The Second Amendment in Historical Context

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is from a UNC History professor. Good read.


The author contends that influential Southerners feared that a federalized militia might well leave their region without adequate means to police the slave community and might provide slaves with an incentive to revolt. One reason, at least, for the Second Amendment was to address those concerns: the states would control their militias most of the time, and they would retain their authority to provide arms for their state militias if Congress failed to provide them with sufficient weapons. "In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions." 2 If the pro-slavery motive is as powerful as Bogus contends, it may make Standard Modelers a bit uncomfortable and deprive them of some of the high ground they have sought to occupy. Although Bogus’s thesis will doubtless be: controversial, it is timely and valuable for two reasons: it will stimulate more research on the subject, and it contextualizes the question of origins and motivation by looking at the social order at the time Congress passed the Bill of Rights. Critics of the Standard Model approach will assuredly go along with one assertion of Bogus, which is that the evidence on the origins "of the Second Amendment strongly supports the collective rights position."


Militia discussions and debates in Congress during the War of Independence, in the postwar Confederation years, during the writing and ratification of the Constitution, in the First Federal Congress, and into the Jeffersonian period always revolved around issues of militia control and organization— or, to put it in terms used in our present-day literature, involved collective rights (not individual rights) and how they should be implemented in legal and constitutional terms. If people believed passionately in gun ownership as an individual right, they rarely said so. In fact, I put out a request to nearly a thousand early American scholars on the Omohundro Institute of Early History and Culture’s NET, asking’ for citations to speeches and writings mentioning specifically the belief that individual gun ownership was— or should be— a protected right in any of the great charters of the period. The responses contained nothing other than the handful of references I already had collected.


Cornell may well deliver the most devastating blow yet to the Standard Modelers’ view of the Founding era because he successfully challenges them concerning Pennsylvania, the state where one finds the most evidence of claims for gun ownership as an individual right, which was often linked with opposition to ever accepting the Constitution without a bill of rights. Here the Standard Modelers have often gone to the fullest available sources, especially the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. But have they interpreted the evidence correctly? Cornell demonstrates that they have not. Although the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776 declares that "the people have a right to bear arms" both "for the defense of themselves and the State," the Revolutionary government’s Test Acts, hardly limited to the Loyalists, gave authorities wide latitude to curtail liberties, including the confiscation of arms. These Acts, which may have affected close to forty percent of the population, remained on the books until 1789, stoutly defended by political elements that would lead the Anti-Federalist forces. Indeed, at the time of the Carlisle Riots and the Whiskey Rebellion substantial voices from the elite ranks of Anti-Federalism supported disarming their former Anti-Federalist allies. 5 The whiskey rebels themselves did not justify taking up their muskets on the basis of the Second Amendment "but instead framed their actions in terms of a natural, not a constitutional, right of revolution." 6 On gun ownership, Anti-Federalists were not cut from the same cloth, a truism for other issues as well. Cornell, the preeminent authority on Pennsylvania Anti-Federalism, will not be easily dismissed.


All this casts, light on why even the prominent Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists in Cornell’s essay had no sympathy for the Carlisle and whiskey rebels, who, without the approval of the state, took up arms and engaged in violence. Cornell’s study, along with my own work and that ofCarl Bogus and Michael Bellesiles, puts the federalized militia controversy at the time of the ratification fight of 1787-1788 in context with regard to the subsequent Second Amendment. The AntiFederalists’ concern was with the states having to share control of their militias with the federal government and not— to any degree yet demonstrated— with protecting gun rights of their local citizens outside of their obligation to serve in their respective states’ well-regulated militias.

http://www.potowmack.org/higg.html

[CosmicCowboy]

Second amendment was passed in 1791 you fucking idiot.

Guns were a way of life. Individual possession was assumed. You couldn't run down to HEB and buy a fucking bag of groceries to feed your family. Guns and hunting and family defense from indians and bad people were just assumed. Nobody was giving speeches to defend personal ownership of guns because everybody did it.

It was about states right to resist an oppressive federal government.

Got Damn you are determined to compete with Boutons for the honor of best village idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

It was about states right to resist an oppressive federal government.I really don't see that reflected in the text of the Constitution. I'm sure some of the founders had this in mind as a nice bonus, but if it's actually in the document, it is very well hidden.

[DMC]

I really don't see that reflected in the text of the Constitution. I'm sure some of the founders had this in mind as a nice bonus, but if it's actually in the document, it is very well hidden.

You have something to say about everything, but never something to say that amounts to anything.

[DMC]

Second amendment was passed in 1791 you fucking idiot.

Guns were a way of life. Individual possession was assumed. You couldn't run down to HEB and buy a fucking bag of groceries to feed your family. Guns and hunting and family defense from indians and bad people were just assumed. Nobody was giving speeches to defend personal ownership of guns because everybody did it.

It was about states right to resist an oppressive federal government.

Got Damn you are determined to compete with Boutons for the honor of best village idiot.

He's trying to recover from the beat down I issued him with the more guns = more crime thing. He quit only 4 times then returned as I continued putting Peter North like, copious amounts of spewage of warm, creamy facts upon his ample forehead.

[CosmicCowboy]

I really don't see that reflected in the text of the Constitution. I'm sure some of the founders had this in mind as a nice bonus, but if it's actually in the document, it is very well hidden.

Consider that they had just pulled a christian fundamentalist jihad against the dominant military in the world and won. (See Afghanistan 2015 less the christianity part) They mistrusted dominant centralized governments. Have you really not read any of Adams and Jeffersons and Washingtons letters? You pretend to be intellectually well rounded.

[CosmicCowboy]

I highly recomend it:
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/httpdocs/images/blogcontent/john-adams.jpg&sa=X&ei=1Bb2ULOgL6m62gWAsYCQCA&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGp8ISsVbcYBAlkxs8lZTSI-tHqnw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Second amendment was passed in 1791 you fucking idiot.

Guns were a way of life. Individual possession was assumed. You couldn't run down to HEB and buy a fucking bag of groceries to feed your family. Guns and hunting and family defense from indians and bad people were just assumed. Nobody was giving speeches to defend personal ownership of guns because everybody did it.

It was about states right to resist an oppressive federal government.

Got Damn you are determined to compete with Boutons for the honor of best village idiot.

Your reading comprehension sucks. Simple questions:

1) Is the ratification fight the same as the ratification?
2) Is the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 the Bill of Rights?
3) Did you even read the article?

He specifically addresses all your claims. He does not disagree that it was about the states arming their militias. He even goes through the reasons that were actually given in written documents. What he is saying that the documents that refer to the debate over the amendment never included the right of the individual. Critical thinking, dude.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's trying to recover from the beat down I issued him with the more guns = more crime thing. He quit only 4 times then returned as I continued putting Peter North like, copious amounts of spewage of warm, creamy facts upon his ample forehead.

I think you mistake me ignoring you and having better things to do.

And why do you project homoerotic desires on Chump and I? The fact that you visualize that stuff on your own is pretty overt. You that flamboyant irl or do you just do it here so you can stay in the closet? I mean if you like that type of shit just keep it to yourself please. Its disconcerting. I don't like being hit on by men.

[ElNono]

Second amendment was passed in 1791 you fucking idiot.

Guns were a way of life. Individual possession was assumed. You couldn't run down to HEB and buy a fucking bag of groceries to feed your family. Guns and hunting and family defense from indians and bad people were just assumed. Nobody was giving speeches to defend personal ownership of guns because everybody did it.

It was about states right to resist an oppressive federal government.

Got Damn you are determined to compete with Boutons for the honor of best village idiot.

In the spirit of keeping "everything as it were then", would it be ok with you if the only weapons you are allowed to carry are the ones used back in 1791?

[ChumpDumper]

You have something to say about everything, but never something to say that amounts to anything.So don't read it. If you keep following me around, people will think you have a crush on me.


Consider that they had just pulled a christian fundamentalist jihad against the dominant military in the world and won. (See Afghanistan 2015 less the christianity part) They mistrusted dominant centralized governments. Have you really not read any of Adams and Jeffersons and Washingtons letters? You pretend to be intellectually well rounded.Letters are letters. The Constitution is the Constitution. Were it that important, you'd think they'd have spelled it out in the actual original document and not throw in another thing about guns after the thing was ratified.

You could be right though. They certainly didn't think the rights they laid out applied to women or blacks or natives.

