History and the US constitution (split from gun injury thread)

[overtone]

The original constitution did not include a ban on alcohol, and it did not include a right to own guns.

The Constitution we have now was ratified with the Bill of Rights in it. All Ten. They were included because many people were balking at ratifying the new Constitution without those specific guarantees. The original proposer intended them to be part of the body of the Constitution, not amendments at all.

 

The fact that so much of the advocacy for gun has to be corrected on basic, simple fact - ordinary statistical analysis, the meaning of the word "militia", the circumstances of history around the Constitution and since, over and over and over again - is telling.

 

 

What "problem" has the 2nd amendment solved that is more important than the lives of all those kids?

The problem that strong central governments disarm their peasantry to prevent defiance against misrule. That an unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time.

 

The fact that modern Americans often regard that as an unrealistic fear may be the single greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Modern South Americans, modern Africans, modern Indonesians, do not enjoy that luxurious peace of mind.

 

There is also the point that if considering accidents (as was the momentary issue for the quote) "all those children" adds up to a one in a million yearly chance. There are quite a few liberties that Americans will not sacrifice on those odds. Does that make them irrational, bad people?

 

There is also the point that the 2nd Amendment was intended to restrict the government. Prohibition was intended to empower the government. So the Amendment repealing Prohibition would be the comparable amendment, not the Amendment establishing it. And we have of course a long, sad history of the deaths of children from the many ill effects of alcohol to consider.

 

If one were to compare the total deaths of children from the effects of alcohol, to the total deaths of children from the effects of gun ownership, counting all the overlaps twice, what would be the ratio - would you guess? Are you guys intending to use that argument to push for a new Prohibition?

 

 

2/ The fear that ANY limit on gun ownership would automatically, via the slippery slope, mean confiscation, is just as ludicrous.

Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it.

 

Or at least you might get the support of those reasonable people - apparently nearly half the electorate - who have been voting against your politicians despite agreeing with you in the need for gun control.

Edited October 17, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

The 2nd Admendment is just a law written by men. Over the years its meaning has been interpreted by politically appointed judges. The 2nd Admendment can be unwritten by men and its meaning interpreted differently by a different set of politically appointed judges. Wrapping oneself in the constitution as a means of insisting on the status qou is a ethical trap. The 2nd Admendment is not a natural law akin to the law of conservation or the thoery of relativity. We have a choice in how we choose to govern ourselves.

[overtone]

The post was about the fact that gun control is not confiscation- it's just that the pro gun lobby keeps pretending that it is.

This is, unfortunately, not merely "pretending". If it were, there would be hope. Fact is the gun control advocacy in the US repeatedly puts measures on the table that of necessity involve gun confiscation and lots of it. So the fact that effective and reasonable gun control need not involve such measures is lost, and the politicians tagged as favoring gun control are tarred as favoring gun confiscation - not just via wingnut propaganda, but in the reality of support for gun control, as is visible to reasonable people who would otherwise vote for gun control.

 

 

I just pointed out some historical facts:

You made a false assumption, and a very confused argument. And you made the confused argument in a way that is guaranteed to sink your cause in the American political arena - nobody in this country ever wants to redo Prohibition.

 

 

The phrase "within family memory" means nothing. My family, and yours go back to mitochondrial Eve.

So, what you actually mean is "a very long time ago; but I don't want to admit that". 1791 if I recall correctly, so that's about 9 generations ago.

I'm sorry to have confused you.

Many of the people who insisted on writing the Bill of Rights into the Constitution - not as a later Amendment, but as part of the originally ratified document, and as a condition of its ratification - had living family members with direct experience of disarmament leading to subjugation by the minions of a central government. They had that experience in Ireland and Scotland and northern England, from whence some had emigrated less than a generation ago, and some remained still.

Does that help your reading comprehension?

