Total posts: 7,597
-->
@ILikePie5
Weird considering how Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says this: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” If they didn’t want a standing army, they would’ve written it in the Constitution.
Ok, not knowing how the Founders and Framers felt about standing armies in that period of time is like not knowing that they drew their S like an F in those times.
Created:
The Congress (i.e. Federal Government) shall have the power:
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
- From Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution
Obviously this stipulates that the militia will get its arms from the Federal Government and in fact each state had its own armory for storage of these arms.
Anyone who has visited Independence Hall would learn that on the second floor was an armory where muskets, pikes and swords were kept for the local militia. We also may recall that the Brown Bess muskets carried by the militia and minutemen during early revolutionary war times were supplied by the British Crown. This demonstrates a history of how militias operated and were financed.
So anyone who thinks the “Well Regulated Militia” from the Second Amendment was some kind of sovereign state army who all owned their own guns and arms and it was designed to guard against a tyrannical Federal Government would be sadly mistaken. Some anti-federalists objected to the power of the Federal government to control the state militias, but having militias was preferable to having standing Federal armies at the time. And since the purpose of the militia was National Defense it only made sense for the National government to have authority over the various state militias. This point was well argued by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29 (#35 in the original publication)
So as I stated before, the second amendment was designed to prevent states from banning citizens from keeping and bearing arms (notice the word own or possess was not used) The Federal government was responsible for providing the arms and the Federal Government was responsible for setting the standards for training and discipline in the various state militias. The 2A had nothing to do with an individual right to own guns for self defense or to protect against the tyranny of the Federal Government, unless it’s considered in the context of helping to render standing armies unnecessary.
Over many years, thanks to the ignorance of average Americans combined with the gutless acquiescence of politicians and Supreme Court justices, this right to gun ownership, including military style weapons, has morphed from something completely different from what the founders and framers had intended to do.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Good night, sir.
If you can’t sleep, try reading the Federalist Papers. You will be better prepared to discuss what the Framers where thinking, saying and trying to do when they debated and wrote the constitution.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Derailing? Is that a French term? I can recommend some books on the constitution if you don’t know where to look.
I’ll give you a hint - there are three prominent Virginians who were anti-Federalist who insisted on a Bill of Rights in order to ratify.
Fun & Fighty
Created:
-->
@Athias
You don’t know who the leading anti-Federalist are do you? Can you name some books you’ve read about the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention? I’m starting to think you are a serious poser. Was “moral principal” as a source of constitutional rights just pulled out of your ass or did you read that somewhere?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Well, who are the most prominent anti-Federalists from the time of the Constitutional Convention? Do you not know? Do you know who proposed the BOR in the first Congress?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Which founders and members of state ratification insisted on a bill of rights for the reason you mentioned?
Well not surprisingly the anti-Federalists. You know who they are of course.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Moral principle.
The reason some Founders and members of the state ratification committees insisted on a BOR was Moral Principle couldn’t be relied upon to confer rights on the people.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Yes. Possession is physical; ownership is conceptual.
That’s nonsense. The definition of posses is to own. SEE LINK BELOW
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It guarantees rights, not grants rights where the BOR are concerned.
No LCpl, if that where true, where did the rights come from that the BOR guarantees? There is no real distinction between granting and guaranteeing when it comes to the BOR.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I possess and own firearms.
So you possess AND own. Thanks for clearing that up Frenchie.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Get a clue Mr. Magoo!
Hey LCpl, was this a real ad hominem attack or was the context juxtaposed on a fallacious observation of the viewer who perceives you as a prick?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Oh you definitely deserve to be the subject of ad hominem attacks as a former enlisted soldier MP turned bounty hunter who thinks he’s a wealthy law partner who acts as the spelling police while using a dictionary to write his pathetic little posts.
Created:
Because the 9th amendment expressly repels the notions of semantic warriors like yourself from using that which isn't explicitly delineated in the Bill of Rights as means to deny one's rights.
The 9th amendment expressly repels the notions of semantic warriors? - LOL THE 9th AMENDMENT REPELS NOTIONS SAYS THE DB
Don't care.