[CosmicCowboy]

In the spirit of keeping "everything as it were then", would it be ok with you if the only weapons you are allowed to carry are the ones used back in 1791?

Nope. Simple answer. Back then the government had muskets and the citizens had muskets. Sounds fair to me.

[ElNono]

Nope. Simple answer. Back then the government had muskets and the citizens had muskets. Sounds fair to me.

That's the point. It isn't like then anymore. And government already has the bigger guns, so that's a lost battle already.

[DMC]

So don't read it. If you keep following me around, people will think you have a crush on me.


lol you post in every single thread and you claim I'm following you around? You post like 9 times in a thread where no one is even talking to you. You have a comment about everything, even a "." by someone gets a 4 paragraph response from you. You must live a fucking shitty life.

[ChumpDumper]

lol you post in every single thread and you claim I'm following you around? You post like 9 times in a thread where no one is even talking to you. You have a comment about everything, even a "." by someone gets a 4 paragraph response from you. You must live a fucking shitty life.Well, you are certainly making an effort to document it. That's even more sad.

But keep responding to me. It's funny watching you get so pissy.

[ChumpDumper]

Hm, I just found a letter from Washington saying he thought militias kind of sucked.

Weird.

I'm sure DMC has something to say about me and not the actual topic.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's the point. It isn't like then anymore. And government already has the bigger guns, so that's a lost battle already.

Yep, and when the government tells the army to turn their guns against the citizens all it takes is a few determined AF guys to blow the shit out of the government during the state of the union address.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, and when the government tells the army to turn their guns against the citizens all it takes is a few determined AF guys to blow the shit out of the government during the state of the union address.:lmao

Good Lord, the fantasies people are having.

[ElNono]

Yep, and when the government tells the army to turn their guns against the citizens all it takes is a few determined AF guys to blow the shit out of the government during the state of the union address.

It almost never starts like that. You probably don't know because you never lived under a dictatorship. It normally starts with the army uprising against the civil government.

[CosmicCowboy]

It almost never starts like that. You probably don't know because you never lived under a dictatorship. It normally starts with the army uprising against the civil government.

Agreed. Except the US Army , Air Force, Marines, Etc. Have some really cool toys. If they are ever ordered to turn them against the civilian population where their wives, children, parents,and brothers and sisters live I'm pretty sure those wont be their first targets of opportunity.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Good Lord, the fantasies people are having.

As usual Chump living in his cocoon life doesn't get it.

[ElNono]

Agreed. Except the US Army , Air Force, Marines, Etc. Have some really cool toys. If they are ever ordered to turn them against the civilian population where their wives, children, parents,and brothers and sisters live I'm pretty sure those wont be their first targets of opportunity.

If that were ever to pass, the order won't come from a civilian. And their families will be shielded. That's how it always works.

This stuff has played out over and over in history. Just not in America.

[ElNono]

As usual Chump living in his cocoon life doesn't get it.

I think he gets it. I would agree with him it's pure fantasy.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think he gets it. I would agree with him it's pure fantasy.

That the government in the 2000's would unleash the military on the civilian population?

I certainly hope so. One would have to hope that there is some sanity in Washington.

[ChumpDumper]

As usual Chump living in his cocoon life doesn't get it.Of course I do. I just marvel at the certitude shown in predicting the actions of strangers in a scenario that has zero chance of happening.

[ElNono]

That the government in the 2000's would unleash the military on the civilian population?

I certainly hope so. One would have to hope that there is some sanity in Washington.

It makes complete sense it would never happen. Government wouldn't be in control at that point, the military would. It would basically amount to self-defeat.

Like I said, if it ever happens, it won't be the government unleashing anything. It will be the military uprising on their own.

The difference here is that the military in the US is very well paid and taken care of (education, health coverage, pension, etc).

[ElNono]

In other words, if you ever see it happen, it will probably be the spursncowboys of the world rise against the unpatriotic kenyan nig.

[spursncowboys]

I highly recomend it:
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/httpdocs/images/blogcontent/john-adams.jpg&sa=X&ei=1Bb2ULOgL6m62gWAsYCQCA&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGp8ISsVbcYBAlkxs8lZTSI-tHqnw


great book

[spursncowboys]

Consider that they had just pulled a christian fundamentalist jihad against the dominant military in the world and won. (See Afghanistan 2015 less the christianity part) They mistrusted dominant centralized governments. Have you really not read any of Adams and Jeffersons and Washingtons letters? You pretend to be intellectually well rounded.
Or Federalist papers

[spursncowboys]

In other words, if you ever see it happen, it will probably be the spursncowboys of the world rise against the unpatriotic kenyan nig.

I don't really understand what you are inferring or grouping me into.

[spursncowboys]

It almost never starts like that. You probably don't know because you never lived under a dictatorship. It normally starts with the army uprising against the civil government.
I would say that, historically, it normally starts with the unarming of the civilian population.

[CosmicCowboy]

It makes complete sense it would never happen. Government wouldn't be in control at that point, the military would. It would basically amount to self-defeat.

Like I said, if it ever happens, it won't be the government unleashing anything. It will be the military uprising on their own.

The difference here is that the military in the US is very well paid and taken care of (education, health coverage, pension, etc).

They would probably dispute that considering how the US Government has shit on them and sent them on multiple tours into that shithole that they know they can't win..

[ElNono]

I don't really understand what you are inferring or grouping me into.

military personnel

[ChumpDumper]

I would say that, historically, it normally starts with the unarming of the civilian population.Oh we are so close to Godwinning this thread.

[ElNono]

I would say that, historically, it normally starts with the unarming of the civilian population.

Like what?

Here's a list where gun availability was not a problem:
- Hitler
- Stalin
- Pinochet
- Franco
- Ongania
- Pinilla
- Bainimarama
- Pangalos
- Montt
- Mussolini
- Santa Anna
- Porfirio Díaz
- Somoza

... and there's plenty more...

There's one thing they *all*, except Mussolini, have in common: they all have military background. Either full blown generals or in the case of Hitler a military career right before going into politics.

EDIT: I should add, a lot of those fought inside rebellion one way or another. Dictatorships always do.

[ElNono]

They would probably dispute that considering how the US Government has shit on them and sent them on multiple tours into that shithole that they know they can't win..

Nobody is ever happy. That said, insurrection is a failure at multiple levels. Intelligence, justice, equality... this country isn't anywhere near there yet.

[Wild Cobra]

This is from a UNC History professor. Good read.

-----

http://www.potowmack.org/higg.html
I notice he doesn't quote any of the federalist or anti-federalist papers. I wonder where he gleans his information from?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I notice he doesn't quote any of the federalist or anti-federalist papers. I wonder where he gleans his information from?

The anti-federalist papers were not written in support of the Constitution. It's pretty obvious with the whole 'anti' thing. The Federalists didn't want the Bill of Rights to be enumerated. James Madison was certainly against it

The Federalist papers, while certainly influential, were a newspaper op-ed. They showed the intent of a few men and not the entire assembly.

The author looked at the assemblies where the government was actually founded ie "in Congress during the War of Independence, in the postwar Confederation years, during the writing and ratification of the Constitution, in the First Federal Congress, and into the Jeffersonian period." He was interested in the discussions where all parties are involved when they formed our government.

Basically what you are doing is saying that an author a hundred years from now should look at WSJ op-eds in determining the basis for legislation. On the floor of the assemblies where our government was founded, that is where the consensus was found. What is telling is that while Jefferson, Madison et al were all together they brought up the right to bear arms in teh manner that the author speaks of. They did not speak of it on the basis of the individual. It was not brought up. they talked about militia groups supplied by the states as the author states.

[Winehole23]

I highly recomend it:
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/httpdocs/images/blogcontent/john-adams.jpg&sa=X&ei=1Bb2ULOgL6m62gWAsYCQCA&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGp8ISsVbcYBAlkxs8lZTSI-tHqnwGreat book. Loved it. Is there some particular passage germane to this thread that you'd draw our attention to?

[CosmicCowboy]

Great book. Loved it. Is there some particular passage germane to this thread that you'd draw our attention to?

Loaned it out and never got it back. Sorry. Even if I had it it's impossible to cut and paste from a hardback and I'm not typing all that out. I'm sure you understand.

[boutons_deux]

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


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.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "


Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."


And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry (http://jgiganti.myweb.uga.edu/henry_smith_onslavery.htm)?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the Constitution to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."


