Thom, this federal judge in Maryland appears to not know the history of the 2nd Amendment...he should listen to your show.

141 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Pierpont:

It comes as no surprise you'd ignore the REAL basis of constitutional protections for slavery and instead cite secondary issues... how slaves will be counted in the Census, and the importation of new slaves after 1808.

Since we are talking about the Bill of Right. Don't really see this as a relevent point.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Let me reiterate: Post #96

Quote mjolnir:I don't present the document as "proof" of any point of view. There is no "smoking gun" document that can magically settle this difference in opinion. The presence of differing views IS why I linked to the report. It is that rarest of government reports, one that presents both sides of the question. Dozens of sources both pro and con.

MY personal reading of it is that it SUPPORTS a path of logic that leads to MY conclusion that "the right to bear arms" as an individual right, unencumbered by a link to a "well regulated militia" is articulated in the 2nd Amendment. Others can and in some cases will draw different conclusions.

Deconcini apparently thought the report was a fair one even though he disagreeded with the conclusion.

"[...]As ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I, therefore, welcome the effort which led to this report — a report based not only upon the independent research of the subcommittee staff, but also upon full and fair presentation of the cases by all interested groups and individual scholars. I personally believe that it is necessary for the Congress to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968. I welcome the opportunity to introduce this discussion of how best these amendments might be made.

The Constitution subcommittee staff has prepared this monograph bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over the 1968 Act. I believe that the statements contained herein present the arguments fairly and thoroughly. I commend Senator Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.

DENNIS DECONCINI, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee On the Constitution. JANUARY 20, 1982."

This document only enhances a belief I had arrived at by other means. You disagree but can't refute the claim so I will try to validate it for you. I emailed Hatch's office but since I don't live in his state who knows?

Post #99

Quote Pierpont:[...]And while you're at it, perhaps you can address a key issue I raised... one you seem determined to avoid, that unless the constitutional Militias have been abolished via an amendment to the Constitution, then they must still exist in one from or another.[...]
I don't address the militia because as Capital has pointed out so many times the non-inclusion of slaves and women has absolutely nothing to do with wether the people "who lived then" saw "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" as an individual right or a collective one.

While we are on the subject of addressing issues what was your response to this:

Quote mjolnir:How do you reconcile this statement, "...The notion the Second protects an individual right to bear arms is laughable...." with the fact that the 2nd Amendment was passed, in it's present form, by voice vote with little debate in the House and the next day passed by the Senate while rejecting attempts to attach wording which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense"? http://constitution.org/mil/rkba82.pdf
You may have given one but if you did I missed it.

If instead of this: "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." We had this: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defense shall not be infringed." To my mind the inclusion of those four words, "for the common defense" would have removed all doubt as to the intention of the amendment. The Senate tried and failed to add those words. Here is a link to a picture of minutes to the meeting: http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/id21.htm The .gif is about halfway down the page.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote Capital:was the original intent of Freedom of Speech or Freedom to assemble reserved only for White people?

It certainly wasn't meant for slaves... but feel free to keep pushing that bizarre argument if you want.. or your other claim that no one can know what a law means unless there's a court case to clarify that law. The notion that slaves had access to the courts or the right to petition their government for redress of grievances is beyond laughable.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

@Pierpont

Quote mjolnir:[...]I don't present the document as "proof" of any point of view.[...]

What part of that did you not understand? You disputed it. You disprove it. If Hatch's office responds with more direct info I will post it.

Quote Pierpont:[...]Perhaps they thought it was redundant[...]
Obviously the Senate didn't think it was redundant, they tried and failed to change it. The proposed change to the 2nd Amendment failed and then the language we have today passed by a 2/3 majority. From what I can tell the deliberations themselves were either secret or lost so you can suppose all you want but you can't dance around the fact that an attempt was made by the Senate to link "militia" -> "keep and bear arms" -> "the common defense" and it failed. Simple as that.

Quote mjolnir:The Senate tried and failed to add those words. Here is a link to a picture of minutes to the meeting: http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/id21.htm The .gif is about halfway down the page.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote Pierpont:

It certainly wasn't meant for slaves... but feel free to keep pushing that bizarre argument if you want.. or your other claim that no one can know what a law means unless there's a court case to clarify that law. The notion that slaves had access to the courts or the right to petition their government for redress of grievances is beyond laughable.

You continue to confuse original Intent with early American actions. I know you wanted to see the US constitution/Bill of Rights exerted immediately across the Nation as a Strong Central Government. But there was NO strong central government to exert power upon the states. But some Constitutionalist believe it was those slavery references, the unsavory compromises to the South and the rejection of Madison early Bill of Rights submission of “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience” lead to the US Civil War.

As I said repeatedly, Orginal intent is quite clear.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

The amazing thing about the Constitution is that it actually got written and has worked, if imperfectly, for a long time. I don't worship it. I think the slavery compromises were tragic and left us with continuing cancer. I think the empire has trashed it and we find ourselves in our present dysfunction because we cannot do what we need to do about the accretion of power to the MIC and money.

If we were really about "original intent," we would be all about making democracy work in our time. I think the Right has a deeply toxic ideology and that the American Left is way too timid in its presentation of a corrective to the uber-competitive and individualist errors of American culture. I think cooperation and community is a great context for individuality and sharing and caring. If we wanted to talk about democracy instead of trash government and pretend that 'free markets' and greed were the key to happiness and peace, we could pay a great homage to the Founders.