 

Wrapping oneself in the constitution as a means of insisting on the status qou is a ethical trap

Dismissing the Constitution on the pretext of attaining a higher goal is a major mistake, both ethically and pragmatically. The Constitution was written specifically to prevent the US Government from behaving like that. You can't be surprised when you lose that battle in the political arena - many reasonable Americans are going to oppose you. You are depending on the inculcation of ignorance and the overriding of reason by emotion and panic - that's not good, and it's not supposed to be the good guy's approach.

Edited October 18, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Which of these is not a fact?

 

Amendments were made.

They have given rise to problems.

Times have changed.

One of the amendments has been revoked.

Or were you kind of... not exactly telling the truth?

Re.

"Many of the people who insisted on writing the Bill of Rights into the Constitution - not as a later Amendment, but as part of the originally ratified document, and as a condition of its ratification - had family members with direct experience of disarmament leading to subjugation by the minions of a central government."

Are you asserting that gun ownership among the lowest social classes in Ireland was high at that time?

If there were not armed to start with then it's a different issue.

Or are you saying something broadly irrelevant?

And, re. " nobody in this country ever wants to redo Prohibition. "

I'm not suggesting redoing prohibition; quite the reverse

I hope that in due course people will come to realise the 2nd amendment was as big a disaster as the 18th.

Edited October 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

Does that help your reading comprehension?

 

Dismissing the Constitution on the pretext of attaining a higher goal is a major mistake, both ethically and pragmatically. The Constitution was written specifically to prevent the US Government from behaving like that. You can't be surprised when you lose that battle in the political arena - many reasonable Americans are going to oppose you. You are depending on the inculcation of ignorance and the overriding of reason by emotion and panic - that's not good, and it's not supposed to be the good guy's approach.

It is not dismissive of the Constitution to point out that it is Admendable. It was designed to flexible and not carved in stone. As society changes so too does the Constitution. If not than blacks would still only be 3/5 a person and only land owners would be allowed to vote. Gun advocates try to draw the line in the sand at the 2nd Admandment and pretend it's monolithic, it is not. How many of the initial 10 Admendments are practiced today as they were in 1789? Did the 4th Admendment protect all people from unreasonable searches; i bet slaves, indentured servants, and native didn't feel it did. What about the 6th Admendent, where minorities and single adult women truly recieving impartial juries? And of course the 2nd Admendment did not cover slaves in 1789 either. The Constitution has evolved and its Admendents have be re-defined throughout the years. To pretend otherwise as a non-starter to reasonable debate lacks integrity.

[overtone]

Are you asserting that gun ownership among the lowest social classes in Ireland was high at that time?

If there were not armed to start with then it's a different issue.

They were prevented from arming themselves by law. When caught with arms, they were disarmed. They had been armed, in earlier times. These arms had been confiscated from them. In their disarmed state, they were subject to myriad abuses by the armed minions of the State - and anyone else with arms, if the State was negligent in its "protection" (a factor always in play, under such rule).

 

 

I'm not suggesting redoing prohibition; quite the reverse

You are suggesting redoing Prohibition. This is obvious to any American (except possibly a few gun control advocates, hence my point). It will not go well for you in the American political arena.

 

Which of these is not a fact?

Amendments were made.

They have given rise to problems.

Times have changed.

One of the amendments has been revoked.

- - -

I hope that in due course people will come to realise the 2nd amendment was as big a disaster as the 18th.

It is not a fact that the 2nd Amendment was made later, as a change in the original Constitution. You are in error in assuming the 2nd Amendment was added on later. It was part of the original, ratified Constitution, the one we have now.

 

 

 

It is not dismissive of the Constitution to point out that it is Admendable.

That's why I keep pointing that out. You have to amend the Constitution, not dismiss it as "outdated" or "mistaken" or whatever, to legislate in contradiction to it.

 

 

The Constitution has evolved and its Admendents have be re-defined throughout the years. To pretend otherwise as a non-starter to reasonable debate lacks integrity.