He added: "This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

"I was struck with surprise," Madison said (http://books.google.com/books?id=tN99jYDpUi0C&;pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=%22alarmed+with+respect+to+the+emancipation%22+ madison&source=bl&ots=bFUi95nbYz&sig=lytuAn4skhTFHZjkZTZKHxPk08Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=88_xUMvDMIyI0QHBxYG4CA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage), "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."
But the southern fears wouldn't go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."


So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

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


Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have calleddysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[Winehole23]

so, you don't remember how it relates to the conversation. just propping yourself up on it, then?

[Winehole23]

samples are available in google books if you remember about where the passage was.

http://books.google.com/books?id=E9TOxypjZY4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=true

[CosmicCowboy]

so, you don't remember how it relates to the conversation. just propping yourself up on it, then?

I actually preferred the back and forth letters between Jefferson and Adams and more times than not sided with Jefferson.

[CosmicCowboy]

samples are available in google books if you remember about where the passage was.

http://books.google.com/books?id=E9TOxypjZY4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=true

really dude? get a fucking life. I've got better things to do than chase down book passages to validate myself to some asshole on the internet.

[CosmicCowboy]

To throw you a bone, here is a good one from Jefferson.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Heres this book. I'm going to bring it up in this thread and not be able to articulate why. I also think its good but I cannot articulate that either. Now I am going to be a petulant twat.

[Winehole23]

really dude? get a fucking life. I've got better things to do than chase down book passages to validate myself to some asshole on the internet.hey, you brought it up. not my problem if it has no demonstrable bearing on the conversation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To throw you a bone, here is a good one from Jefferson.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

You'd do better looking up Madison's quotes in the Federalist. He is just regurgitating Two Treatise on Government there.

There were 39 people that signed the Constitution and quite a few of them didn't like Tom. Nevermind that legislatures of all 13 colonies had to ratify them.

[spursncowboys]

military personnel
what about it?

[boutons_deux]

I can cherry pick TJ, too

Thomas Jefferson Feared an Aristocracy of Corporations (http://www.thenation.com/blog/37038/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations)

Jefferson's distrust of concentrated and consolidated power was such that he left a legacy for any and every dissenter against the state.

But Jefferson did not stop there.

He was, as well, a relentless critic of the monopolizing of economic power by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the third president referred to as "the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over corporations. To his view, nothing was more important to the health of the republic.

In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

There are those who would have us believe that the founders intended for corporations to control our elections – and, tragically, five of these Tories sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, where they recently ruled that the nation’s biggest businesses may spend whatever they like to buy the results that best serve their bottom lines.

Jefferson was a proud revolutionary against the old order of inherited monarchy, state churches, empires and the authority of the few over the fate of the many.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37038/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations#

It's amazing that the wealthy and powerful corporatocracy that America has irredeemably degenerated into was feared already by TJ in the 18th century.

and the NRA is nothing but a marketing/selling department for the gun corporations, suckering bubbas in the 2nd Amendment fantasies

[leemajors]

what about it?

Jesus dude it's not that hard. He said military usually rises up against the govt, you are a member of the military.

[CosmicCowboy]

Another bone


A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson

[Winehole23]

are either of those quotes from the John Adams biography?

[ElNono]

what about it?


Jesus dude it's not that hard. He said military usually rises up against the govt, you are a member of the military.

[CosmicCowboy]

are either of those quotes from the John Adams biography?

It has been several years since I read it. As best I remember a lot of the actual letter exchanges between Jefferson and Adams were in the appendix.

Is this really that important or are you just being a little bitch this morning?

[Winehole23]

important enough for you to pretend you're throwing me a bone when in fact you're just covering your bullshit.

you have no idea how the David McCullough book relates to this thread. if you did, you'd be able to share your recollection with us in lieu of random Jefferson quotes you just googled.

[Blake]

Is this really that important or are you just being a little bitch this morning?


important enough for you to pretend you're throwing me a bone when in fact you're just covering your bullshit.

you have no idea how the David McCullough book relates to this thread. if you did, you'd be able to share your recollection with us in lieu of random Jefferson quotes you just googled.

lol busted

[CosmicCowboy]

lol busted


No bust at all you fucking idiot.

[Sportcamper]

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson

That’s so beautiful….

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Nky8i1HT2z4/TSsbQo9rfTI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/UCA_2lNvDlo/s320/CryingCowboy.jpg

[ElNono]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ru-blcTHL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

^ great read, tbh, IMO

[leemajors]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ru-blcTHL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

^ great read, tbh, IMO

it is, great to read and then rewatch the movie. they developed them both together off one of his short stories, I believe. Lots more detail on the obelisks.

funny post tho :lol

[ElNono]

And before I get Winehole complaining, some quotes:

HAL: It can only be attributable to human error.

HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?

Dr Floyd: Don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?
Dr. Rolf Halvorsen: Wish to hell we did.

[Blake]

No bust at all you fucking idiot.

I think so. You still haven't shown how the book relates to this thread.

And the ”I loaned the book out” was an awesomely hilarious confirmation that you threw intellectual bullshit against the wall, hoping it would stick.

Rofl.

[Th'Pusher]

To throw you a bone, here is a good one from Jefferson.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Do you fear the government? If so, why? I get frustrated with the government, wish they would work more efficiently, etc. but I don't fear the government.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think so. You still haven't shown how the book relates to this thread.

And the ”I loaned the book out” was an awesomely hilarious confirmation that you threw intellectual bullshit against the wall, hoping it would stick.

Rofl.

I gave the book to my son to read you fucking idiot.

[resistanze]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ru-blcTHL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

^ great read, tbh, IMO

:lmao

[Drachen]

I gave the book to my son to read you fucking idiot.

I think the question is why did you bring up that book. Do you think it relates to the thread? If you do, there is a reason why. What is that reason? Even if you don't remember specifics from the book, I am sure that you remember why you posted it. Why was that?

[ElNono]

I think he was trying to articulate that some of the founding fathers exchanged letters about disliking big/bad federal government.

[Winehole23]

it was a mute appeal to authority. propping oneself atop the founders never goes out of style.

[Winehole23]

posting a book cover instead of an actual viewpoint has got to be about the laziest appeal to authority ever . . .

[CosmicCowboy]

whatever. Your mindless ankle biting over trivial shit shtick is getting really old. Don't expect another response on this subject.. You are rapidly sinking to the level of FuzzyLumpkins and Blake.

[boutons_deux]

it was a mute appeal to authority. propping oneself atop the founders never goes out of style.

totally lying about them and rewriting history (and the Bible) are eternal.

[clambake]

your son has it.

why not walk down to the basement to get it?

[CosmicCowboy]

your son has it.

why not walk down to the basement to get it?

My son is corporate counsel for a major entertainment studio in LA that could buy your broke dick ass.

Major insult fail.

[boutons_deux]

...

[Th'Pusher]

My son is corporate counsel for a major entertainment studio in LA that could buy your broke dick ass.

Major insult fail.
Does he fear the government like you do?

[clambake]

My son is corporate counsel for a major entertainment studio in LA that could buy your broke dick ass.

Major insult fail.

it was just a joke.

you really are a princess.

[Winehole23]

whatever. Your mindless ankle biting over trivial shit shtick is getting really old.your mindless appeals to authority and and weak bullshit got old a long time ago. if you dislike the response it's getting, step up your game.

[clambake]

your mindless appeals to authority and and weak bullshit got old a long time ago. if you dislike the response it's getting, step up your game.

he doesn't have to. the princess is entitled.

[Winehole23]

at least try to express the viewpoints you're pretending to rely on. not being able to is just pitiful.

[Th'Pusher]

great book

Maybe SnC can help CC expound on how the Adams biography relates to the thread?

[spursncowboys]

Jesus dude it's not that hard. He said military usually rises up against the govt, you are a member of the military.
Thanks bud. I got that part. I was wondering why a pretty progressive liberal would list a bunch of liberal socialists and include my sn in on attacking private citizens. I guess I should have realized that there was no real idea behind it, except being able to compound words to create a sentence. I was proven correct when you second his award winning thesis. To him and you, his assistant professor, I say - thank you. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

The anti-federalist papers were not written in support of the Constitution...

<snip>

The federalist and anti-federalist papers were writings primarily by those who were addressing ideas and concerns to each other as how to craft the laws of our lands. They offer insight to the intended and debated purpose. Courts will actually use these documents at times when considering constitutional cases.