Nothing is dumber than our argument about guns.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

It certainly wasn't meant for slaves... but feel free to keep pushing that bizarre argument if you want.. or your other claim that no one can know what a law means unless there's a court case to clarify that law. The notion that slaves had access to the courts or the right to petition their government for redress of grievances is beyond laughable.

You continue to confuse original Intent with early American actions.

Let me see if I get your "logic". The Bill of Rights is ratified a few years after the Constitution is... both times Madison at the helm guiding the process. A mere 5 months later, Congress passes the Militia Acts. And YOU know better than they what the original intent of the Militia was?

I know you wanted to see the US constitution/Bill of Rights exerted immediately across the Nation as a Strong Central Government. But there was NO strong central government to exert power upon the states.

I have no idea what you're even getting at. The slaves states simply would NOT have ratified the Constitution if it abolished slavery nor would they have ratified the Bill of Rights if it gave slaves the rights to bear arms, petition the government, free speech, freedom from cruel and unjust punishment etc. Those were matters left to TO STATES RIGHTS protected by the 10th. Again, the term "The People" SOUNDS all-inclusive, but in the early republic the People NEVER meant everyone. Again, that's CLEAR from the Preamble. "We The People" are creating a nation to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity"... WHAT LIBERTY DID SLAVES HAVE? Those rights of the People protected by the Constitution... clarified by the Bill Of Rights NEVER applied to slaves. Leaving aside the matter that Congress MANDATED Militia members to own guns, the Peoples' right to keep and bear arms could never have been considered a universal, individual right. Which is not to say the People were not free to own a weapon as an unenumerated right. MOST RIGHTS ARE UNENUMERATED! There's simply no end to unenumerated rights... and pointless to write down. There's the right to walk the streets, cut firewood, go fishing, get pregnant, look out a window, smoke tobacco, have a drink, be secure in one's home and possessions, read a book, and yes OWN A GUN (or not)... etc etc. The list is virtually endless.

In a nation constructed in a manner to protect rights of "The People" with limited government, all those unenumerated rights were taken for granted. That's why the Original Constitution never bothered having a Bill Of Rights.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote mjolnir:You disagree but can't refute the claim so I will try to validate it for you. I emailed Hatch's office but since I don't live in his state who knows?
Refute WHAT? You're too lazy to track down the cite you're presenting as evidence so it can evaluated. Like I said it's not my job to do YOUR homework. You have no idea whether that cite proves the author's claims and it's clear you STILL don't even know what it says. Yet you're demanding that I disprove it?

Quote Pierpont:[...]And while you're at it, perhaps you can address a key issue I raised... one you seem determined to avoid, that unless the constitutional Militias have been abolished via an amendment to the Constitution, then they must still exist in one from or another.
Quote mjolnir:

I don't address the militia because as Capital has pointed out so many times the non-inclusion of slaves and women has absolutely nothing to do with whether the people "who lived then" saw "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" as an individual right or a collective one.

RED HERRING ALERT! The issue here... which YOU raised, was whether the constitutional Militias were abolished by the creation of the National Guard. As for whether there was an individual right for The People to own a weapon… why would it not just be another unenumerated right covered by the Ninth? Does anyone argue whether we can marry, have a job, have kids, own property?

Quote mjolnir:To my mind the inclusion of those four words, "for the common defense" would have removed all doubt as to the intention of the amendment.

It means nothing. Perhaps they thought it was redundant in an amendment about the Militia which purpose was already stated in the Constitution and in the preface to the Second. So you're claiming "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" isn't clear enough about common defense? ROTF!

If the Second was an individual right, then it could EASILY have been worded as was the First... Congress shall make no law abridging the People's right to keep and bear arms. In the end you're just ignoring the Militia clause. It's inclusion is the PURPOSE for the right to follow. The Right's attempts to confuse this issue is akin to debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin. And as we know from the Militia Act... passed just 5 months after the ratification of the Second, Congress MANDATED those in the Militias to get a gun if they already didn't have one. How you can confuse a government MANDATE with a right is beyond me. So just what is the "right" in the Second if Congress is clear in the Militia Act to DENY individual choice NOT to own a gun?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Let me see if I get your "logic". The Bill of Rights is ratified a few years after the Constitution is... both times Madison at the helm guiding the process. A mere 5 months later, Congress passes the Militia Acts. And YOU know better than they what the original intent of the Militia was?

You still think the 2nd amendment is specfically for uses of the Qualifier of Militias, That only people in Militias can gear Arms. Yet written before the Militia Act.

Here is some insight.

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

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. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "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."

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.'

Do you see anybody qualifing it only to Whitey males?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Capital:was the original intent of Freedom of Speech or Freedom to assemble reserved only for White people?

It certainly wasn't meant for slaves... but feel free to keep pushing that bizarre argument if you want.. or your other claim that no one can know what a law means unless there's a court case to clarify that law. The notion that slaves had access to the courts or the right to petition their government for redress of grievances is beyond laughable.

How about right now Capital? Is the original intent of Freedom of Speech or Freedom to assemble reserved for every US citizen?