It has been extended in its protections, not contradicted in its meaning or dismissed in its original intent. And even that often required further Amendment, not mere "interpretation" - the entire Bill of Rights was extended to cover former slaves by further Amendment, mere interpretation having been found inadequate.

Edited October 18, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

You are suggesting redoing Prohibition. This is obvious to any American (except possibly a few gun control advocates, hence my point). It will not go well for you in the American political arena.

 

It is not a fact that the 2nd Amendment was made later, as a change in the original Constitution. You are in error in assuming the 2nd Amendment was added on later. It was part of the original, ratified Constitution, the one we have now.

 

That's why I keep pointing that out. You have to amend the Constitution, not dismiss it as "outdated" or "mistaken" or whatever, to legislate in contradiction to it.

 

 

It has been extended in its protections, not contradicted in its meaning or dismissed in its original intent. And even that often required further Amendment, not mere "interpretation" - the entire Bill of Rights was extended to cover former slaves by further Amendment, mere interpretation having been found inadequate.

If I was to ask "To what was it an amendment?" you might think that the distinction makes a difference so I won't ask.

The "proto-constitution" was amended.

that amendment was made.

It gave rise...

and so on.

 

"That's why I keep pointing that out. You have to amend the Constitution, not dismiss it as "outdated" or "mistaken" or whatever, to legislate in contradiction to it. "

that's not an "either / or" thing.

You amend the constitution because it's "outdated or mistaken or whatever".

And, for the third time; I am not redoing prohibition ( the 18 th amendment).

I am proposing redoing something like the 21st amendment.

You seem to have got hung up on the nomenclature here.

The UK gas gun control; but there are guns here; they have not been "prohibited".

 

 

You really are being absurd.

I say I want to revoke one of the amendments and to do that would need an amendment.

There is a precedent for this

It is the 21st amendment.

That was the legislation that got rid of prohibition.

I want to "copy" that legislation that got rid of prohibition.

And your response is

"You want to bring in prohibition."

No.

I don't.

What I want to do is essentially the process that got rid of prohibition.

Are you beginning to get the hang of that?

[waitforufo]

The 2nd Admendment is just a law written by men. Over the years its meaning has been interpreted by politically appointed judges. The 2nd Admendment can be unwritten by men and its meaning interpreted differently by a different set of politically appointed judges. Wrapping oneself in the constitution as a means of insisting on the status qou is a ethical trap. The 2nd Admendment is not a natural law akin to the law of conservation or the thoery of relativity. We have a choice in how we choose to govern ourselves.

Is this true for all the amendments including those in the bill of rights. Where does this logic of your stop. Does it apply to the first amendment? Is the right to free speech and a free press covered? What about a state religion? Can that be imposed? What about self incrimination. Can the bill of rights be changed so that those accused of committing crimes must give testimony against themselves? Just laws written by men?

 

As overtone points out below, we are not just talking about general amendments. We are talking about the bill of rights. You see Americans with knowledge of our history understand that the bill of rights merely recognizes or natural human rights. It does not create or bestow them. All one needs to do to prove that is look at the ninth amendment.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth amendment of the US constitution.

The above protects my other rights not enumerated. This shows that my rights do not come from government, but nature. The ones in the bill of rights were specifically enumerated to stop people like you from even trying to deny those specific rights.

 

There was no such thing. The Constitution was written. Certain of its provisions were late additions, and for idiosyncratic reasons were labeled "amendments". They were not included by the ordinary process of amendment, as described in the Constitution, but instead part of the original ratification.

Agreed. The bill of rights are not ordinary amendments. Any change to them will cause political upheaval in the US.

[iNow]

Is this true for all the amendments including those in the bill of rights. Where does this logic of your stop. Does it apply to the first amendment? Is the right to free speech and a free press covered? <snip>What about self incrimination. Can the bill of rights be changed so that those accused of committing crimes must give testimony against themselves?

Yes.

