Gun Control III

The Second Amendment is as archaic and anachronistic as muskets, slavery, defining slaves as 3/5 of a man, denying women the vote, denying the right to vote to those over 18 but under 21, requiring jury trials in civil suits involving amounts greater than $20, not having the power to tax, prohibiting liquor, and electing the Senate by state legislatures.--Percy

In its historical cultural context those things were perfectly rational. And I'm sure you have the 3/5 provision wrong as most people do, preferring to see it as a judgment on the humanity of slaves, but it wasn't. Since they were property they were counted as 3/5 of a person having to do with representation in Congress or something like that. I hope you knew that but I'd bet you didn't. And judging all those other historical facts as irrational just shows your basic ignorance and uninterest in history and cultural context. Another way you are *really* a Leftist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your complete lack of understanding or humanity still amazes me. in the first statement you say it was not a judgement on their humanity and in the next you acknowledge they were property. I am sure you do not understand the utter depravity of that, but then again you never will. If there were a hell there would be a special place for the self righteous inhuman Christians like you.

Gosh you're not very bright are you? The percentage was a percentage of political representation, not humanity. Duh.As for treating classes of people as property of course you are SO superior to the vast majority of the human race that has historically kept slaves as property. Duh. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Focusing just on the parts bearing on factual matters: The 3/5 compromise was rooted in the same belief that made whites feel it was okay to enslave blacks, that they were less than human. That's correct - for calculating the number of representatives from a state. I didn't judge those aspects of the original constitution irrational. I called them archaic and anachronistic (you quoted me saying that), which they are.--Percy

Ooooooo, talk about yer insults.

OK I'll give you that but it still needs to be said that the 3/5 was not in itself a judgment of the humanity of slaves which is how it is usually construed.

Still keeping the focus on factual matters and the topic, my original point was that the 2nd amendment, like other aspects of the constitution, and like the firearms of the day, is archaic and anachronistic today. The 2nd amendment was not written with modern firearms in mind, nor was it interpreted properly by the Supreme Court when they held that the initial clause about a well regulated militia did not modify the clause that followed about the right to keep and bear arms.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You don't get to define the Second Amendment in any sense whatever.

This conversation has wandered way off track. It started with my pointing out that Trump did not say anything to approve of white supremacists, which is the usual Leftist fake news lie; he only commented that there are many good people on both sides of the question about preserving versus taking down historical memorials in the South. Of course the Leftists had to make a mess of that too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trump was clearly speaking about the Unite the Right protestors, which included White Supremacists and Nazis. Anyone involved on that side was at the least willing to ally with such people. That’s the point of it.

I think you meant "interpret" rather than "define", but in any case, it would be helpful to understand your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Isn't this archaic and anachronistic because it was written when arms meant muskets, when the government didn't provide soldiers their firearms, and when militias actually still existed?Also, its mention of militias makes clear it has a military context, not a hunting, home defense or any other context.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix misspeak: "the government provided" => "the government didn't provide'

I think I did a pretty good job on *my* interpretation of the Second Amendment on an earlier version of this thread, in Message 57 and I think probably some other posts on that thread as well. I had read up on it before posting there, and here's one paragraph of what I wrote:"Actually I do know what the founders wanted and it was NOT an organized militia for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment. The concept of an armed citizenry goes back to England and possibly other sources long before the second amendment was written, which built on that history. The point was for individual citizens to have the means of self defense. "Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

From Faith's Message 57 in the Gun Control Again thread: Whether you do or don't, what you say they wanted is not what the 2nd Amendment says. If 2nd Amendment authors were adding an amendment unrelated to "well regulated militias," then why did they mention well regulated militias right up front? If the 2nd Amendment author's intent was to provide an amendment to protect people from militias, then why do they talk about militias in the context of "the security of a free State", of which the people are citizens. The 2nd Amendment authors did not see fit to include the self-defense concept in the amendment. What they did include was the need for a "well regulated militia" to defend "the security of the free State," and well regulated militias, given that governments did not provide firearms at the time, need to draw upon a population of men with firearms.But regardless of how anyone interprets the 2nd Amendment, clearly it is archaic and anachronistic and doesn't serve the needs of today. Guns are more often used against family, friends and oneself than against criminals, and eliminating guns would reduce the overall firearm death rate.--Percy

Eldon Mcinville has a 6-year old daughter, and he likes to "walk around his house with weapons." He keeps a handgun on a TV stand and a loaded shotgun in a bedroom closet. Last Thursday night, April 25, while cleaning his new double-barrel shotgun and teaching his daughter about "gun safety" he shot her in the hip/abdomen area. She's in critical but stable condition. Mr. Mcinville is in jail on prison-mandatory charges pending $50,000 bond.Mr. Mcinville is why people shouldn't have guns in the absence of stringent regulations requiring that all guns be locked up, whether or not there are children in the house, but especially if there are. Most people are just average and haven't the motivation or interest to maintain for years an extremely high level of skill and respect for the dangers of firearms that would guarantee they're never a danger to anyone. Some, like Mr. Mcinville, appear to be significantly below average.There should be regular unannounced home inspections financed by high fees on licensing and registration that make sure firearms and their ammunition are properly stored and secured. Somehow they have to figure out how to make certain that minors do not know the codes or the locations of keys to the secured firearms. This all seems impossible to me - we should take the guns away.Source: A lesson on gun safety ended when a man accidentally shot his 6-year-old daughter, police say--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.