As of right this second in time it has been deemed as "not reserved" for any US citizen who is "accused" of association with terrorists. I believe that it's been deemed as "constitutional" to kill US citizens who are accused of aiding terrorist organizations without a fair trial. So if the constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all US citizens as of 2012 how can one believe that it ever did.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Quote Capital:Do you see anybody qualifing it only to Whitey males?

SO you're not just a slavery denier, you're now a plagiarist? You stole your whole diatribe from: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

As I wrote earlier, with selective enough quotes someone can "prove" anything they want. It's a familiar tactic the Christina Fundies use to "prove" this is a Christian nation even if the Constitution is entirely secular.

And people can comment all they want. Even the most contemporary comments there, from Hamilton, are from a collection of papers designed to sell the Constitution so NY would ratify it. Remember he's selling the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION… not the Bill Of Rights which came later. So just what in hell is he talking about when the Constitution authorizes NO such independent actions by the Militia and the Second wasn't even drafted yet?

As I wrote earlier, this sales effort was not always honest. Madison wrote in his secret notes from the Constitutional Convention of the Senate. He envisioned it to protect the rich from the poor.

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison

THAT would hardly sell the Constitution, now would it? We're supposed to believe the Senate is to represent the states. So Hamilton can opine about republican self-defense all he wants. The only question WHETHER IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION. Can you show me where?

The well regulated militia of the Constitution and the Second is just that: WELL REGULATED by Congress, the governor of a state, or at times the President. It's NOT authorized by the Constitution to act on its own. If the Framers/First Congress intended this... far-fetched given the Constitutional Convention was called as a response to Shays Rebellion where the rebels attacked A FEDERAL ARSENAL TO GET WEAPONS, we'd see this Militia function authorized. We don't. We DO see plenty of mention the Militias can be used to PUT DOWN insurrection. BTW Daniel Shays is dear to my heart. The Springfield Armory he attacked is just a few miles from our house. Shays and perhaps 800-1000 rebels probably passed in front of my house on his way to Springfield. I'm NOT unsympathetic to rebellion. I just do NOT see the Constitution permitting it. The Framers just didn't trust the rabble.

Now is there some more general right of the People to take up arms against usurpers? Perhaps it's unenumerated. But then the Government is authorized to put that rebellion down. Perhaps you can construct some argument that state constitutions might authorize the militias to retake Washington DC from usurpers. But then they'd be acting contrary to the Federal Constitution which gives the federal government the ultimate control over those Militias.

Does the Constitution NEED to guarantee a right for individual self-protection? Hardly. It's covered by the Ninth.

So are you EVER going to deal with the simple matter that if Congress MANDATES every Militia member to get a suitable firearm and ammo… then that's NOT a right to own… it's a MANDATE to own.

Didn't think so.

.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

@Pierpont I've only been on this forum a short time but I haven't seen anyone of any political persuasion who either denies or condones slavery.

That being said I have spent quite a bit of time researching sites that reference 9th Amendment rights and some do give lip service to a generalized "right to keep and bear arms" derived from the "natural rights of man". Some of the content is very good and fits with my own personal philosophy.

It is very hard to follow a persons train of thought in a forum context, at least for me, and this isn't a criticism of your stance. What sites do you follow to develop your philosophy concerning the 9th?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote Pierpont:

SO you're not just a slavery denier, you're now a plagiarist? You stole your whole diatribe from: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

One would assume by now you would know the definition of plagiarist. Clearly that is not the case. Un-cired isn't the same as making your own. Since all passages were in fact quoted or referred.

As I wrote earlier, with selective enough quotes someone can "prove" anything they want

By that token, Feel free to quote similar time period pieces that reflect the point your trying to prove. Then at least we can show conflicting opinion.

And people can comment all they want

That is good, Since we are talking about orginal intent. and all we have are thier words.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

How about right now Capital? Is the original intent of Freedom of Speech or Freedom to assemble reserved for every US citizen?

As of right this second in time it has been deemed as "not reserved" for any US citizen who is "accused" of association with terrorists. I believe that it's been deemed as "constitutional" to kill US citizens who are accused of aiding terrorist organizations without a fair trial. So if the constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all US citizens as of 2012 how can one believe that it ever did.

If you are in Iran, Do you honestly believe the US constitution protects you outside the US border? It doesn't, and quite frankly I don't believe it ever has.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote mjolnir:

@Pierpont I've only been on this forum a short time but I haven't seen anyone of any political persuasion who either denies or condones slavery.

Then you haven't been reading Capital's posts... or my responses. From post 71

Quote Pierpont: “Or whether slave states would tolerate armed slaves or that they have ANY of the rights in the Constitution?”

Quote Capital:Whether or not that (they?) HAD rights granted to them under the Constitution will never be known. Because NOBODY challenged them in court.

According to Capital warped logic, no one can know what a law means until the courts clarify it. So we can just ignore all the provisions in the Constitution that clearly protect slavery, and pretend slaves were always considered regular citizens due all rights... until perhaps some 40 years later when Dred Scott was decided. Capital's position seems to be there just was no strong Federal government yet to enforce those guaranteed rights always intended for slaves. In post 106 he responds to my points this way:

Quote Pierpont:It (BoRs) certainly wasn't meant for slaves... but feel free to keep pushing that bizarre argument if you want.. or your other claim that no one can know what a law means unless there's a court case to clarify that law. The notion that slaves had access to the courts or the right to petition their government for redress of grievances is beyond laughable.