• 1st Amendment Limitations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
• 2nd Amendment Limitations: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/08/second-amendment-limits-to-gun-ownership.html
• 4th Amendment Limitations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Limitations
• 5th Amendment Limitations: http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2009/12/fifth-amendment-limits.html
• 6th Amendment Limitations: http://public.getlegal.com/legal-info-center/6th-amendment/
• 7th Amendment Limitations: http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-vii/the-problem-of-the-seventh-amendment-and-civil-jury-trial-renee-lettow-lern/interp/7
• 8th Amendment Limitations: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment8/annotation09.html
• 9th Amendment Limitations: http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Reconceiving.htm#CIV
• 10th Amendment Limitations: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-6/06-supremacy-clause-versus-tenth-amendment.html

* NOTE: The SCOTUS has never decided a case on the basis of the 3rd amendment. That's why it's not included above with an accompanying set of limitations/constraints.

 

Finally, there are no absolute rights: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/05/there-are-no-absolute-rights.html

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky.

[swansont]

It is not a fact that the 2nd Amendment was made later, as a change in the original Constitution. You are in error in assuming the 2nd Amendment was added on later. It was part of the original, ratified Constitution, the one we have now.

 

Yes, it is a fact.

 

The US constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, after New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it. March 4, 1789 is when the government began operating under the new constitution.

 

"Beginning on December 7, five states–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut–ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed."

 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

 

The Bill of Rights, OTOH was ratified on December 15, 1791

 

10 of the 12 amendments which made it that far were included

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[Ten oz]

Is this true for all the amendments including those in the bill of rights. Where does this logic of your stop. Does it apply to the first amendment? Is the right to free speech and a free press covered? What about a state religion? Can that be imposed? What about self incrimination. Can the bill of rights be changed so that those accused of committing crimes must give testimony against themselves? Just laws written by men?

 

Yes, we have the capacity to self govern and write new or different laws. The Bill of Rights was not discovered in a cave etched in gold leaf. It was written, debated, and ratifiied . If compromised debate led to such a great document being produced in 1787 why can't it today?

 

The 2nd Amendments scope has already been restricted. U.S. v Miller in 1939 basically defined "arms" to mean gun. The founders intended for local populations to be armed to protect themselves, townships, and form militias to combat war if needed. Police departments and a standing military did not exist. The 2nd Amendment was designed to allow individuals to act in those capacities for their own communities. Faster forward to today and we do not limit our police or military to only having guns. The "arms" they have access to is far greater yet the 2nd Amendment has been ruled to only cover an individuals right to a gun. The 2nd Amendment as written was not limiting. A Court decision over hundred years after the 2nd Amendment was written limited its meaning. It is that more limited meaning you defend today.

[swansont]

Is this true for all the amendments including those in the bill of rights. Where does this logic of your stop. Does it apply to the first amendment? Is the right to free speech and a free press covered? What about a state religion? Can that be imposed? What about self incrimination. Can the bill of rights be changed so that those accused of committing crimes must give testimony against themselves? Just laws written by men?

 

As overtone points out below, we are not just talking about general amendments. We are talking about the bill of rights. You see Americans with knowledge of our history understand that the bill of rights merely recognizes or natural human rights. It does not create or bestow them. All one needs to do to prove that is look at the ninth amendment.

 

The above protects my other rights not enumerated. This shows that my rights do not come from government, but nature. The ones in the bill of rights were specifically enumerated to stop people like you from even trying to deny those specific rights.

 

Agreed. The bill of rights are not ordinary amendments. Any change to them will cause political upheaval in the US.

 

Yes, it applies to the entire Constitution. The founding fathers did not have to include any of them, and many countries do not include some of the individual rights that are enumerated, or do so in a different manner, changing the scope of the rights. They could have limited (or eliminated) some of these rights and correspondingly granted additional power to the government in the main body of the document, as it does with the other powers. But they did include them, as written, because of the goals they had in forming the nation. Applying the idea that rights are not granted to us by a ruler was a new practice, and not everyone in the world agrees with that concept.