[ElNono]

Thanks bud. I got that part. I was wondering why a pretty progressive liberal would list a bunch of liberal socialists and include my sn in on attacking private citizens. I guess I should have realized that there was no real idea behind it, except being able to compound words to create a sentence. I was proven correct when you second his award winning thesis. To him and you, his assistant professor, I say - thank you. :toast

Well, I did produce a list of dictators (mostly military) that took over when access to guns for the civilian population was not an issue, which I think presented my point quite clearly.

On the other hand some dude made this claim and never backed it up...


I would say that, historically, it normally starts with the unarming of the civilian population.

Oh, and Pinochet, Franco and a few others were as right-wing conservatives as they come...

[spursncowboys]

Well, I did produce a list of dictators (mostly military) that took over when access to guns for the civilian population was not an issue, which I think presented my point quite clearly. I didn't respond because I didn't believe your well written list. It included Hitler. That's when you lost your credibility.






Oh, and Pinochet, Franco and a few others were as right-wing conservatives as they come... I guess you'd have to explain what a "right-wing" or "conservative" is.

I would just appreciate it if you left my sn out of your illogical, generalized bullshit. It's pretty offensive for you to include me into a comment about killing and occupying my countrymen. Just for some blow off comment with no real merit. Although sometimes you play the asinine game on this forum, you're better than that.

[spursncowboys]

Like what?

Here's a list where gun availability was not a problem:
- Hitler
- Stalin
- Pinochet
- Franco
- Ongania
- Pinilla
- Bainimarama
- Pangalos
- Montt
- Mussolini
- Santa Anna
- Porfirio Díaz
- Somoza

... and there's plenty more...

There's one thing they *all*, except Mussolini, have in common: they all have military background. Either full blown generals or in the case of Hitler a military career right before going into politics.

EDIT: I should add, a lot of those fought inside rebellion one way or another. Dictatorships always do.

Hitler disarmed citizens they later rounded up

Stalin disarmed citizens they later rounded up

Mussolini did too

Santa Anna....Seriously?? I'm surprised you didn't include Alexander the Great

[DMC]

Like what?

Here's a list where gun availability was not a problem:
- Hitler
- Stalin
- Pinochet
- Franco
- Ongania
- Pinilla
- Bainimarama
- Pangalos
- Montt
- Mussolini
- Santa Anna
- Porfirio Díaz
- Somoza

... and there's plenty more...

There's one thing they *all*, except Mussolini, have in common: they all have military background. Either full blown generals or in the case of Hitler a military career right before going into politics.

EDIT: I should add, a lot of those fought inside rebellion one way or another. Dictatorships always do.

Bet that was a cruel summer.

[ElNono]

I didn't respond because I didn't believe your well written list. It included Hitler. That's when you lost your credibility.

Hitler actually softened gun control measures in Germany, it was much more restrictive during the Weimar republic. That jews were forbidden from having guns have nothing to do with your average germans.

Here, educate yourself a little bit:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/


I guess you'd have to explain what a "right-wing" or "conservative" is.

What "right-wing" and "conservative" always meant in the political context: support for social hierarchy, anti-communism, strong nationalism, government support for religion, etc.

There's been left and right dictators throughout history. The fact is you need an army on your side, and that's why a good chunk of them come directly from military background or were military themselves.

That doesn't mean that all military are whack or the military profession is bad or anything like that.


I would just appreciate it if you left my sn out of your illogical, generalized bullshit. It's pretty offensive for you to include me into a comment about killing and occupying my countrymen. Just for some blow off comment with no real merit. Although sometimes you play the asinine game on this forum, you're better than that.

I disagree there was anything illogical or generalized there. I used your nick as I could've used any other service member here. It wasn't directed at you personally. I'll use their nick next time.

[ElNono]

Hitler disarmed citizens they later rounded up

Stalin disarmed citizens they later rounded up

Mussolini did too

Because you say so?


Santa Anna....Seriously?? I'm surprised you didn't include Alexander the Great

We're talking history. Didn't know I had to stick to some arbitrary cutoff date.

[spursncowboys]

Because you say so?

:lol I was going to but realized how many of your dictators on your list did not match your description. With Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

With Stalin: ?“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

We're talking history. Didn't know I had to stick to some arbitrary cutoff date.
It's not arbitrary or a cutoff date. It's common sense.

[DMC]

I think you mistake me ignoring you and having better things to do.

And why do you project homoerotic desires on Chump and I? The fact that you visualize that stuff on your own is pretty overt. You that flamboyant irl or do you just do it here so you can stay in the closet? I mean if you like that type of shit just keep it to yourself please. Its disconcerting. I don't like being hit on by men.

You two are so feminine that it causes tingling in my nether regions. Something about that vulnerability you exude across the forum, and CD is just a drip pan. He's your +1.

[ElNono]

:lol I was going to but realized how many of your dictators on your list did not match your description. With Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

:lol that Hitler appreciated gun control doesn't mean he did do it in Germany. Again, what's your counter argument to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/


With Stalin: ?“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”

[spursncowboys]

:lol that Hitler appreciated gun control doesn't mean he did do it in Germany.
Hitler appreciated gun control is the understatement of the year.

[ElNono]

Hitler appreciated gun control is the understatement of the year.

Hitler also understood the nation was at war, and he couldn't control weapons on the general population. Again, no counter-argument to that piece?

[ChumpDumper]

Hitler also understood the nation was at war, and he couldn't control weapons on the general population. Again, no counter-argument to that piece?He can't have read it if he's still going on like this.

[spursncowboys]

, what's your counter argument to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/




I'm not reading your article completely. I don't see why I was supposed to counter this argument. One thing I did notice was that the author starts the idea of gun control from when Hitler took over. If you agree with this article, then you need to do a little research on the gun laws in germany before the nazi's 1928 power grab law.

All I would like from you, is that you not use my sn like you did. That's it. I will debate you with my views but this is getting ridiculous and to "win" you are turning into CD. For God's sake, we are debating Nazi gun laws.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not reading your article completely.:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Too long?

[spursncowboys]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Too long?
No pictures to help me with my words.
I've been practicing my words....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please pay attention to me and my homoeroticism. PLEASE!!!

[spursncowboys]

Hitler also understood the nation was at war, and he couldn't control weapons on the general population. Again, no counter-argument to that piece?
:lol you're justifying Hitler and wanting me to counter on an argument you didn't even make?

[ChumpDumper]

No pictures to help me with my words.
I've been practicing my words....The article is pretty succinct.

I can't see how anyone could claim Hitler disarmed his people after reading it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not reading your article completely. I don't see why I was supposed to counter this argument. One thing I did notice was that the author starts the idea of gun control from when Hitler took over. If you agree with this article, then you need to do a little research on the gun laws in germany before the nazi's 1928 power grab law.

All I would like from you, is that you not use my sn like you did. That's it. I will debate you with my views but this is getting ridiculous and to "win" you are turning into CD. For God's sake, we are debating Nazi gun laws.

The National Socialists won the election legitimately. They didn't usurp. They just burned down the parliament once they had secured power.

[spursncowboys]

The article is pretty succinct.

I can't see how anyone could claim Hitler disarmed his people after reading it.
Then stop reading liberal websites.
Took a trip to thesaurus.com huh

[vy65]

:lol I was going to but realized how many of your dictators on your list did not match your description. With Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”


He's talking about removing weapons from the potential Russian insurgency after Germany invaded Russia you fucking dolt. What the fuck do you think the "subject" in "subject race" refers to. This has nothing to do with the right of German citizens to bear arms.


With Stalin: ?“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

It's not arbitrary or a cutoff date. It's common sense.

Same as above. Define opposition as it's used here.

And one more question for the history professor: do you think that the Iraqi insurgency should be disarmed? If disarmed, does that diminish the protections of the 2nd Amendment?

[ElNono]

I'm not reading your article completely. I don't see why I was supposed to counter this argument. One thing I did notice was that the author starts the idea of gun control from when Hitler took over. If you agree with this article, then you need to do a little research on the gun laws in germany before the nazi's 1928 power grab law.

Because you said my list had no credibility because Hitler was in it. But Hitler, while he did apply gun control to certain minorities, especially jews, didn't really do such thing with the german population at large. His party actually did the opposite.