Quote Capital:You continue to confuse original Intent with early American actions. I know you wanted to see the US constitution/Bill of Rights exerted immediately across the Nation as a Strong Central Government. But there was NO strong central government to exert power upon the states.

Again, Capital is insisting the Bill of Rights was intended for slaves, only the Federal government was too weak to enforce those rights. But according to his "logic" the Federal government would have no clue what those rights even were until clarified by a court.

THAT'S why I consider him a slavery denier. He refuses to see slavery as PROTECTED by the Framers. I'm surprised you haven't challenged Capital's absurd, if not obscene, positions. But then you probably just consider him an ally. So is this a pursuit of truth or not? I have no problem pointing out the weaknesses I find in the arguments of Libs and Progressives. Seems you give fellow Rightists a free pass no matter how outrageous they get.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

THAT'S why I consider him a slavery denier.

ROTFLMAO...
Priceless.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

THAT'S why I consider him a slavery denier.

ROTFLMAO...
Priceless.

THAT you consider a rebuttal?? ROTF

There are no charitable explanations for your sick claim the Bill of Rights originally was meant not just for citizens, The People, but for slaves. You could not even find it in yourself to cite the real protection for slavery in the Constitution: Article 4 Sec 2: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

The only other alternative to being a slavery denier is that you have some pathological need to keep the Framers on a pedestal and hold them eternally innocent.... and this warps your sense of history... even reality.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

THAT you consider a rebuttal?? ROTF

To you, most certainly. Did you actually think that post deserved a rebuttal?

There are no charitable explanations for your sick claim the Bill of Rights originally was meant not just for citizens, The People, but for slaves.

You mean, aside from ALL the MASSIVE amount of historical referencing. And what the Federal Government DID actually do. As opposed to States.

Slave Trade Act of 1794? (prohibited making, loading, outfitting, equipping, or dispatching of any ship to be used in the trade of slaves)

The 1807 Act - That Banned the Slave Trade the Day Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution was fulfilled. Via the Commerce Clause.

So yes despite your unsupported, unprovable, baseless opinion that now borders on outright belligerence. I concluded that the Founding fathers intent was that All men are created equal.

.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I think this argument has descended to the level of petty. That there is a huge conflict between the philosophical assertions of Enlightenment political theory and the actual laws and institutions of the new Republic is clear and led us to Civil War and now to Culture War. I think we honor the Founders by cleaning up the mess they made as well as by living out the vision at its best. To pretend they were Holy Fathers of the Faith does them a diservice. To pursue democracy in our time is the better path.

That will mean breaking away from Constitutionalist dogmatism.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

That will mean breaking away from Constitutionalist dogmatism.

Feel free to write yourself another one. Pass it by both houses, President & 2/3 of the States. Then democracy will have spoken. Until then, we'll just have to play within the rules we were given.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I appreciate the present situation and the political challenge required to change. I also do this without acting as if the Constitution is Holy Writ or has been interpreted up to the standards of the Founders. My point is that arguing about the fine points of corrupt interpretation get us what we have. I don't think the solutions are going to come from making stupid policy out of bad hermeneutics, and I would prefer to have the conversation aimed at the challenge of democracy today as well as confronting the dogma that passes for 'originalism.'

I think "we, the people" will have to do more than try to repair the Stanley Steamer of Constitutional Democracy. As a fine museum piece, it does have a good place in history. As a "living document," it has proved to be a bit short of the standards of modern democracy. I don't blame the Founders for much other than the finesse on slavery. That one has bit us on the butt badly. Both the Civil War and the Culture War are its spawn. Still, we should have done better, and we need to do better now without bogging ourselves down in trivia. American public policy on guns is embarassing.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

I appreciate the present situation and the political challenge required to change. I also do this without acting as if the Constitution is Holy Writ or has been interpreted up to the standards of the Founders. My point is that arguing about the fine points of corrupt interpretation get us what we have. I don't think the solutions are going to come from making stupid policy out of bad hermeneutics, and I would prefer to have the conversation aimed at the challenge of democracy today as well as confronting the dogma that passes for 'originalism.'

I think "we, the people" will have to do more than try to repair the Stanley Steamer of Constitutional Democracy. As a fine museum piece, it does have a good place in history. As a "living document," it has proved to be a bit short of the standards of modern democracy. I don't blame the Founders for much other than the finesse on slavery. That one has bit us on the butt badly. Both the Civil War and the Culture War are its spawn. Still, we should have done better, and we need to do better now without bogging ourselves down in trivia. American public policy on guns is embarassing.

Last I check we were (NOT including you) discussing ORIGINAL INTENT. As such one must discuss the founders and their INTENT. While I am sure you would simply do away with the constitution whenever it became inconvenient, especially when act of benevolence were at hand. I'm almost positive beyond a shadow of a Doubt, you would squeal like a stuck pig if the person “doing away with the constitution” was GOP related. Which would make you a hypocrite. So perhaps until a better constitution winds itself through the process, We all agree to live within the bountries of the rules set forth.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

So yes despite your unsupported, unprovable, baseless opinion that now borders on outright belligerence. I concluded that the Founding fathers intent was that All men are created equal.

.

Yawn.

