National School Walkout

[rogue06]

Are you really this uniformed? Have you actually read Heller? The majority opinion not only quoted the Founders but English Common Law. Their opinion was not in any sense novel. And the 2nd amendment did not cause one death, as a matter of fact for most of our history firearms were much easier to get. I purchased a used Beretta 20 gauge shotgun at 14 without an adult present at a gun store.

I've gone over this with him multiple times and usually get little better than a sputtering "nuh-uh"

[Sparko]

...the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.


Pretty clear language.

[rogue06]

And you want to remove our right to protect our selves and our families, it doesn't get any more visceral than that.. And are you so insular Carp that you don't realize that criminals won't give up their guns.

If experience is any guide it looks like any attempt to round up guns will meet an extraordinary level of noncompliance.

Source: Australia's mandatory gun buyback inspires U.S. activists, but few lawmakers

That type of widespread noncompliance appears to be a likely scenario based on the experience of states who expanded gun laws in the last few years. California banned ownership of high-capacity magazines last year, but there's little sign that many owners turned them in to police. States like Connecticut and New York that passed laws requiring residents to register assault weapons found the number of people who came forward lagged far below estimated ownership.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

And these are in areas that typically approve of restrictive gun control legislation.

[Littlejoe]

That was a Nixon-appointed Chief SCOTUS justice.

The only thing that meme proves is Supreme Court Justices can be wrong. Ignoring the words of the Founding Fathers that actually WROTE the Constitution is simply willful ignorance.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 178


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

[Starlight]

Are you really this uniformed? Have you actually read Heller? The majority opinion not only quoted the Founders but English Common Law.

Are you aware that the minority opinions also did a thorough (and more accurate) historical analysis? You & Rogue & LitteJoe seem under some sort of delusion that an objective look at the historical facts and opinions would support an everyone-should-be-allowed-guns view. Nothing could be further from the truth. You guys like to misquote some founding fathers out of context in order to arrive at your distorted view of what the historical situation actually is. That is precisely what lead conservative chief justice Warren Burger to make his comment I posted that your type of pseudo-historical rewrite-history analysis was nothing but "fraud". You guys are just fooling yourselves buying the NRA's fraudulent pseudo-historical propaganda.

The majority Heller SCOTUS decision belongs on the same trash-heap as Citizens United or Bush v Gore... joke decisions in which the 5 conservative-appointed justices showed themselves as nothing but politically appointed hyper-partisans and made them a laughingstock both in the US and around the world.

[rogue06]

The only thing that meme proves is Supreme Court Justices can be wrong. Ignoring the words of the Founding Fathers that actually WROTE the Constitution is simply willful ignorance.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 178


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

I'll re-post what I wrote the last time all this came up

Time to repost this bit on whether the private ownership of firearms was intended to be a collective or individual right. It was originally written after Starlight declared that the idea that the 2A covered the right of the individual to keep and bear arms was concocted by the NRA in recent years and reposted when Sam declared it was a "very modern interpretation"

Another example of ignorance based historical revisionism that is in the words of the famous theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! ("That is not only not right, it is not even wrong"). Or as put in what is sometimes called "Asimov's axiom": "Not even wrong."

In his 400-page The Bill of Rights: Creation & Reconstruction
And when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 32 year long ban on handguns in Washington D.C., in June 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) in a 5-4 decision. It was "an inevitable ruling," explained George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. "Even though I'm an advocate of gun control, it's very hard to read the Second Amendment and not see an individual right."

And the claim that "The Second Amendment wasCommentaries became nearly universally regarded as being the leading American authority on both Blackstone and American law.

Tucker addressed the Second Amendment at several points, clearly stating that it protected the individual, natural right of self-defense. After quoting the amendment he wrote:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

View of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1825 with a second edition printed in 1829. In it, especially in the second edition, he made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms belonged to the ordinary citizen, writing that, "No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people."

This same view can again be seen in the highly influential 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Supreme Court Justice and law professor Joseph Story, as well as in his later Familiar Exposition of the Constitution. By paraphrasing the "right of the people" as the "right of the citizens" -- not of States or members of a militia -- Story left no doubt that he meant the right to belong to individuals. He unequivocally stated that "the right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

Story was even more direct in his [i]Familiar Exposition[/u]purchased by state or local legislatures, or supplied by the King^[1], any pre-1900 case or commentary shows that none of them thought of the Second Amendment was established to preserve a collective right or right of the states. IOW, while the Second Amendment was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose that does not in any way suddenly somehow transform that right into a collective right. There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-20th century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to members of well-regulated militias. The "collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the 20th century "gun control" debate.













1. In the Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton clearly and unambiguously states that membership in a well-regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms.

The simple fact of the matter is that the concept of an individual right to own and bear firearms is anything but a modern idea. Those who promote this codswallop are seeking nothing less than to rewrite history to suit their agenda.