Now if what you're arguing is that Nazis could only come to power because the Weismar Republic had strict gun controls, that's revisionist history too...


All I would like from you, is that you not use my sn like you did. That's it. I will debate you with my views but this is getting ridiculous and to "win" you are turning into CD. For God's sake, we are debating Nazi gun laws.

I said I would. Again, was not meant to be anything personal.


:lol you're justifying Hitler and wanting me to counter on an argument you didn't even make?

:lol justifying Hitler in what way? Wow... talk about reading comprehension problems.

[ChumpDumper]

Then stop reading liberal websites.You still don't know what the laws were. I don't understand how you think remaining ignorant somehow makes your Hitler platform valid.

Took a trip to thesaurus.com huhNo. Do you consider that word to be fancy?

[DMC]

You should quote me, that shows everyone you're ignoring me.

[CosmicCowboy]

Technically they are correct SnC. The Nazi's did not confiscate guns from German citizens.

The strict gun laws were actually passed by the Weimar Republic trying to disarm the Nazi's and the communists.

When the Nazi's came to power they made certain looser gun laws for "German Citizens" but redefined who was a German citizen. They just used the law against their enemies.

In 1838 they, however passed a law that specifically excluded JEWS as German citizens.

We all saw how that worked out.

[ChumpDumper]

Technically they are correct SnC. Germany did not confiscate guns from German citizens.

The strict gun laws were actually passed by the Weimar Republic trying to disarm the Nazi's and the communists.

When the Nazies came to power they made certain looser gun laws for "German Citizens" but redefined who was a German citizen. They just used the law against their enemies.

In 1838 they, however passed a law that specifically excluded JEWS as German citizens.

We all saw how that worked out.When Obama signs an executive order disarming the Jews, I'll call into the Alex Jones show.

[CosmicCowboy]

When Obama signs an executive order disarming the Jews, I'll call into the Alex Jones show.

With reservation I just backed you up. GFY

[DMC]

When Obama signs an executive order disarming the Jews, I'll call into the Alex Jones show.

Racist faggot

[ChumpDumper]

With reservation I just backed you up. GFYYou're too sensitive. That wasn't even a dig at you.


Racist faggotYou'll have to explain what was racist about my post.

[ElNono]

Technically they are correct SnC. Germany did not confiscate guns from German citizens.

The strict gun laws were actually passed by the Weimar Republic trying to disarm the Nazi's and the communists.

When the Nazi's came to power they made certain looser gun laws for "German Citizens" but redefined who was a German citizen. They just used the law against their enemies.

In 1838 they, however passed a law that specifically excluded JEWS as German citizens.

We all saw how that worked out.

You mean 1938. And that is true, the genocide of jews was abhorrent. It should also be said though, that at that point wehther they had guns or not was immaterial: the Nazis controlled a ruthless military, which was my point all along. Civilians, armed or not, jews or not, were no longer in control of the country.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I bet if you asked Hitler if he thought that black people were genetically predisposed for deviant and violent behavior he would agree with that.

[CosmicCowboy]

You mean 1938. And that is true, the genocide of jews was abhorrent. It should also be said though, that at that point wehther they had guns or not was immaterial: the Nazis controlled a ruthless military, which was my point all along. Civilians, armed or not, jews or not, were no longer in control of the country.

Yes, that was a typo. 1938 is correct. I didn't have my glasses on and missed it before I hit send. Thanks for the correction.

And maybe I am missing something, but our modern US military bears no resemblance to the german youth of 1938 who had grown up under the horrible economic conditions resulting from the mismanagement of the "victory" over the Axis in WWI. That was some fucked up shit. You may call me naive but I don't think they would ever turn their guns on US citizens if ordered to. I still think they would turn their guns the other way.

I am old enough to remember Kent State. That was a cultural turning point in how people viewed the government, the military, and "military service" against US citizens.

[CosmicCowboy]

Shit. Sorry ElNono. I just remembered you aren't from here and probably had no idea what the fuck I was referring to about Kent State. Late 1960's, kids peacefully protesting the Vietnam War, National Guard called out to "keep the peace" some poor national guardsman felt threatened, got too pissed off at the not so peaceful protest and ripped off a string.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/03/kentstate.jpg?s=6&sa=X&ei=oor3UNHpNsfM2AXNnoHIBw&ved=0CAwQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFnv0quyYH5h65uLtGYqYEIKLp7iA

That photo galvanized a nation and flipped political consensus to end the war.

Us old farts have a very dim view of domestic military intervention.

[ElNono]

Yes, that was a typo. 1938 is correct. I didn't have my glasses on and missed it before I hit send. Thanks for the correction.

And maybe I am missing something, but our modern US military bears no resemblance to the german youth of 1938 who had grown up under the horrible economic conditions resulting from the mismanagement of the "victory" over the Axis in WWI. That was some fucked up shit. You may call me naive but I don't think they would ever turn their guns on US citizens if ordered to. I still think they would turn their guns the other way.

You are correct, and that's exactly why I'm saying it's not going to happen here.

And to say the Nazis were just a regular civilian party is also somewhat misleading. A lot of them, including Hitler, fought and grew up through WWI with a strong military background and a big sense of extreme nationalism. Weismar selling off half the country for american bailouts I'm sure angered a lot of them too.

That's why it's hard for me to classify them as a 'civilian' government that turned their guns on their own people. It had all the typical shades of a military uprising. Just my 2c.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure and the guardsman wouldn't have to have been there if they hadn't burnt down the ROTC building. That is typical of the generation. Don't mind that fucked up shit we did: poor us. Look at the picture, doesnt she look upset?

[ElNono]

Shit. Sorry ElNono. I just remembered you aren't from here and probably had no idea what the fuck I was referring to about Kent State. Late 1960's, kids peacefully protesting the Vietnam War, National Guard called out to "keep the peace" some poor national guardsman got too pissed off at the not so peaceful protest and ripped off a string.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/03/kentstate.jpg?s=6&sa=X&ei=oor3UNHpNsfM2AXNnoHIBw&ved=0CAwQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFnv0quyYH5h65uLtGYqYEIKLp7iA

That photo galvanized a nation and flipped political consensus to end the war.

I've read about it. Part of becoming an American (for me anyways) is studying the good and not so good events in history. Appreciate you taking the time to explain.

[ChumpDumper]

Shit. Sorry ElNono. I just remembered you aren't from here and probably had no idea what the fuck I was referring to about Kent State. Late 1960's, kids peacefully protesting the Vietnam War, National Guard called out to "keep the peace" some poor national guardsman got too pissed off at the not so peaceful protest and ripped off a string.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/03/kentstate.jpg?s=6&sa=X&ei=oor3UNHpNsfM2AXNnoHIBw&ved=0CAwQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFnv0quyYH5h65uLtGYqYEIKLp7iA

That photo galvanized a nation and flipped political consensus to end the war.Would things have changed as much if there had only been the Jackson State shootings?


Whether troops fire on citizens might depend on the individuals involved on both sides. But I don't think we're anywhere near that at any rate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Remember the book about John Adam's? Remember the story of the Boston Massacre and what Adams did? There are parallels to the Kent State shooting.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure and the guardsman wouldn't have to have been there if they hadn't burnt down the ROTC building. That is typical of the generation. Don't mind that fucked up shit we did: poor us. Look at the picture, doesnt she look upset?

So Fuzzy Nuts would have volunteered to serve in Viet Nam in 1968?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In my family we don't draft dodge and then get drunk, throw rocks at cops and firemen and burn down buildings. It wasn't a bunch of kumbaya circles. If I would have been drafted I would have gone. I don't just talk about honor.

[CosmicCowboy]

Would things have changed as much if there had only been the Jackson State shootings?


Whether troops fire on citizens might depend on the individuals involved on both sides. But I don't think we're anywhere near that at any rate.

I agree with that. No way the modern military ever accepts orders to turn on the civilian population.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with that. No way the modern military ever accepts orders to turn on the civilian population.No way those orders get made in the first place.

[CosmicCowboy]

In my family we don't draft dodge and then get drunk, throw rocks at cops and firemen and burn down buildings. It wasn't a bunch of kumbaya circles. If I would have been drafted I would have gone. I don't just talk about honor.

I appreciate your honor in that.

I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice. I turned 18 in 1973 and had a mid level draft number but didn't get called. I remember watching the TV watching those cocksuckers pull the numbers.