Yes that sentiment made it into the Declaration of Independence. It's a document of founding principles. But that sentiment was NEVER codified into LAW in the Constitution... and that's all that really matters, right? You seem to have problems with that simple concept. People could say anything back then... that we're a Christian nation, the Militia was the People's check on government. But if those sentiments never made it into the Constitution... THEY DON'T COUNT.

Somehow you need to believe the Framers enshrined into the Constitution some neutrality about slavery instead of an outright protection of it. Just because there was to be a ban on new importation of slaves after 1808 hardly means the South had to free those already held in bondage. It's not as if existing slaves after the ban could not give birth to new slaves.

Yes, the slave and free states compromised on some matters concerning slavery in the Constitution. The free states got a ban on importation of new slaves. The slaves states got a formal recognition that slavery was a matter of states rights and runaway slaves had to be returned should the owner request it. The free states were no longer a refuge for runaway slaves. The South's economy was based on cheap slave labor. Where the North might invest capital in shipping, industry, etc, the South's capital was mainly invested in slaves. They were not about to give that up in exchange for a union with the other states.

Somehow you need to deny history to keep the Framers on some pedestal of your own creation. I don't wear those rose colored glasses. The Constitution may have been cutting edge for it's time, but it was a deeply flawed document... and I'd argue both anti-democratic and virtually reform proof. I believe it's also become dysfunctional and behind most of our problems here in the US. What keeps us from having a rational discussion about it's strengths and weaknesses are people like you who buy into the secular religion that the Constitution was a work of genius and we mere mortals dare not touch it. Much has been learned about improving democracy the past few hundred years, yet the US is a "frozen republic"... stuck in the dysfunctional politics of 1787.

Anyway, thanks for proving I was correct about what underlies your pathological need to deny, make that rewrite history.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Yawn.

A person does get mighty tired running around in circles.

Somehow you need to believe the Framers enshrined into the Constitution some neutrality about slavery instead of an outright protection of it. Just because there was to be a ban on new importation of slaves after 1808 hardly means the South had to free those already held in bondage. It's not as if existing slaves after the ban could not give birth to new slaves.

Maybe you are confused about that the Federal Government was 1790. It was not the Giant abomination it is today. But a limited and constrained. They did not have the power to ready effect what was going on inside the States. Only what comes in and out of a state. But again, Application isn’t the Intent. Still you have not submitted anything that suggests their intent for the 2nd amendment was to exclude.

Somehow you need to rewrite history to keep the Framers on some pedestal of your own creation. I don't have those rose colored glasses. So thanks for proving I was correct about what underlies your pathological need to deny history.

And in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary Your dogma continues on. An impressive exercise in obstinence

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

Somehow you need to believe the Framers enshrined into the Constitution some neutrality about slavery instead of an outright protection of it. Just because there was to be a ban on new importation of slaves after 1808 hardly means the South had to free those already held in bondage. It's not as if existing slaves after the ban could not give birth to new slaves.

Maybe you are confused about that the Federal Government was 1790. It was not the Giant abomination it is today. But a limited and constrained. They did not have the power to ready effect what was going on inside the States. Only what comes in and out of a state. But again, Application isn’t the Intent. Still you have not submitted anything that suggests their intent for the 2nd amendment was to exclude.

Let's see... the Preamble to the Constitution isn't enough proof the People was a term that NEVER meant the entire population? The Militia Acts stating only WHITE MALES could be in the Militia isn't enough? Sounds pretty exclusionary to me. The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery isn't enough? Where's YOUR proof the BoRs EVER was meant to apply to slaves? Where is it in the Constitution THAT SLAVES WERE TO BE SET FREE because they were "created equal"?


Let's see if I can grasp your Orwellian rewrite of American history. The Framers intentionally leave intact the institution of slavery, saying it's a matter of states' rights because otherwise the slave states will NEVER ratify the new Constitution and without a stronger government than the Federation can provide, the new nation might fail. They go further and state that slave owners can go into FREE states to reclaim slaves. And that to you is proof ALL the Framers decried slavery and thought all men were created equal... therefore the Bill Of Rights applied to slaves but the new federal government just lacked the will to force this issue with the states? ?

About 45% of the Framers WERE SLAVE OWNERS!!! Even Washington and Madison owned slaves, as did Jefferson… though he was in France during the Constitutional Convention.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=293

And OF COURSE the Framers could affect what went on in States if they believed it was important. The creation of the new Militia is a MANDATE from the federal government to states... and an individual MANDATE from the federal government that militia members obtain a firearm and ammo if they don't have one. On a side note that makes the Right's objections to any mandate in Obamacare amusing when such mandates go back to 1792.

Your Orwellian rewrite of US history is beyond disgusting. What next? Do you intend to deny the Holocaust too?

Capital, you have zero credibility and a prime example of a self-sabotaged intellect.

Are there any morally decent and intellectually honest Right wingers out there?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

For the incredulous who are reading my exchange with Capital, let me see if I can sum up his position.

He seems to believe that the Framers… almost half were slave owners and those who represented the interests of the slave states… ALL believed the sentiments from the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal and entitled to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness… and they then enshrined those principles in the Constitution for all… including slaves. They agreed to cede this power to the new federal government to protect these rights for all including an alleged individual right to own weapons in the Second Amendment. Yup, those slave states, already fearful about slave insurrections, would agree that slaves had a constitutionally protected right to weapons… and freedom of speech, the press, the right to address government for redress of grievances etc.