The idea that the Second Amendment (2A) protects the right of the states rather than the individual was utterly alien until the 20th century and despite diligent research by many hopeful liberals they could never find the concept ever mentioned until then. To show just how ridiculous the idea that the 2A was meant to allow states to establish a National Guard (an argument offered by several gun control advocates) is, one needs to simply note that it took Congress 130 years to establish the National Guard (from 1787 to 1917).

Just for giggles I'll also cite the late renowned historian Leonard Levy who specialized in the history of basic American Constitutional freedoms and authored several highly regarded books on various parts of the Bill of Rights. In his The Origin of the Bill of Rights Levy unequivocally wrote:

"Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual's right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights...The very language of the amendment is evidence that the right is a personal one, for it is not subordinated to the militia clause. Rather the right is an independent one, altogether separate from the maintenance of a militia. Militias were possible only because the people were armed and possessed the right to be armed. The right does not depend on whether militias exist."

Levy also noted that the state constitutions of the revolution and early national period also acknowledged it as an individual right.

[Littlejoe]

Are you aware that the minority opinions also did a thorough (and more accurate) historical analysis? You & Rogue & LitteJoe seem under some sort of delusion that an objective look at the historical facts and opinions would support an everyone-should-be-allowed-guns view. Nothing could be further from the truth. You guys like to misquote some founding fathers out of context in order to arrive at your distorted view of what the historical situation actually is. That is precisely what lead conservative chief justice Warren Burger to make his comment I posted that your type of pseudo-historical rewrite-history analysis was nothing but "fraud". You guys are just fooling yourselves buying the NRA's fraudulent pseudo-historical propaganda.

The majority Heller SCOTUS decision belongs on the same trash-heap as Citizens United or Bush v Gore... joke decisions in which the 5 conservative-appointed justices showed themselves as nothing but politically appointed hyper-partisans and made them a laughingstock both in the US and around the world.

Feel free to point out the missing or out of context quotes. Otherwise your just obfuscating...and your misinformed opinion will be duly noted.

[Starlight]

Feel free to point out the missing or out of context quotes.

I already debunked several of the same misquotes when Sparko posted them. 100% of his ones that I double-checked were wrong. Your list includes all his incorrect ones.

[Charles]

you tell me.

I don't assume Starlight and you would agree so I would take interest in hearing your answer.

[seer]

The majority Heller SCOTUS decision belongs on the same trash-heap as Citizens United or Bush v Gore... joke decisions in which the 5 conservative-appointed justices showed themselves as nothing but politically appointed hyper-partisans and made them a laughingstock both in the US and around the world.

Star have you read Heller, they clearly tie this right to the Founders and English Common law. I'll tell you what, read the majority opinion and tell me EXACTLY what they got wrong. I will be waiting...

[Charles]

I will be waiting...

Instead of contributing...

[Cerebrum123]

Sparko is right. I was actually not talking about taking away all guns from all people. I truely thought what we needed was a couple of simple steps, and a lot of study before we determined the next step. But I have shifted my stance. When I realized that we have a contingent of citiizens willing to harm their fellow citizens on the basis of a disagreement about arms, and that the primary motivation is to "own guns," rather than ensure the safety of all... I have joined the ranks of the "repeal the second amendment." I now realize that we have been arming a part of our electorate that is perfectly willing to do harm to the rest of us so they can preserve their "right" to own a gun. So we have foolishly armed an an entire generation willing to be the next "Ruby Ridge" or "Waco" and happy to see themselves are martyrs to that cause.

We need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It is the only way to end this insanity. There is no middle ground so long as the right will not compromise on gun safety. I did not used to think this way, but I have been convinced by the intransigence of the right.

You're misrepresenting the people here whom you disagree with. People are willing to fight to keep their inalienable rights from being taken away. They don't want to fight, nor have I seen anyone here who would be "happy to be a martyr" with regards to this issue. Pointing out that trampling on the rights of innocent people leads to negative outcomes is common sense.

The ones who want to repeal the Second Amendment would be the aggressors, and would be the ones resorting to force, and effectively starting a war by their actions. If the government shows that it is willing to take away some rights of the people, then it is showing that it believes rights are something it is the source of. This would mean the government could just take away things like the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" since they would now be the domain of the government instead of "inalienable", or "God given". All they would have to do is convince enough people to agree with them. North Korea has convinced its own people to live under nuts like Kim Jong Un, and many other dictatorial countries convince many of their own citizens to do horrible things. Already the eugenics movement is starting to gain more traction as many people are forgetting the horrors of the holocaust. Before World War II it was the scientific consensus, and I doubt it will be long before it is again. I mean, it's already effectively being enforced under the "pro-choice" movement with abortion.

Those who are willing to trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither. In the case of removing the Second Amendment you will have neither security nor liberty, even if you got rid of all of the guns. Criminals would move on to equally lethal means in a short amount of time. Bombs and vehicles are already used in massive attacks, and they will just become the go to means for massive death tolls by evil people.

Then again, you are still unwilling to see that ending a persons life is far worse than 9 months of inconvenience to a woman, so I doubt you care about the consequences of what you are calling for as much as you claim to.