I'm pretty sure the idiot that set fire to the ROTC building didn't get shot and the people that got shot probably had nothing to do with the fire. It was all fucked up.

That being said I have no problem with the guys that said fuck this and went to Canada in 1968.

That war was even more fucked up than Afghanistan and it wasn't being fought by a volunteer army.

[CosmicCowboy]

No way those orders get made in the first place.

I never said they would be. That seems to be the theme of the liberals in this forum that if we conservative "gun nuts" get out of line the military would come in and fuck us up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My family has a military tradition that goes back a century. My father and uncles served in Vietnam. I don't know how I would have not gone. If nothing else my father would have beaten the shit out of me all the way down to the recruiting station if I even would have tried. I don't think I would have tried though. I know what he went through and it's some scary shit though.

[CosmicCowboy]

In my family we don't draft dodge and then get drunk, throw rocks at cops and firemen and burn down buildings. It wasn't a bunch of kumbaya circles. If I would have been drafted I would have gone. I don't just talk about honor.

BTW, the honor of going to a third world country and killing and terrorizing the fuck out of the civilians because you don't know who the fuck the enemy is is debatable. They all become enemies.

[ChumpDumper]

I never said they would be. That seems to be the theme of the liberals in this forum that if we conservative "gun nuts" get out of line the military would come in and fuck us up.I don't think enough of them would do it at once to call actual troops in. There will probably be some new Ruby Ridges for us to start threads about though.

[CosmicCowboy]

My family has a military tradition that goes back a century. My father and uncles served in Vietnam. I don't know how I would have not gone. If nothing else my father would have beaten the shit out of me all the way down to the recruiting station if I even would have tried. I don't think I would have tried though. I know what he went through and it's some scary shit though.

Sweet! Are you volunteering for Mali? Those niggas need a good American ASS KICKING!

[DMC]

I bet if you asked Hitler if he thought that black people were genetically predisposed for deviant and violent behavior he would agree with that.

The Hitler card, folks.

Exposition:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Argument) ascribing guilt by association.
Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even ludicrous, in ascribing ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a logical point of view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this historical fact alone is insufficient to discredit it.
The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Fallacious) analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
Other arguments ad Nazium combine guilt by association with a slippery slope. For instance, it is sometimes argued that the Nazis practised euthanasia, and therefore even voluntary forms of it are a first step onto a slippery slope leading to extermination camps. Like many slippery slope arguments, this is a way of avoiding arguing directly against voluntary euthanasia, instead claiming that it may indirectly lead to something admittedly bad.
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".


It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Derailing) has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of better arguments. Thus, once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

[ChumpDumper]

He wasn't the first to bring up Hitler tbh.

Does this mean snc lost by default?

I don't think so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW, the honor of going to a third world country and killing and terrorizing the fuck out of the civilians because you don't know who the fuck the enemy is is debatable. They all become enemies.

That's not where the honor derives from. That is glory and what you are talking about certainly isn't glorious. It's about understanding that you have a duty and doing your duty the best that you can. The Vietnam War was even more fucked up IMO than what we are doing now. At least --for the most part-- are acting against people that actually did attack us. We both know that Tonkin shit was a sham.

That being said, the threat of the Soviets was real and after we allowed them to basically annex Eastern Europe, I can understand the strategic goal. The execution was shit.

We still haven't figured out how to get the notion of the nation state to jive in the modern nuclear world.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry but drawing a link between someone and the Nazi's on the basis of what are eugenics principles is not guilt by associations. When discussing Eugenics there are three basic figures that pop up. Of course Hitler every one gets that and if you are a bit more educated or well read you might say Galton and Shaw.

Saying there is a racial basis for a genetic link for deviant behavior is the foundation of eugenics. Its not like I am comparing the way someone walks to the SS. Its eugenics by definition.

[ElNono]

I never said they would be. That seems to be the theme of the liberals in this forum that if we conservative "gun nuts" get out of line the military would come in and fuck us up.

You need to define what "out of line" is... If you're actively plotting on taking down government officials and the like, you bet your ass you're getting a visit. See that Alaska militia article I posted not too long ago.

And personally, I think peeps like that dude in Alaska is what I call a "gun nut"... it's not the guy that loves to shoot his guns for sport, or collects... it's the guy that starts buying and drifting into the conspiracy shit like government wants to take them away from him to enslave him. For some people there's a short line between seeing a perceived enemy and wanting to 'preemptively' hurt that perceived enemy.

[TSA]

I don't just talk about honor.no shit, you just choose not to talk.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't just talk about honor.
Well, you most certainly don't show any honor here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, you most certainly don't show any honor here.

I have no duty to you. None whatsoever. Quite frankly I see you as the enemy. Stupidity is a blight.

[Wild Cobra]

I have no duty to you. None whatsoever. Quite frankly I see you as the enemy. Stupidity is a blight.
I think you mistake arrogance for honor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think you mistake arrogance for honor.

I think you are trying to conflate things without basis. This is typical of your blight.

[Wild Cobra]

I think you are trying to conflate things without basis. This is typical of your blight.
If you think you have honor, it sure is a twisted variety.

[Winehole23]

from the facebook to me to you, a wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#.UPb9y2Wpqi4.facebook

[Winehole23]

You need to define what "out of line" is... If you're actively plotting on taking down government officials and the like, you bet your ass you're getting a visit.see: Occupy Wall Street. Mass protest gets a visit too, even in the absence of insurrectionary mens rea, despite being protected speech.

[Wild Cobra]

from the facebook to me to you, a wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#.UPb9y2Wpqi4.facebook
I think I read this yesterday in someone else's post. May have merit.

[Winehole23]

whose post?

[Wild Cobra]

whose post?
I don't recall. I only know I read that same article already either yesterday, or the day before. I may have seen it elsewhere, but I think someone here posted it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's in the OP. It refers to the author who originally made the claims.

[Wild Cobra]

It's in the OP. It refers to the author who originally made the claims.
Ok, but that's not the article WH and I were speaking of.

[Wild Cobra]

The link is at the bottom of post #41, by boutons.

[boutons_deux]

2nd Amendment? :lol Only ingnorant, naive fucks think it's all about the 2nd Amendment

Behind the NRA's Money: Gun Lobby Deepens Financial Ties to $12 Billion Firearms Industry

Well, the ties have become extensive in recent years. They date back principally to 2005, when the gun industry was facing a major crisis. It had been hit by dozens of suits from cities in recent years prior to that, and they were facing significant financial costs from this litigation. Litigation was aimed at recouping healthcare and other costs from gun violence in major cities. And the gun industry turned to the NRA for its lobbying muscle, which is legendary in Congress. They needed help. And they came up with a plan to obtain a liability shield for gun manufacturers and distributors. It’s the only industry in the country that was able to secure such a shield from most litigation. The NRA pushed it very hard for a few years, and it passed Congress in 2005, providing unique protection to gun manufacturers.

At the same time, that very same year, the NRA launched a new fundraising program aimed at corporate donors, most of whom have been firearms companies, ammunitions makers. And that program has boomed since it started in 2005. There are no precise numbers, but the NRA posts data about the range of contributions from firearms industry firms. And according to a report in 2011 from the Violence Policy Center, between $14 million and $39 million came into NRA coffers in that period. This is probably a conservative estimate. Most of the NRA’s money is still from other sources, the bulk of the money, but the firearms industry has formed a kind of symbiotic relationship with the NRA in recent years—it benefits both.


it’s anecdotal, but there’s obviously evidence in recent years that one of the major pushes of the NRA over the last decade has been to pass laws in states called "concealed carry laws," which are now existing in almost every state. The president of one of the big companies, Sturm, Ruger, in Connecticut, in a conference call with analysts back in 2011, said that they were looking for a nice uptick in sales in Wisconsin after the—that state passed a concealed carry law. These are ones that, you know, the NRA has pushed in Second Amendment grounds, self-defense grounds, but they obviously have been good for the firearms industry, too.

the NRA still has, you know, huge influence in Congress. It tried to defeat President Obama in 2012. It spent over $10 million in that effort.


http://truth-out.org/video/item/13992-behind-the-nras-money-gun-lobby-deepens-financial-ties-to-$12-billion-firearms-industry

[spursncowboys]

I said I would. Again, was not meant to be anything personal.



.
gracias.