But according to Capital, the Federal government just wasn't strong enough to enforce these rights for slaves in the slave states… even though those slaves states allegedly already agreed to rights for slaves when they ratified the Constitution.

It makes one's head spin to see the intellectual contortions some will go through to invent a right where clearly none existed.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

Let's see... the Preamble to the Constitution isn't enough proof the People was a term that NEVER meant the entire population?

You actually think "We the People" is an exclusionary phrase. Meaning We Rich White males.

The Militia Acts stating only WHITE MALES could be in the Militia isn't enough?

Is it enough to to explain the original intent of the 2nd amendment, No. The Militia act was written to satisfy a current constitutional directive. Not to define the original intent of a passage in the Bill of Right. Despite the fact that Blacks served in Militia during the Revolutionary War, most notably in the northern states. So while current politic hindered enlightenment, The Bill of Rights enshrines personal Liberties written to stand the test of time against Federal encroachment.

The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery isn't enough?

Why would an amendment passed in 1865 regarding the 2nd amendment passed 1789 mean anything about the original intent of the 2nd. Do you see any such wording in the 13th amendment that proclaims Blacks are all of a sudden people and included with 2nd amendment protections?

Did you find any Bill passed by the Federal government that restricted the rights of Blacks to own and bear arms? I didn’t.

Where's YOUR proof the BoRs EVER was meant to apply to slaves?

You mean aside from the missing exception language, All of discussions from the Time period that all had a noticeable inclusionary language with no exception being inserted. The status of Free Blacks in the Northern states and that the Federal Government did everything within it power of the time to kill slavery.

I guess I don’t really have anything…… <end sarcasms>

And OF COURSE the Framers could affect what went on in States if they believed it was important. The creation of the new Militia is a MANDATE from the federal government to states... and a MANDATE from the federal government that militia members obtain a

What department in the Federal Government in 1790 had the power to force states to comply on matters of state business? Yup they wrote the Militia Act. Was it ever enforced upon the states? How did it work out for them?

“There were no penalties placed on states that refused to create and maintain militias as required by the 1792 Act.”

No case was ever brought against anybody for failure to provide their own Gun.

Writing it and enforcing it are vastly different as this discussion has repeatedly brought up.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

Where's YOUR proof the BoRs EVER was meant to apply to slaves?

You mean aside from the missing exception language, All of discussions from the Time period that all had a noticeable inclusionary language with no exception being inserted. The status of Free Blacks in the Northern states and that the Federal Government did everything within it power of the time to kill slavery.

I guess I don’t really have anything…… <end sarcasms>


Your constant evasions are not proof of anything.

The new federal government did everything in it's power to kill slavery? OF COURSE IT DID... and that was NOTHING!!! Since the Constitution had NO power to "kill slavery" but plenty of guarantees to the slave states they could block any legislation or amendments, the Constitution PROTECTED slavery. How desperate can you be to protect your delusions about the Framers to actually believe the slaves owners, and representatives of slave states would AGREE to ending slavery in the Constitution? In fact the Constitution gave an ironclad guarantee to slaves states slavery was a matter of states rights.

Here's one of your human rights loving Framers... Charles Pinckney, S. Carolina's delegate to the Constitutional Convention reporting back to the state legislature on the issue of slavery:

"We have the security that the general government can never emancipate them, for no authority is granted, and it is admitted, in all hands, that the general government had no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights are not expressed are reserved by the several states"

Taken from p42 of The Frozen Republic by Daniel Lazare.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

Your constant evasions are not proof of anything.

Is that what you call building a case using historical documents and direct quotes of the Founders, Top legal officials and political commentary of the Day. Evading.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

BTW. You would have made a terrible Founder. Clearly you want a 20th century Federal Government in the 18th century.

Charles Pinckney, S. Carolina's delegate to the Constitutional Convention reporting back to the state legislature on the issue of slavery:

And what exactly does that have to do with the Bill of Rights. The least you could do is find commentary from the Ratification of the Bill of Right from South Carolina that explicitly denotes that the 2nd amendment is to only apply to whitey and not to Blacks. Without it, You have nothing. Constitution is a operation structure of the Federal Government, The Bill of Right is the enshrined rights of all men. As I said before. Bill of Right Trumps Constitution.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Yeah, but youse guys seem to want an 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Yeah, but youse guys seem to want an 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century.

Present a better one, that is all I ask.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Begin with a parliament, a prime minister, and votes of confidence for elections. Next design opportunity...

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

Your constant evasions are not proof of anything.

Is that what you call building a case using historical documents and direct quotes of the Founders, Top legal officials and political commentary of the Day. Evading.

And in your mind you actually believe you've proved your case? Are you that delusional? I'm dying for you to present ANY evidence that the rights in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights were meant for slaves and not just for The People/Freemen… and the states.

Charles Pinckney, S. Carolina's delegate to the Constitutional Convention reporting back to the state legislature on the issue of slavery:

Quote Capital:And what exactly does that have to do with the Bill of Rights. The least you could do is find commentary from the Ratification of the Bill of Right from South Carolina that explicitly denotes that the 2nd amendment is to only apply to whitey and not to Blacks. Without it, You have nothing. Constitution is a operation structure of the Federal Government, The Bill of Right is the enshrined rights of all men. As I said before. Bill of Right Trumps Constitution.