 

Yes, there will be political upheaval if they are changed. But there was upheaval tied up in other amendments as well. Women's suffrage had upheaval. Banning slavery had a touch of upheaval. Income tax and prohibition (which were related) had upheaval, and upheaval was involved in the repeal of prohibition.

When you mention the ninth amendment don't forget the tenth. Just because you think you have a right, it is not spelled out whether the state can restrict it, if it's not addressed at the federal level.

[overtone]

The US constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, after New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it. March 4, 1789 is when the government began operating under the new constitution.

"Beginning on December 7, five states–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut–ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed."

So if you look at your timeline, the US government did not begin to operate until after the Bill of Rights was, by formal agreement, incorporated into the Constitution. Before that, only five of the 13 States had ratified the Constitution. After that, four other States ratified it. The fact that 5 States ratified it already was the reason for including it formally as a set of Amendments - so the original 5 merely had to ratify the Amendments. But without it, the Constitution was not ratified by the necessary nine of thirteen.

You are attempting to argue that five ratifying States was sufficient to establish the Constitution of the original US, which is not possible - the original US, in all history books, was an organization of 13 States, which required 9 ratifying States. http://www.historical-us-maps.com/original-13-states.html

 

Yes, there will be political upheaval if they are changed. But there was upheaval tied up in other amendments as well. Women's suffrage had upheaval. Banning slavery had a touch of upheaval. Income tax and prohibition (which were related) had upheaval, and upheaval was involved in the repeal of prohibition.

Anything in the Constitution can be changed, and all rights can be (and have been) restricted - both enumerated and understood rights. This is necessary (for the existence of any of the rights, for starters, as unrestricted they conflict with each other) and has been part of the Constitution - written into it - from the Founding.

So? Either you are stating banality in the face of an extremist position, which does not get you the automatic dismissal of the 2nd you have argued for in the past, or you are attempting to denigrate the status of the 2nd Amendment because you don't like it, which is the deadlock of extremism I have been pointing to as a central problem with the entire issue.

Edited October 23, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

So if you look at your timeline, the US government did not begin to operate until after the Bill of Rights was, by formal agreement, incorporated into the Constitution. Before that, only five of the 13 States had ratified the Constitution. After that, four other States ratified it. The fact that 5 States ratified it already was the reason for including it formally as a set of Amendments - so the original 5 merely had to ratify the Amendments. But without it, the Constitution was not ratified by the necessary nine of thirteen.

You are attempting to argue that five ratifying States was sufficient to establish the Constitution of the original US, which is not possible - the original US, in all history books, was an organization of 13 States, which required 9 ratifying States. http://www.historical-us-maps.com/original-13-states.html

 

Um, no, I'm not claiming that at all. If you reread what I posted, New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify. That happened June 21, 1788. The US started operating under the Constitution March 4, 1789. The bill of rights weren't ratified for another 2 and a half years. They were not part of the original ratified Constitution.

[overtone]

If you reread what I posted, New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify. That happened June 21, 1788.

Which was five months after the agreement to incorporate the Bill of Rights, and the beginning of the process of ratifying them retroactively in the five States that had ratified already.

 

And applied to those nine States only - the traditional thirteen original States had not yet come together.

 

 

The bill of rights weren't ratified for another 2 and a half years. They were not part of the original ratified Constitution

. A majority of the States in the Union by then - all but five - had joined only under the agreement, the explicit promise and condition of joining, that the Bill of Rights was being added to the Constitution. They did not ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights guaranteed to be in it. I don't think it's reasonable to regard that as a ratified Constitution with the Bill of Rights coming along later.

Edited October 24, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

Which was five months after the agreement to incorporate the Bill of Rights, and the beginning of the process of ratifying them retroactively in the five States that had ratified already.