[spursncowboys]

Technically they are correct SnC. The Nazi's did not confiscate guns from German citizens.

The strict gun laws were actually passed by the Weimar Republic trying to disarm the Nazi's and the communists.

When the Nazi's came to power they made certain looser gun laws for "German Citizens" but redefined who was a German citizen. They just used the law against their enemies.

In 1838 they, however passed a law that specifically excluded JEWS as German citizens.

We all saw how that worked out.

ALthough they did not take away weapons from German citizens, they did put all that decision and power into the Nazi's. So the Nazis at any time could take their weapons away.

[ChumpDumper]

ALthough they did not take away weapons from German citizens, they did put all that decision and power into the Nazi's. So the Nazis at any time could take their weapons away.So there's even less of a chance something like that would happen in the US.

Cool.

[boutons_deux]

The Right’s Second Amendment Fraud





Exclusive: The Senate has beaten back a filibuster from Tea Party Republicans to block debate on possible gun-reform laws in the wake of last December’s massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Connecticut. But the setback won’t stop the extremists from continuing to twist the Second Amendment, says Robert Parry

By Robert Parry

Frankly, I’d have more respect for Sen. Ted Cruz and other Tea Party Republicans if they would recite the Second Amendment as it was written, not the abridged version that they prefer. After all, the amendment is only 26 words long.

Drafted by a congressional committee that seemed a bit challenged in the precise use of punctuation, it reads: “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.”

http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gun-rally-in-arizona.jpg (http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gun-rally-in-arizona.jpg)
Sign at a Tea Party rally in Arizona.

But Cruz, R-Texas, and other Tea Party favorites typically lop off the 12-word preamble that explains what the First Congress was thinking when it approved the amendment in 1789. By truncating the amendment, Cruz and the Tea Party obscure the two key motives for the amendment: “a well-regulated Militia” and state “security.”

You see the Second Amendment was not originally viewed as some “libertarian” right to kill representatives of the elected government – as some on the Right now fantasize – but rather the collective right of each state to maintain its own militia drawing from white male citizens who were expected to show up with their own guns. The Constitution also gave the President the power to federalize the state militias for the purpose of defending the Republic.

The Second Amendment should be understood, too, in the context of the follow-on Militia Acts enacted by the Second Congress. They mandated that white military-aged men obtain muskets and other military supplies for service in state militias. President George Washington then took command of several state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.

So, contrary to the Tea Party’s desired “history,” the initial use of the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts was to crush an anti-tax revolt in rural Pennsylvania. A similar uprising in western Massachusetts – the Shays Rebellion – was also fresh in the minds of Washington and other Framers, since it was one reason they went to Philadelphia in 1787 to throw out the ineffective Articles of Confederation and start over with a new Constitution.

The thinking of George Washington, James Madison and other key Framers was that an elected Republic operating under the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution – with its intricate checks (http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/11/the-rights-second-amendment-fraud/#) and balances – was the best way to protect American independence and liberties.

Of course, the Framers had a rather distorted view of what constituted independence and liberty. They accepted slavery of African-Americans, excluded Native Americans and denied suffrage to women and some white men. (Indeed, putting down slave revolts became an important role for state militias in the South.)

But the Framers clearly did not embrace the modern “libertarian” notion that disgruntled Americans should have personal arsenals so they can shoot police, soldiers or other government representatives. In fact, the Framers had a word for such activity. They called it “treason,” which was the charge brought against some leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion who were sentenced to hang (although Washington used his pardoning power to stop the executions).

If you’re not sure that the Framers really did disdain insurrection against the new Republic, you can look it up in the Constitution. Treason is defined as “levying war against” the United States as well as giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3). Article IV, Section 4 further committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence.” There’s also language about insuring “domestic Tranquility.”

Incendiary Words

Yes, I know some on the Right have cherry-picked a few incendiary comments from Thomas Jefferson (without seeming to know that Jefferson had very little involvement in writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights since he was serving as the U.S. representative in Paris). Many other right-wing citations claiming the Founders favored armed insurrection against the elected U.S. government have been taken out of context or were simply fabricated. [See a summary (http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm) of dubious quotes compiled by Steven Krulick.]

But the key point about the Second Amendment is that it was never about an individual’s right to possess guns without restrictions. It was framed mostly out of concern that a standing federal army could become excessively powerful and that the states should maintain their own citizen militias. [See Krulick’s detailed explanation (http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Purpose.htm).]

So, the Second Amendment was viewed as a concession to states’ rights. Many leading political figures – both Federalists who supported the Constitution and anti-Federalists who opposed it – favored maintaining the citizen militias that helped win the Revolution.

Though Madison initially dismissed the need for a Bill of Rights, he recognized that he would have to make concessions to gain ratification of the Constitution, which he had labored so hard to produce. So, in exchange for some key votes on ratification, he promised to push a batch of amendments through the first Congress.

As the militia amendment progressed from Madison’s original wording, one consistent element in the various versions was the understanding that “bearing arms” was connected to “military service” in a citizens’ militia to maintain security, not to any notion of enabling armed insurrection against the legally constituted government.

For instance, a Senate rewording of the proposed amendment read: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

In other words, “bearing arms” and “military service in person” were treated as synonymous. Later, the conscientious-objector clause was dropped and the phrasing was further whittled down to its final form. But the preamble continued to explain what the Framers had in mind, “a well-regulated Militia” to maintain the “security of a free State.”

For generations, the U.S. Supreme Court and lesser courts interpreted the Second Amendment within this context of a collective right of the people to defend the security of their states and country, not a libertarian right for a mob of insurrectionists to possess guns for killing government officials.

Only in modern times, with the lobbying from an increasingly extreme National Rifle Association, has that anarchic view taken hold, gaining limited acceptance in 2008 when five right-wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned longstanding precedents and asserted a limited individual right to own a gun for self-protection.

However, some on the extreme Right continue to push the envelope, arguing that the Framers wanted individual fighters for “liberty” to have the capacity to inflict massive harm on fellow American citizens and to destroy the nation’s “domestic Tranquility.”

Further, these gun-rights extremists maintain that neither the states nor federal government can do anything to protect the safety of citizens and the security of the nation because the Framers, through the Second Amendment, tied the country’s hands. This right-wing interpretation of the Second Amendment rests on some very bad history or perhaps a willful misinterpretation of the Framers’ intent, which was to establish the rule of law within an orderly Republic.

This dishonesty (or ignorance) from the Right will be on display during the upcoming congressional debate. You can detect the fraud when Sen. Cruz and other Tea Partiers insist on dropping the first half of the Second Amendment.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/11/the-rights-second-amendment-fraud/

[boutons_deux]

More Second Amendment Madness

Exclusive: Elements of the American Right are suggesting that Barack Obama, the twice-elected President of the United States, is a tyrant whose gun-control plans should be resisted by force, a gross and dangerous distortion of why the Framers wrote the Second Amendment, says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus has sold millions of Americans on the dangerous – and false – notion that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so an armed population could fight the government that the Framers had just created.

As a result of that historical lie, many right-wingers today appear to be heeding a call to arms by buying up assault weapons at a frenetic pace. A “Gun Appreciation Day” is scheduled for the Saturday before Barack Obama’s Second Inaugural, which coincidentally falls on Martin Luther King Day. Thousands of gun owners are expected to turn out waving flags and brandishing rifles.

http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/generalbenjaminlincoln.jpg (http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/generalbenjaminlincoln.jpg)
General Benjamin Lincoln who led a force in 1787 to put down Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts. (Painting by Charles Willson Peale)


The organizer of that effort, right-wing activist Larry Ward, wrote that “the Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people.”

In recent weeks, this bogus narrative of the Framers seeking to encourage violence to subvert the peaceful and orderly process that they had painstakingly created in Philadelphia in 1787 also has been pushed by prominent right-wingers, such as radio host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano

Napolitano declared (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/): “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

The suggestion is that armed Americans must confront the “tyrannical” Barack Obama – the twice-elected President of the United States (and the first African-American to hold that office) – if he presses ahead seeking commonsense gun restrictions in the face of the massacre of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, and hundreds of other horrendous incidents of gun violence.

These “revolutionary” Americans have been persuaded that they are channeling the intent of the Framers who supposedly saw armed uprisings against the legally constituted U.S. government as an important element of “liberty.”