I tire of your Orwellian rewriting of history and empty claims. Pinckney seems to understand the Constitution even if you don't. His report to the SC legislature is a reassurance that the new Federal government has NO power to undercut slavery even if in your fantasy that the federal government did everything in its power to eliminate/abolish/kill slavery. WHERE'S THE AUTHORIZATION???

The Bill of Right CLARIFIES the Constitution... it doesn't "trump" it. It doesn't nullify the LACK of powers to abolish slavery in the original Constitution and suddenly grant new powers to apply rights to all. Show us ONE example from the BoRs that grants the government this new power? Show ONE example of how any of the language of the original Constitution was nullified by the BoRs. You can't, yet you're back making the same empty claim.

So you're latest twist in your twisted rewrite of history is somehow the meaning of "the People" changes between the original Constitution and the Bill Of Rights to suddenly include EVERYONE in the US?

The People (Freemen), and the states surrendered some rights to authorize powers of the new Federal government. Slaves had NO rights to surrender or power to authorize. That does NOT magically change just because the Bill of Rights is ratified. The People/Freemen remain the same. Just because there were free Black men in the northern states or Black men in the colonial militias doesn't prove anything about the Constitution or that the constitutional Militia was anything but for white males.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

And in your mind you actually believe you've proved your case? Are you that delusional? I'm dying for you to present ANY evidence that the rights in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights were meant for slaves and not just for The People/Freemen… and the states.

More than proved the point that Nobody even so much as attempted to apply exceptions to the Passage, and all language suggests the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to cover everyone. Nothing you have provided suggest otherwise.

I tire of your Orwellian rewriting of history and empty claims.

Great, perhaps it’s getting time for you to acknowledge the rhetorical emptiness of your argument that has no foundation to stand on.

His report to the SC legislature is a reassurance that the new Federal government has NO power to undercut slavery even if in your fantasy that the federal government did everything in its power to eliminate/abolish/kill slavery. WHERE'S THE AUTHORIZATION???

As I have stated ad nauseum, He is referring to the Government power to intercede in State affairs. Which the Constitution was purposely written to protect states at the expense of a weak and limited Federal Government. I wonder what his opinion was regarding the Slave Trade Act of 1794 and the 1807 Act of Congress thereby eliminating the entire Slave trade outside and between States. Punishable by Death.

So while the constitution limited their ability inside a State, They eliminated Slave trade 1 day after the terms of the Constitution was expired.

That tells me that those who wrote the Constitution had every intention of eliminating the Slave trade and were playing the Long game to the best of their ability.

The Bill of Right CLARIFIES the Constitution... it doesn't "trump"

Sure it does, Which has more Power; constitutional Congressional Power to Make laws. Or the Bill of Rights. Can Congressional power strip you of your Free Speech?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

And in your mind you actually believe you've proved your case? Are you that delusional? I'm dying for you to present ANY evidence that the rights in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights were meant for slaves and not just for The People/Freemen… and the states.

More than proved the point that Nobody even so much as attempted to apply exceptions to the Passage, and all language suggests the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to cover everyone. Nothing you have provided suggest otherwise.

And you proved this how? Through another of your magical assertions that "the People" meant everyone even though the Preamble say only The People are creating the constitution for THEMSELVES... to secure the Blessings of Liberty for THEMSELVES and their posterity? The People are the FREEMEN of the day. Show me ONE slave that was represented in the Constitutional Convention. Show me where slaves could vote for state legislatures who could ratify the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights. I won't hold my breath.

perhaps it’s getting time for you to acknowledge the rhetorical emptiness of your argument that has no foundation to stand on.

At least there's a debate about the Second. Your empty assertions aside, you've yet to provide ONE instance from any contemporary source, the language of the Constitution or BoRs, or ONE serious constitutional scholar that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ORIGINALLY intended to protect the rights of slaves. You just have that pathological need to deny the Framers could have ever protected slavery and you'll just warp reality and deny all the evidence till you're dead.

Quote Pierpont: His report to the SC legislature is a reassurance that the new Federal government has NO power to undercut slavery even if in your fantasy that the federal government did everything in its power to eliminate/abolish/kill slavery. WHERE'S THE AUTHORIZATION???

Quote Cap:As I have stated ad nauseum, He is referring to the Government power to intercede in State affairs. Which the Constitution was purposely written to protect states at the expense of a weak and limited Federal Government. I wonder what his opinion was regarding the Slave Trade Act of 1794 and the 1807 Act of Congress thereby eliminating the entire Slave trade outside and between States. Punishable by Death.

So while the constitution limited their ability inside a State, They eliminated Slave trade 1 day after the terms of the Constitution was expired.

That tells me that those who wrote the Constitution had every intention of eliminating the Slave trade and were playing the Long game to the best of their ability.

ROTF, and THAT is your proof that the Framers intended to abolish slavery even though the slaves states would NEVER agree to this? Are you accusing the representatives from the slave states of stupidity, that they were "tricked" by the free states?

The Constitution was a series of compromises. Every interest group represented... and many were not, had a check on the other. The end to the slave trade gave representatives of Free States a fig leaf to hide the fact they had approved a document that PROTECTED SLAVERY. Again, you seem to believe ending the slave trade would cause slavery to wither and die when we all KNOW slaves could just give birth to more slaves… and if slave owners had their way… they'd be giving birth at an accelerated rate to make up for the importation ban. And the numbers PROVE the ban had no effect:

Here are the census numbers for slaves in the US:

1790 - 697,897

1800 - 893,041

1810 - 1,191,364

1820 - 1,538,038

1830 - 2,009,050

1840 - 2,487,455

1850 - 3,204,313

1860 - 3,953,760

The slave population grew by 298,323 between 1800-1810. By 1820 the slave population grew by 346,674, this AFTER the full implementation of the ban on the slave trade. Ya, that ban really dealt a death blow to slavery.

Quote ierpont: The Bill of Right CLARIFIES the Constitution... it doesn't "trump"it.

Quote Cap:Sure it does, Which has more Power; constitutional Congressional Power to Make laws. Or the Bill of Rights. Can Congressional power strip you of your Free Speech?

It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue about the nature of the Constitution despite the credible sources provided. As already discussed, the FRAMERS DIDN'T BELIEVE A BILL OF RIGHTS NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED ALL RIGHTS FOR THE PEOPLE WERE ALREADY SECURE BY VIRTUE OF LIMITED GOVENMENT. Why are you determined to deny that simple fact? Were you home schooled?

If the Constitution only has limited powers specified in it, then it NEVER had the powers to threaten rights specified in the BoRs. It's like the new Federal government saying, rest assured everyone... except slaves, that we REALLY never had the power to create a state religion, limit the press, disarm the militia it created, etc.

That doesn't change, nullify, or trump the original Constitution. It CLARIFIES its intent. Of course, states might be free to limit rights depending on their own constitutions and the Federal government may not have the power to stop them. But when it comes to slavery... NOTHING in the BoR undermines or nullifies the Constitution's protection of slavery. Your claim that suddenly, through some mysterious legal backdoor, the BoRs gave federally protected rights to slaves is laughable. What did you imagine... that after the BoRs was ratified, all those slaves states gave themselves dope slaps realizing they'd been tricked into granting slaves rights? You certainly are naïve.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I had been thinking off and on about updating this item since the summer when I saw more coverage of this case in the Baltimore Sun. Here is the most recent relevant story I could find about the Maryland gun carry permit law case itself (yes, people, that was the original topic) from 10/24/12:

U.S. appeals court hears Maryland gun law challenge

The first diversion that resulted in this topic was interesting for a while, which was a debate on whether the right for an individual to bear arms come from the US Constitutions 2nd amendment or the 9th amendment. Interesting for a while, but I was too busy during March to keep up. I just let it go.

One of the reasons I did not update this topic since March was that responses were sometimes getting too far off the original subject, or even the second level subject that took over, which often happens. I wish I had the time and patients to figure out where the argument shifted from gun rights to slavery.

The same kind of thing is going on now with a topic someone started following the Newtown school shooting in Connecticut on Friday 12/14/12 (At Least 27 Dead In Conn Elementary School Shooting).

What is it about gun discussions in this country that leads to such tangents as personal attacks or arguments over a completely different subject?

***

here is a search page to check The Baltimore Sun for updates on this case : Maryland gun permit law appeal

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

This statement about Hitler requiring gun registration and confiscating guns is a myth. It is largely propaganda spread by the NRA. The gun registration was implemented by the Weimar Republic in 1928 before Hitler came to power, in part to relax some of the strict gun control implemented in 1919-1920 as part of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW-I. The new laws implemented in 1938 under Hitler regulated hand guns (requiring a permit to own one and a separate permit to carry one), but did not apply to long guns or ammunition. Under these 1938 laws Jews were barred from owning or manufacturing guns, but not the German people in general.

Some people take comments Hitler made about confiscating guns from people in conquered territories out of context, and imply that treatment was imposed on the entire civilian population.

Gun politics in Germany

The following comments are from this page in the Washington Post : Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias; both comments link to this item: Hitler's Germany And Current American Politics

JDPhx7:42 PM EST "Hitler did not confiscate guns, the Allied armies did that after the war." Firearm registration in Germany was instituted by the Wiemar Republic ten years before Hitler came to power.http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm

JDPhx7:46 PM EST Hitler did not ban guns. That is a lie perpetrated on dupes who believe anything they are told. Research it yourself.
http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm

This item also debunks the myth: Did Hitler ban gun ownership?

This paper from The University of Chicago Law School also labels the quotation as a myth:

On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)

This is the pro-gun propaganda the last paragraph of reply #29 comes from: Registration: The Nazi Paradigm

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

3/21/13 -

Court upholds Md. handgun permit law; state requires substantial reason to carry weapon

Appeals court upholds key provision of Maryland’s gun-control law

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

A victory for freedom in Illinois, a setback in Maryland. There's little doubt this will be in front of the sUPREMEs again.

"[...]History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.[...]" - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

Hitler was talking about conquered territories but it was a maxim he extended to German Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill (as adjudged by the Party), non-NSDAP members and anyone else who opposed his madness.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Currently Chatting

It’s Time for Bill O’Reilly to Get Real about White Privilege

It’s time for white America to get real about white privilege. Last night, Bill O’Reilly came from back vacation early to host a special edition of “The Factor”, one that he said would “tell the truth” about what’s going on in Ferguson, Missouri.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system