a document meant to grow and expand along with a growing and expanding nation. And yes, I do believe that repeal of the Second Amendment is permissible as part of that flexibility. But deprecating a major American right isn't something that should be done glibly. It's not even clear that it would help - even if you repealed the Second Amendment, 44 of 50 state constitutions preserve an explicit right to bear arms; even if all such constitutions were amended, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the widespread confiscation of anything from those not convicted of crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
... and it does not specify what those arms are. It does not say machine guns or canons. It doesn't say "cannons" because cannons are not arms, they're artillery; you can't bear a cannon. "Keep and bear arms" is about individual arms (cannons require a group to fire.) "Well-regulated" implies orderly arms, specifically (per United States v. Miller) those that have "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", that could be used as part of "the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." In other words it is specifically accurate, precise military-style firearms the Second Amendment protects - not explosives, inaccurate bullet-hoses, or weapons of mass (and indiscriminate) destruction.
This does not mean that the average citizen has a right to carry a bazooka into downtown New York city (intentional hyperbole). Obviously not, but the Second Amendment doesn't protect bazookas. But it does protect semi-automatic rifles and handguns specifically because they're appropriate for individual military use.
But not for just any purpose any individual happens to think up, for the specific purpose of being able to form a well regulated militia. Yes, that's exactly right - not for hunting, not for self-defense, but so that there's a broad base of armed adults - with their own guns - you can muster for the civil defense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Could someone pretty please tell me why a civilian would ever need a rapid-fire gun? How on earth can such a weapon ever be justified? Zombies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024