But that belief is not the historical reality. Indeed, the reality is almost the opposite. The Second Amendment was enacted so each state would have the specific right to form “a well-regulated militia” to maintain “security,” i.e. to put down armed rebellions.

The Framers also made clear what they thought should happen to people who took up arms against the Republic. Article IV, Section 4 committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence,” and treason is defined in the Constitution as “levying war against” the United States as well as giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3).

Second Amendment’s History

The historical context of the Second Amendment also belies today’s right-wing mythology. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the young nation was experiencing violent unrest, such as the Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts. That armed uprising was testing the ability of the newly independent nation to establish order within the framework of a democratic Republic, a fairly untested idea at the time. European monarchies were predicting chaos and collapse for the United States.

Among the most concerned about that possibility was General George Washington, who had sacrificed greatly for the birth of the new nation. After the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781 and their acceptance of American independence in 1783, Washington fretted over the inability of the states-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation, then governing the country, to deal with its economic and security challenges.

Washington grew disgusted with the Articles’ recognition of 13 “independent” and “sovereign” states and the correspondingly weak central government, called not even a government, but a “league of friendship.”

As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, Washington had watched his soldiers suffer when various states reneged on their commitment to supply money and arms. After the war, Washington retired but stayed active in seeking reforms that would strengthen the central government’s ability to organize national commerce and to maintain order.

His fears deepened in 1786 when Daniel Shays, a former Continental Army captain, led an uprising of other veterans and farmers in western Massachusetts, taking up arms against the government for failing to address their economic grievances.

Washington received reports on the crisis from old Revolutionary War associates in Massachusetts, such as his longtime logistical chief, Gen. Henry Knox, and Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, who accepted the British surrender at Yorktown as Washington’s second in command. They kept Washington apprised of the disorder, which he feared might encourage renewed interference in American affairs by the British or other European powers.

On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter (http://shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/shaysapp/person.do?shortName=george_washington) seeking more information about the rebellion from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”

In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the unrest: “What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Washington was especially concerned about the possibility of a hidden British hand.

Lincoln responded: “Many of them [the rebels] appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”

However, the U.S. government – under the Articles of Confederation – lacked the means to restore order. So wealthy Bostonians financed their own force under Gen. Lincoln to crush the uprising in February 1787. Afterwards, Washington remained concerned the rebellion might be a sign that European predictions about American chaos were coming true.

“If three years ago [at the end of the American Revolution] any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,” Washington wrote (http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/resources/george-washington-discusses-shays%E2%80%99-rebellion-and-up) to Knox on Feb. 3, 1787, adding that if the government “shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must prevail.”

Just weeks later, Washington’s alarm about Shays’ Rebellion was a key factor in his decision to take part in – and preside over – the Constitutional Convention, which was supposed to offer revisions to the Articles of Confederation but instead threw out the old structure entirely and replaced it with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution shifted national sovereignty from the 13 states to “We the People” and dramatically enhanced the power of the central government.

The key point of the Constitution was to create a peaceful means for the United States to implement policies favored by the people but within a structure of checks and balances to prevent radical changes deemed too disruptive to the established order. For instance, the two-year terms of the House of Representatives were meant to reflect the popular will but the six-year terms of the Senate were designed to temper the passions of the moment (and senators were initially chosen by state legislatures, not the people).

Within this framework of a democratic Republic – where peaceful change was possible though intentionally gradual – the Framers criminalized taking up arms against the government. But it was the Constitution’s drastic expansion of federal power that prompted strong opposition from some Revolutionary War figures, such as Virginia’s Patrick Henry who spearheaded the Anti-Federalist movement.

Prospects for the Constitution’s ratification were in such doubt that its principal architect James Madison joined in a sales campaign known as the Federalist Papers in which he tried to play down how radical his changes actually were. To win over other skeptics, Madison agreed to support a Bill of Rights, which would be proposed as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was a mix of concessions, some substantive and some rhetorical, to both individual citizens and the states.

The Second Amendment was primarily a right granted to the states. It read: “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.”

Madison’s political maneuvering narrowly secured approval of the Constitution in key states, such as Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. The First Congress then approved the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. [For more details on the Constitution, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative (https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1868/t/12126/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=1037/).]

Behind the Second Amendment

As the preface to the Second Amendment makes clear, the concern was about enabling states to organize militias that could maintain “security,” which fit with the Constitution’s goal of “domestic Tranquility” within the framework of a Republic.

This concept was amplified by the actions of the Second Congress amid another uprising which erupted in 1791 in western Pennsylvania. This anti-tax revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, prompted Congress in 1792 to expand on the idea of “a well-regulated militia” by passing the Militia Acts which required all military-age white males to obtain their own muskets and equipment for service in militias.

At the time, Madison was in the U.S. Congress and Washington was in the presidency – with both supporting the new laws – so the “original intent” of the Framers could not be easily misunderstood.

The right “to keep and bear arms” was always within the context of participating in militias – or today the National Guard – not as the right of individuals to possess devastating weapons that could be used to violently overthrow the U.S. government or to kill its officials. (The recognition of a collective – rather than individual right – was only reversed in 2008 when right-wing ideologues had gained control of the U.S. Supreme Court and then overturned longstanding legal precedents.)

But if there was any doubt about how the actual Framers saw the Second Amendment, it was answered in 1794 when President Washington led a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey rebels in Pennsylvania. The revolt soon collapsed; many leaders fled; and two participants were convicted of high treason and sentenced to hanging, though Washington later pardoned them.

Beyond this clear historical record – that the Framers’ intent with the Second Amendment was to create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions – there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young nation’s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land and favored domestic tranquility to promote economic development and growth.

So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – to repulse uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts.

Fabricated History

However, the Right has invested heavily over the last several decades in fabricating a different national narrative, one that ignores both logic and the historical record. In this right-wing fantasy, the Framers wanted everyone to have a gun so they could violently resist their own government.
To build that narrative, a few incendiary quotes are cherry-picked, taken out of context or invented. [See, for instance, Steven Krulik's compilation (http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm) of such apocryphal references.]

This “history” has then been amplified through the Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus – Fox News, talk radio, the Internet and ideological publications – to persuade millions of Americans that their possession of semi-automatic assault rifles and other powerful firearms is what the Framers intended, that today’s gun owners are fulfilling some centuries-old American duty.

It should be noted, too, that Thomas Jefferson, one of the most radical-sounding (though hypocritical) leaders of the Revolutionary War, was not a Framer of the Constitution. In 1787, when the document was written, he was the U.S. representative in France.

There is also the obvious point that the Framers’ idea of a weapon was a single-shot musket that required time-consuming reloading, not a powerful semi-automatic assault rifle that could fire up to 100 bullets in a matter of seconds without the necessity to reload.

However, people like Andrew Napolitano on the Right – as well as some dreamy revolutionaries on the Left – still suggest that the Framers enacted the Second Amendment so the firepower of people trying to overthrow the U.S. government and kill its agents would be equal to whatever weapons the government possessed.

This crazy notion would be laughable if its consequences were not so horrible. The human price for this phony concept of “liberty” – and this bogus history – is the horrendous death toll that gun violence inflicts on American society, including the recent slaughter of those children in Newtown.

Yet, instead of recognizing the actual history and accepting that the Constitution was an attempt by the Framers to create a democratic process for peaceful change, today’s advocates of a violent revolution – whether from the Right or the Left – feed the paranoia and the ignorance of their followers.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/14/more-second-amendment-madness/

[boutons_deux]

You Know What The Founding Fathers Said About Your Right To Bear Arms?

http://www.upworthy.com/you-know-what-the-founding-fathers-said-about-your-right-to-bear-arms-this?c=upw1

[TSA]

You Know What The Founding Fathers Said About Your Right To Bear Arms?

http://www.upworthy.com/you-know-what-the-founding-fathers-said-about-your-right-to-bear-arms-this?c=upw1


:lmao @ author Adam Mordecai

"Adam Mordecai:
I write stuff for Upworthy. I want my gay friends to be able to get married. I want my undocumented friends to gain citizenship. I want everyone to have healthcare. I want the media to do their job. And I want politicians to learn shame. Also, side note, I think Jon Stewart is some sort of oracle. You can find me on Twitter, like my stuff on Facebook, and read my long winded ranting on Quora."

:lmao where do you find this shit and how are his long winded rants :lmao

[TSA]

:lmao wish I could post his pics from my phone :lmao