 

And applied to those nine States only - the traditional thirteen original States had not yet come together.

 

 

. A majority of the States in the Union by then - all but five - had joined only under the agreement, the explicit promise and condition of joining, that the Bill of Rights was being added to the Constitution. They did not ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights guaranteed to be in it. I don't think it's reasonable to regard that as a ratified Constitution with the Bill of Rights coming along later.

 

There was no agreement to incorporate THE Bill of Rights. There was no "the Bill of Rights" as we know it at that time — it did not exist in that form. 39 amendments were proposed to Congress. 12 were submitted to the states, and 10 were ratified at that time. One was finally ratified in 1992(!) and one is still pending.

 

Your standard of reasonableness aside, the claim that the Bill of Rights was part of the original ratified constitution is revisionist history and patently false.

[overtone]

There was no agreement to incorporate THE Bill of Rights.

Ok: a Bill of Rights - what ended up being the thing we have.

Your standard of reasonableness aside, the claim that the Bill of Rights was part of the original ratified constitution is revisionist history and patently false

. There was never a ratified Constitution of the United States without the agreement to include a Bill of Rights such as we have now. It was a necessary, formal condition of original ratification, without which no such ratification took place. The US Constitution was never ratified without a Bill of Rights guaranteed to be part of it.

 

It is revisionist history, and patently false, to claim that the US Constitution was originally ratified without a Bill of Rights guaranteed.

 

Is that better wording for y'all?

Edited October 24, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

 

It is revisionist history, and patently false, to claim that the US Constitution was originally ratified without a Bill of Rights guaranteed.

 

Is that better wording for y'all?

 

Sure. That would be a valid objection to something neither you nor anyone else claimed.

[overtone]

Sure. That would be a valid objection to something neither you nor anyone else claimed.

Or what it was obviously intended as, a confirmation of something I claimed. In particular, a way around this self-confirming semantic stunt you guys are working here, in which the Constitution is supposed to have been ratified before the guaranteed Bill of Rights that half the ratifications (which were conditional) required for validity; the whole irrelevancy resting on what was originally a bureaucratic technicality likewise of no bearing in this thread - whether one calls the Bill of Rights a set of "amendments" that amended nothing, or recognizes it for the reality of its necessary adoption in concert with the rest of the Constitution itself.

 

After which we could dismiss the ad hominem approach to the thread topic you guys increasingly favor, and consider more relevant matters.

Edited October 24, 2015 by overtone

[ydoaPs]

The Constitution we have now was ratified with the Bill of Rights in it. All Ten. They were included because many people were balking at ratifying the new Constitution without those specific guarantees. The original proposer intended them to be part of the body of the Constitution, not amendments at all.

 

The fact that so much of the advocacy for gun has to be corrected on basic, simple fact - ordinary statistical analysis, the meaning of the word "militia", the circumstances of history around the Constitution and since, over and over and over again - is telling.

 

 

The problem that strong central governments disarm their peasantry to prevent defiance against misrule. That an unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time.

 

The fact that modern Americans often regard that as an unrealistic fear may be the single greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Modern South Americans, modern Africans, modern Indonesians, do not enjoy that luxurious peace of mind.

 

There is also the point that if considering accidents (as was the momentary issue for the quote) "all those children" adds up to a one in a million yearly chance. There are quite a few liberties that Americans will not sacrifice on those odds. Does that make them irrational, bad people?

 

There is also the point that the 2nd Amendment was intended to restrict the government. Prohibition was intended to empower the government. So the Amendment repealing Prohibition would be the comparable amendment, not the Amendment establishing it. And we have of course a long, sad history of the deaths of children from the many ill effects of alcohol to consider.

 

If one were to compare the total deaths of children from the effects of alcohol, to the total deaths of children from the effects of gun ownership, counting all the overlaps twice, what would be the ratio - would you guess? Are you guys intending to use that argument to push for a new Prohibition?