YOU OBVIOUSLY DO CARE BUT YOU DON’T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO
Are Americans allowed to buy automatic weapons?
No, but no force should prevent them from doing so.
AMERICANS CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BUT NO FORCE SHOULD PREVENT THEM? That’s brilliant
Thompson machine guns like the Al Capone days or a .30 caliber belt fed machine guns?
I wouldn't know. To be frank, I didn't know that Tommy guns were still manufactured.
So you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If we can ban those, and we have, why not Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines? Why are you appealing to common practice rather than substantiating or justifying any measure which would attempt to BAN firearms?
Appealing to common practice? lol. I know you’re French but do you understand English?
Do you have any experience with firearms?
Yes
Such as?
Are you an artist?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Do tell. What makes you think I haven’t read the 9th amendment? Do you think I’m advocating banning all firearms? If so why do you think that?
Are Americans allowed to buy automatic weapons? Thompson machine guns like the Al Capone days or a .30 caliber belt fed machine guns? If we can ban those, and we have, why not Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines? Do you have any experience with firearms? I was a Captain in the Marines and I own several guns.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Um, do you think because you cry ad hominem every time I mock you it some how makes your personal attacks totally different? That’s very strange. Were you enlisted in the Army? I’ve got to believe so.
And so you have no idea what the definition of a mass shooting is. It absolutely is about the number of people killed. (Not shot) You can Google it.
Try the FBI definition or the CDC
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Mass shootings are defined differently based on number of shot and killed. Not all need be killed, only shot.
Wrong again! What do you think the definition of a mass shooting is and cite a credible source.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
This is funny, you must really be proud of that education you got in a correspondence course. Two degrees in the legal arena. So we established you are not a lawyer but you like to pretend you are one. Were you like the top paralegal at minor law firm or are you certified in arbitration?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No, you did not prove me wrong. The stabbings were not mass killings. They were mass stabbings where few victims actually died. That’s the point. You saying we shouldn’t ban assault weapons because then people would just replace the rifles with pointy objects is stupid because pointy objects aren’t nearly as effective at killing as an assault rifle.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Did you know arms for the militia in Philadelphia were kept in a second floor room in what is now Independence Hall? Seems those weapons were issued by the local authorities.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Really, prior experience and personal education. That’s so interesting. What are you trying so hard not to say? You don’t have a law degree but you play a lawyer in your mind? And did you retire at such a young age because you were so financially successful?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I think if you read the Wiki article on mass stabbings you’ll learn that these incidents are a lot less likely to result in multiple deaths the way mass shootings do. That’s why armies use assault weapons in war rather than trying to kill people with knives and bayonets. Guns are way more deadly, genius.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I am a constitutionalist and educated in matters of various aspects of the law, both academically and professionally.More than familiar with legislative historical intent, purpose and application of the laws application.
Well I see you are retired. How did you gain all this expertise in the law and legislation?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Of course, of course. You know what this country needs is to hear the opinions of more retired baby boomers.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The 2A includes the words “a well regulated militia” for a reason. Certainly you must concede that fact. Now, why did they include those words and what did “well regulated” mean in 1787 to educated elites?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you get pulled over by a tyrannical police officer and he commences to violate your constitutional rights. You, being the genius that you are, pull out the AR-15 you had hidden in your glove compartment and show him what it means to be a patriot, and you blow him away. Ya, that’s going to happen.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Did you see the Pell Center definition of “a well regulated militia”? Who are you relying on for your interpretation of the Second Amendment - The National Rifle Association?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
In 1789, a militia was not a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods by themselves. Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes. Because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be “well-regulated”—meaning trained to standards set by the federal government.
There is a myth—or misconception—that the right to bear arms was a guarantee of individual gun ownership. The Supreme Court didn’t adopt that interpretation until a 5-4 opinion in 2008—219 years after the adoption of the Constitution!
There is a myth—or misconception—that the right to bear arms was a guarantee of individual gun ownership. The Supreme Court didn’t adopt that interpretation until a 5-4 opinion in 2008—219 years after the adoption of the Constitution!