[Cerebrum123]

I already debunked several of the same misquotes when Sparko posted them. 100% of his ones that I double-checked were wrong. Your list includes all his incorrect ones.

You missed his response, and you didn't really "debunk" anything.

Could you give sources for your information and more details?

My research says that it was Samuel Adam's own wording that he proposed at the Massachusetts convention. If so then the quote stands.
I mentioned that the Jefferson quote was from his book and was a quote from Beccaria. That he bothered to quote him suggest that he agreed with what he quoted. The other quotes, I never said they were specifically about firearms. They are about the constitution and liberty and giving up rights for safety.

If you want to give details and sources for the rest of your complaint, I will try to respond.

[Cerebrum123]

Instead of contributing...

Indeed, we must all hope to live up to your levels of contribution to TWeb.

[carpedm9587]

You're misrepresenting the people here whom you disagree with. People are willing to fight to keep their inalienable rights from being taken away. They don't want to fight, nor have I seen anyone here who would be "happy to be a martyr" with regards to this issue. Pointing out that trampling on the rights of innocent people leads to negative outcomes is common sense.

The ones who want to repeal the Second Amendment would be the aggressors, and would be the ones resorting to force, and effectively starting a war by their actions. If the government shows that it is willing to take away some rights of the people, then it is showing that it believes rights are something it is the source of. This would mean the government could just take away things like the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" since they would now be the domain of the government instead of "inalienable", or "God given". All they would have to do is convince enough people to agree with them. North Korea has convinced its own people to live under nuts like Kim Jong Un, and many other dictatorial countries convince many of their own citizens to do horrible things. Already the eugenics movement is starting to gain more traction as many people are forgetting the horrors of the holocaust. Before World War II it was the scientific consensus, and I doubt it will be long before it is again. I mean, it's already effectively being enforced under the "pro-choice" movement with abortion.

Those who are willing to trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither. In the case of removing the Second Amendment you will have neither security nor liberty, even if you got rid of all of the guns. Criminals would move on to equally lethal means in a short amount of time. Bombs and vehicles are already used in massive attacks, and they will just become the go to means for massive death tolls by evil people.

Nations across this planet have shifted from "guns as a right" to "guns as a privilege" and are not suffering for it. A gun is a thing. No one has an "inalienable right" to a thing. We have an inalienable right to freedom, to life, to happiness, to health. These are about us as beings - not about our possessions. And there is a large body of people who now see the danger to the larger body of this proliferation of guns. The right fights every single attempt to reasonably bring an end to the slaughter. Mandatory gun lockers to prevent thefts? NO! Expand background checks to be universal and eliminated the loopholes? NO! Eliminate high-capacity magazines to reduce the carnage? NO! Create a nationwide database of guns to track stockpiling and aid in research and law enforcement? NO! Put safety systems on the guns so only the owner can shoot them? NO! Every proposal is met with the same answer: NO!

And every "NO!" is followed by an appeal to the second amendment. So, now that more and more of us are saying, "repeal that poorly-worded thing and either let the constitution be silent on it, or replace it with a better, more clearly worded amendment," the response is, "it was never really about the constitution after all - it was about something higher - our inalienable right to own guns!" Nations around this planet have made this shift without the population taking up arms against their fellow citizens, including the nation where the English Law on which this amendment is based originated! If the majority of this nation says, "guns as a privilege from now on," and the minority decides to take up arms against that position? I'm sorry, Cere - but it will not be the majority who are the "aggressors" in that scenario. It will be the ones taking up arms.

As I have noted before, law enforcement is supposed to use proportional force to enforce the law. If the law is obeyed, no force. If the law is resisted, force in proportion to what is being used against them. That puts gun owners in the pilots seat. If they become aggressors, they will not have a legal leg to stand on.

That being said, the odds of the 2nd amendment being repealed are slim (today). Even with a super majority in Congress, it still requires ratification by 38 states. There are far more than 12 "red" states that would never ratify such an amendment. At least, not today. And the left is still squeamish about the very idea of repealing one of the ten "bill of rights." So there is a long way to go. But every change has to start somewhere - and I am most certainly now behind that change, with no apologies.

I believe the message from the left should be: "Repeal the 2nd - stop the insanity!" I am officially a want-to-be "gun-grabber," to use your parlance. I wasn't before. I am now.

Then again, you are still unwilling to see that ending a persons life is far worse than 9 months of inconvenience to a woman, so I doubt you care about the consequences of what you are calling for as much as you claim to.

You appear willing to cling to your inalienable right to own a "thing," but are willing to deny a mature, adult person's right to freely make medical decisions about their own body, dismissing it as an "inconvenience." I don't know about you, but if the government ever told me, "you are required to experience this condition and go through this medical procedure at the end of 9 months," I think I would tell them to take a flying leap, and I'll see you in court. As I have said many times, this topic pits two inalenable rights against one another: freedom/privacy vs. life. There is no winning position. It is lose-lose. The only way to "win" is not to play the game, which is why I advocate for pre-pregnancy options, education, pregnancy support, and post-pregnancy support - to attempt to reduce the carnage as much as is possible to do.