 

 

 

Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it.

 

Or at least you might get the support of those reasonable people - apparently nearly half the electorate - who have been voting against your politicians despite agreeing with you in the need for gun control.

So, you're trying to tell me that the document whose only defined crime is treason endorses armed treason? Not likely. Perhaps we should look at how the Constitution defines 'militia'.

[overtone]

 

 

So, you're trying to tell me that the document whose only defined crime is treason endorses armed treason?

No. Are you ever going to make an honest argument in a gun control thread?

 

Perhaps we should look at how the Constitution defines 'militia'.

It doesn't. It assumes basic literacy, by which the word "militia" provides the meaning of the Constitution, not the other way around.

[ydoaPs]

No. Are you ever going to make an honest argument in a gun control thread?

 

 

It doesn't. It assumes basic literacy, by which the word "militia" provides the meaning of the Constitution, not the other way around.

Article 1, section 8:

 

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

 

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, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

The militia is the National Guard.

[swansont]

No. Are you ever going to make an honest argument in a gun control thread?

 

This isn't a gun control thread.

Or what it was obviously intended as, a confirmation of something I claimed. In particular, a way around this self-confirming semantic stunt you guys are working here, in which the Constitution is supposed to have been ratified before the guaranteed Bill of Rights that half the ratifications (which were conditional) required for validity; the whole irrelevancy resting on what was originally a bureaucratic technicality likewise of no bearing in this thread - whether one calls the Bill of Rights a set of "amendments" that amended nothing, or recognizes it for the reality of its necessary adoption in concert with the rest of the Constitution itself.

 

After which we could dismiss the ad hominem approach to the thread topic you guys increasingly favor, and consider more relevant matters.

 

I can't tell what you intended, so no, it wasn't obvious. I can't read your mind, and that shouldn't be a prerequisite to have a discussion.

 

You claimed something that was not true. It's not really ambiguous — "The Constitution we have now was ratified with the Bill of Rights in it" isn't correct. You were given the opportunity to clarify your remarks, and you doubled down on the falsehood. Further, only 10 amendments out of 39 proposals were adopted. Even knowing that some of those were combined in the final form, some were rejected, and there were changes made. So it's not a foregone conclusion (especially absent a single iota of supporting information) that any particular right or set of rights were going to be adopted.

[overtone]

I can't tell what you intended, so no, it wasn't obvious. I can't read your mind, and that shouldn't be a prerequisite to have a discussion.

Reading my posts, was the issue. Reading with comprehension should be a prerequisite to responding to them.

 

You claimed something that was not true. It's not really ambiguous — "The Constitution we have now was ratified with the Bill of Rights in it" isn't correct. You were given the opportunity to clarify your remarks, and you doubled down on the falsehood.

I did "clarify" my remarks - corrected them, actually. I agreed that I should have said "a Bill of Rights" instead of "the Bill of Rights" - the exact number and terms used were yet to be decided when the guarantees were made as a condition of what were provisional ratifications.

 

The question of whether the Constitution would have been considered ratified by any of those provisionally ratifying States without the conditions of ratification having been met, is an interesting but ultimately idle speculation - the process of ratification ended successfully, with the inclusion of a satisfactory Bill of Rights as agreed. Not before.

 

 

The militia is the National Guard.

Once again: No, it isn't. My local militia, for example, is every adult man under the age of 45. And the National Guard is a regular standing military force; armed, equipped, trained, paid, formally enlisted, subject to the UCMJ, and under the command of the State and the Federal Government.

Edited October 26, 2015 by overtone

[ydoaPs]

Once again: No, it isn't. My local militia, for example, is every adult man under the age of 45. And the National Guard is a regular standing military force; armed, equipped, trained, paid, formally enlisted, subject to the UCMJ, and under the command of the State and the Federal Government.

The one the Constitution is talking about actually is. Article 1 section 8. Look it up.