- From the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Are you aware that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Ok genius, are you suggesting the government outlaw blunt objects? Have you ever read about a mass killing with a stabbing object? How about you and I square off - I’ll use a rifle and you can have a big knife. Who do you think will be killed?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Ya, that is exactly what it meant when written by the Founders.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought all you whack job, Trumpers were pro law enforcement. Oh, except the ones at the Capital. I know gun nuts all have fantasies about rescuing a woman from a motorcycle gang or saving the country from tyranny, but that’s not gonna happen. More likely you’ll get depressed after a divorce or losing your job and you’ll take your gun and kill a bunch of people, perhaps your boss and some co-workers or you will simply commit suicide. That’s much more likely. Half of all gun deaths each year are suicides - about 24,000.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It wasn’t for a common man, the 2A right was for a well trained (regulated) militia man. We don’t have those in this country anymore.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Good question. Rifles are a more powerful weapon due to its higher muzzle velocity. A pistol has a mv of approximately 1000 fps. An AR-15 has a mv of 3300 fps. A bullet from an AR-15 can rip through walls, doors, automobiles, even bullet proof vests. That’s why they need to have more restrictions on magazine capacity. Magazine capacity is mainly a concern for detachable type magazines. I would not object to a rifle such as a lever action Winchester 30-30 that had an internal magazine that exceeded 5 rounds. It’s a concern about firepower and what would be considered non-military by a reasonable person.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So non law-abiding non-citizens will have free access to whatever gun they want. OK
This already exists.
*No, convicted felons will not be able to legally obtain a gun. So you believe convicted felons can walk in to any gun store and buy a firearm?
Automobiles have a serial number because they are commonly involved in crimes ? And here I was thinking it was about theft of private property and safety.
*You think we have license plates on cars to prevent them from being stolen?
Already do. (Require training and background checks)
*Um no. In many instances people buy guns without any training whatsoever and acquire guns without a background check.
Already exists. (Permits required for conceal carry)
*Again, No. You really need to start reading newspapers. Some states have recently authorized conceal carry without permits or training.
Fine, if police can only use exclusive weapons that ordinary people cannot use, then all police need to stop using handguns. Otherwise, the people won't know what's a "police style weapon”
*That’s really dumb
These seem like arbitrary numbers.
Magazine restrictions already exist.
*Seems arbitrary? No, just reasonable. Which states have magazine restrictions? What Federal magazine restrictions exist?
So basically you like the status quo with the possible exception of making a separate class of weapons for police.
*Ya, I’m all for the status quo genius.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was talking about your comment “WAPO is a threat to Democracy confirmed” whatever that means.
That link to the CBO report was not posted in your comment about insulin. Did you read it? Where does it say as you claim “the net prices for insulin would be higher, on average, under the certification process in the INSULIN Act than under current law, CBO estimates.”
CBO says the government would spend more on insulin because more Americans would start using it if it became available at a cost of $35 a month. They do not say the price of insulin (per dose or per patient ) would increase.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you say that?
Created:
Please explain why insulin costs 10 times as much in this country as it does in other industrialized countries - according to the article you cited from Endpoint News.
“Three drugmakers control the more than $20 billion insulin market — Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi — as the current price of insulin in the US is more than 10 times that of 33 other comparable countries, even as the net price of insulin has declined in recent years”.
Do those countries have many many makers of insulin thanks to “lower regulatory barriers” or do they get their insulin from the same three manufacturers the US does?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
The CBO didn’t say that at all - this is what the article quoted the CBO saying -
“Spending for insulin and other pharmaceutical products would increase, CBO estimates, because overall medication use would increase in response to lower cost-sharing requirements,” CBO director Phillip Swagel wrote to Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME) on Friday. “Some use of insulin might also shift to newer and more expensive insulin products. Increased spending for pharmaceutical products would result in increased spending for health care overall.”
You should read your articles more carefully and take the time to understand what you are reading.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nope, I’m a former Marine officer and expert shooter who owns several guns starting when I was a boy and enjoys hunting and target shooting. I’ve also had a conceal carry permit. I’m just a sensible adult who doesn’t have a gun fetish. This website is for intellectuals. You appear to be in the wrong place.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The new 2A would allow for private gun ownership with the following restrictions:
All law abiding citizens and legal residents have the right to own conventional, non-military type firearms for self-defense, home defense, hunting, sport shooting and any other lawful purpose.
All handguns must be registered and have a serial number similar to automobiles because they are commonly used in crimes.
Gun owners must pass a gun safety course and background check.
Guns may only be carried concealed and with a permit from local law enforcement and require extra training.
Military and Police style weapons are restricted for official use only such as law enforcement and the military.
No one may possess a detachable rifle magazine that can hold more than 5 rounds. For handguns, 10 rounds.
Laws for carry, storage, transport, etc shall be established by local government, but may not restrict or expand any of the rights above.
Created:
The Second Amendment reads as follows: 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.
From these words it should be clear that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that no State passed a law to prohibit the people from owning guns, because that would impede the ability of states to form and maintain militias for the purpose of defending the new country that the Constitution was creating. Because the United States didn’t have, and didn’t want at the time, a standing army (or navy) , militias - that is, well regulated militias, were needed to provide a defense against attack, invasion, and civil unrest. You’ll recall that President George Washington requested and led the militias sent by several states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.
The 2A was never about an individual right to own firearms for self defense or to defend against a tyrannical federal government. That idea was created out of thin air by the Supreme Court in the 2008 DC v. Heller decision. This decision was very ironic coming from the strict constructionist and textualist wing of the court.
The 2A as written is firmly obsolete, much like the third amendment prohibiting the quartering of troops in peoples’ houses. The reason of course is that we don’t have well regulated militias anymore. We have standing armies (and a Navy and Air Force) that makes militias a thing of the past. To make matters worse, guns have become a scourge in America with their numbers exceeding the number of citizens, and were used in the death of nearly 50,000 Americans annually. That is according to the most recent data from the Center for Disease Control, which tracks the number of gun related deaths including suicides, which accounts for approximately half of all gun deaths in the country.
Perhaps even worse than the number of gun deaths in this country is the fact that guns are the leading cause of death for children in this country. More than car accidents, or drownings, illness or disease. That is a pretty high price to pay for a right that fundamentally doesn’t exist or offer much of a benefit to society. The ownership of weapons of war makes no sense even in the context of the recently invented right to self defense from the Heller decision. Nobody needs an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine to defend themselves or their homes. But the proliferation of these kinds of firearms has resulted in mass shootings becoming a common event in the United States in this century and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people each year in completely random acts of violence.
The 2A needs to be amended, spelling out exactly what should be allowed and for what purpose.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The “Clear Skies Act” of 2003 by the Bush Administration was a law that increased pollution by amending the Clean Air Act from 40 years earlier.A
The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."
Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:
- Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
- Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
- Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
- Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It doesn’t? Why do you say that? It reduces the price for prescription drugs, healthcare premiums, energy costs, and the deficit. Sounds like inflation reduction to me. Do you know what fundamentally causes inflation? If you say Biden, you would have to explain why inflation is just as bad in Europe and other parts of the world. Did you give Biden credit for reducing gas prices by a dollar a gallon over the last 5 weeks?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
“half — about 53% — of the net proceeds from the sale of insulin go to middlemen, up from 30% in 2014. Meanwhile the share going to manufacturers has decreased by a third”…
Gee, sounds like a good argument for a single payer healthcare system. If only someone or some party would propose such an idea.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Today on Face the Nation, Senator Rick Scott of Florida said that the Inflation reduction Act cuts Medicare benefits because it seeks to pay less for prescription drugs! Imagine the logic, or lack thereof, that allows a person and a party to believe that paying less for something that is provided to seniors is a cut in benefits! By that “logic” if the government agreed to pay twice as much for insulin as they are paying now, they would be doubling the benefit to seniors. Who votes for these people?
Created: