Outlawing guns in the US ...

[assholebythedoor]

people need to mind there own business and this shit would of not have rolled over. WHAT THE FUCK

 

[titsrock]

Attention Freeones Citizens of the World.

The views expressed by the Prof are his and his alone. They more closely resemble historical fiction or fantasy rather than historical fact. He is no more a historian or political scientist than am I a pornstar. I do not want you to gain a warped sense of America or American history from his meanderings.

Take his "analysis" with a grain of salt. It carries no more weight than that of a tea leaf.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: Gun control, the arguments have changed little to today ...

Who will lose, the government or the American people? The average gun owning citizen possesses world war two level firepower, they are outgunned and out trained, but they do have greater numbers than the force of the military. I'd say at best that they could hope for would be to defend the advances of the government, but not to gain any ground and only after having given up much of it at an overwhelming non-combatant casualty rate.

The government will lose. The Afghanis beat Russia with WW2 weapons.
There were many governments beaten by armies made up of regular people.
Like the British when they tried to overtake the colonies. That's why America is still here.

The motto the British used at the time was, "The sun never sets on the British Empire".
It set and the Militias are the ones who made it set.
The British were the most powerful army at the time and were beaten by an army who had a cause they were willing to fight and die for. That's why they won.

The Militias today have ex-military men, also men and women who are willing to die for their cause.
It is, "We the people", not "We the government".

The view that suggests otherwise is utter ignorance of American civics and history. It goes along with, "guns were wrong in the Constitution because slavery was wrong in the Constitution." Slavery was never guaranteed by the US Constitution, and that's a huge debate that did not end with Lincoln's proclamation in 1963 either!

Slavery and our rights to own weapons are not even close to related.

Stop listening to Socialists and be for our side for once.

 

[maildude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE

 

[Spunner]

Attention Freeones Citizens of the World.

The views expressed by the Prof are his and his alone. They more closely resemble historical fiction or fantasy rather than historical fact. He is no more a historian or political scientist than am I a pornstar. I do not want you to gain a warped sense of America or American history from his meanderings.

Take his "analysis" with a grain of salt. It carries no more weight than that of a tea leaf.

And...the opinions of this guy are his of his own free will. Take it with a grain of salt.


Hey titsrock, his opinions are his and yours are yours. Who are you to say his are worthless? Before you say that you didn't say that, you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted that.

 

[calpoon]

Re: Gun control, the arguments have changed little to today ...

The Afghanis beat Russia with WW2 weapons.

Is that what happened? Cuz the way that I seem to remember it was that the CIA as usual went behind every bodies backs, ya know, even when it comes to killing commies there's too much oversight for their taste, better to leave the president with his "plausible deniability" and cut out congressional voting requirement to go to war, and plunder the tax payer to arm osama bin ladin and the Taliban, remember those guys? and all those Russian helicopters getting shot down with heat seeker missiles.

 

[Member2019]

Say all you want ...

Attention Freeones Citizens of the World.

The views expressed by the Prof are his and his alone. They more closely resemble historical fiction or fantasy rather than historical fact. He is no more a historian or political scientist than am I a pornstar. I do not want you to gain a warped sense of America or American history from his meanderings.

Take his "analysis" with a grain of salt. It carries no more weight than that of a tea leaf.

At least I provide some analysis. You're generic "disregard their views because it was over 200 years ago and they wore wigs" doesn't provide for much of an argument in comparison. By the same regard, should we disregard everything from the Magna Carter (which the US recognizes as a base document in our country's own history) to the works of John Locke as well? And not stopping there, should we just make everything about the "here'n now," adopt simple majorities and do everything else that some people have called "Real Democracy?"

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, or people will believe me more than you. I'm just saying that don't be surprised when people recognize that I have taken a shitload more time, effort and long-standing interest in American civics than yourself. Civics aren't about the results you want, but the study of the views (especially of a supermajority) and corresponding results ... over a long, long period of time.

Reality: At any time a supermajority of the people of the US may overturn one or more existing Amendments or, in their absence, Common Law that is considered Supreme Law, with a new Amendment that supercedes any prior Supreme Law. If you really think the 2nd Amendment does not apply today, all you have to do is convince a supermajority of the people and it can be repealed. That is fact.

Remember, I voted ... No, but I'd accept it if overturned with Constitutional process and super-majority. I not only believe in both reading and learning from our history and corresponding civics, but the right of any supermajority of any day to disagree and overturn anything prior, but know that is how our nation -- in fact -- works in both ways at its very foundation. To disregard either is to disregard any structure to a government, and then we absolutely deserve any chaos that would result.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: Gun control, the arguments have changed little to today ...

all those Russian helicopters getting shot down with heat seeker missiles.

They may have had some modern weapons. They still won.

The Militias have much more firepower than that.

All the people at the end of this video are American Patriots and Militia.
Look what they have.
Everyone is militia

Warning to the New World Order

Also, Penn & Teller are full of

 

[Member2019]

Ahhh, no ... it wasn't until the introduction of the Stinger missile ...

The government will lose. The Afghanis beat Russia with WW2 weapons.

Ahhh, no. The Mi-24 Hinds were pretty unrelenting ... until the US finally provided Stinger missiles. Before that, the Russians weren't having too much difficulty thanx to the close air support. After that introduction, and the massive mitigation of close air support in some 18 months, the Russians had severe difficulty supporting boots on the ground.

Imagine if the US actually lost its absolute air superiority in Iraq? If you go back to Vietnam, take a look at what happened after the Vietnamese got the SA-2 from the USSR. That was a similiar loss in balance.

BTW, note that a Stinger is nothing like a RPG, hence why we have not in Iraq.

Now while RPGs also don't work well against Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), and even the M2/M3s can survive them, they did introduce the IED. Hitting the armor underneath did disturb the balance of US armor. Off-setting some of this was the fact that the US had already looked at the M1/M2/M3 aspects in urban warefare, and re-introduced the LPV in the Stryker for the Army.

Unfortunately, you cannot afford to equip everyone with a LPV/Stryker (or armor for that matter), and people still drive around in more general vehicles. That is still being addressed (and shipments of the new option are still slow in coming).

Yet another post where someone thinks they know the answer, yet do not. Portable, but advanced US technology won Afghanistan in virtually 18 months. Leading edge Russian SAMs make it hell for the US in Vietnam starting in 1967 on-ward.

I may not be an expert in many fields, but I spent 5 years of my life very involved with measures, counter-measures, counter-counter-measures when it came to air-defense, especially the more "political" aspects of deterrence, counter-deterrence and counter-counter-deterrence that comes with advanced and generic air defense like PAC-3, THAAD, SM-3 and, at the time, PLV.

 

[bodie54]

Re: Gun control, the arguments have changed little to today ...

Slavery was never guaranteed by the US Constitution, and that's a huge debate that did not end with Lincoln's proclamation in 1963 either!

The other side of that argument being that the Constitution did sanction slavery because slaves were defined as property, and the Constitution prohibited the federal government depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The Government can overturn, or pass as many laws as they want. The fact is, the only thing they will accomplish by doing so, is to turn a large majority of good, law abiding people into criminals, and turn the streets into a hunting ground for the filth that prey on the innocent. The only way they're going to get most of them is to start kicking in doors, so what does that make them?

 

[Member2019]

Where? Really, where?

The other side of that argument being that the Constitution did sanction slavery because slaves were defined as property, and the Constitution prohibited the federal government depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

The Constitution never defined any such thing!

The Constitution only included a compromise in one, single article regarding representation, period, whereby those who were considered "slaves" by states would be counted as 3/5rds towards the population of the states for representation purposes. It was up to the states to define what "slaves" were, and the Constitution did not even remotely try to address that. In fact, it disgusted the majority of the states, but it only took 4 states to veto and there were southern states that would not accept such an anemic representation compared to the northern states.

Heck, the only time the US Supreme Court even got involved was when interstate issues resulted or other federally granted powers (and corresponding laws) came into effect. There was absolutely no guidance in the US Constitution on how they should rule when it came to slaves, which the US Constitution did not even remotely define, and any "property" aspects, such as slaves, were defined by the Courts.

 

[bodie54]

Well then Prof what was the legal basis for the Dred Scott decision?

 

[Member2019]

No!

The Government can overturn, or pass as many laws as they want.

No! In the US a court can not overturn a Supreme Law, not even the US Supreme Court. A Supreme Law is established, Common Law (by prior rulings at the higest levels) which can be and is always overruled by articles in the US Constitution, including its Amendments. That means it requires an Amendment to overturn a Supreme Law.

When a law goes against a Supreme Law, it is struck down -- repeatedly -- by the US Federal Courts and, if needbe, the Supreme Court. The highest ruling is something that is ruled Unconstitutional, which means it has directly violated an article in the US Constitution. There is absolutely no way around that, just like the recent DC gun ban being ruled Unconstitutional.

The fact is, the only thing they will accomplish by doing so, is to turn a large majority of good, law abiding people into criminals, and turn the streets into a hunting ground for the filth that prey on the innocent. The only way they're going to get most of them is to start kicking in doors, so what does that make them?

I don't know what it makes them, but it does make someone saying such a pessimist. Ironically, I fear the ignorance of the general public and their lack of simple knowledge (or even acknowledgement) of civics as the "root cause of all issues."

Totalitarism is always born out of popularism.

 

[Will E Worm]

The Government can overturn, or pass as many laws as they want. The fact is, the only thing they will accomplish by doing so, is to turn a large majority of good, law abiding people into criminals, and turn the streets into a hunting ground for the filth that prey on the innocent. The only way they're going to get most of them is to start kicking in doors, so what does that make them?

The government can try to pass any law they wish. But, they will start a war in this country if they don't watch themselves. We as American's, if you read the Bill of Rights are given Creator endowed unalienable rights. They are non-negotiable and can't be taken away without a war being started.

If they start kicking in doors that would make them Nazis, the Gestapo.

The Constitution never defined any such thing!

Bodie54 is correct.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.


Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned"

 

[Member2019]

Dread Scott was doomed because the US Federal Government did not define property ...

Well then Prof what was the legal basis for the Dred Scott decision?

Have you actually read it? Or made assumptions?

The only part of the US Constitution that was part of the ruling was the Fifth Amendment, that the federal government could not seize a slave owner's property without due process and compensation.

The US Supreme Court used existing, Common Law to come to their ruling. In the absence of any and all Constitutional articles defining such, there was absolutely nothing in the US Constitution or its Amendments that had anything to do with it.

Reality: A lot of it had to do with the states defining who a citizen was, as before the 1860s, the US Federal Government deferred such things to the states -- per the Tenth Amendment. And since he was not a citizen, he was not protected by the Ninth or lower Amendments either.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the US Constitution. Only later, with the 13th Amendment, were citizens of such people considered citizens as any other males (not yet females) of the same qualifications. Those actual Constitutional guarantees came later. Before them, there were none.

Guys, please read up on this stuff. There was nothing that guaranteed or otherwise protected slavery in the US Constitution. Property was not defined by it and, as used over and over (and yet again until the 1960s on other matters), the 10th Amendment was constantly the "fall back" for most states.

The greater concept of "Civil Rights" and the the US Federal Government's ability to assert its superior review and authority did not come until just 40 years ago!

 

[calpoon]

they will start a war in this country if they don't watch themselves.

hahaha. I nominate you to lead the charge. me? I'll be sitting on the couch eating a bag of chips watching it on TV like the other 99% of the nation.

now maybe if you can convince them that the mall is having a one day only give-everything-away-for-free, then you will see Americans going to war.

 

[bodie54]

Chief Justice [of the Supreme Court] Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion, that:

Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.
The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to black people.
The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act because the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to Black people in the northern part of the Louisiana cession.

In effect, the Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property, the federal government could not revoke a white slave owner's right to own a slave based on where he lived, thus nullifying the essence of the Missouri Compromise. Taney, speaking for the majority, also ruled that since Scott was an object of private property, he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits taking property from its owner "without due process".

xxx

 

[Member2019]

Correct on what?

Bodie54 is correct.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.


Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned"

And where did the US Constitution sanction slavery? Where did the framers even consider that? Seriously?! You're blaming the US Constitution for a ruling the US Supreme Court made based on state values that it could not override -- and decades later!

While I agree that the US Constitution did not protect against slavery, it did not sanction it. It did not sanction it any more than the right to bear arms sanctions murder. If states abuse their right to property by labeling people slaves, then they are just as guilty as abusing their right to bear arms.

Luckily we have always tried people for "murder" or at least "homicide" if they used their arms to kill. Unfortunately, it did take some 80 years to actually bring about the Amendment to prevent slavery, and a full 200 years total to bring about "Civil Rights" so the Federal Government could assert rights to anyone, regardless of race, background, etc...

Guys, I'm talking about the civics here, not the "oh, they ruled this way decades after the Constitution was founded, so the Constitution sanctioned slavery." The Constitution only sanctioned the right to property, not slavery. If you play that game, then you can make any connection.

Again, by the same token, the 2nd Amendment sanctions murder. If you honestly believe that, then I must be an idiot. Why? Because that's exactly the argument you make! And if we start doing that to any of our rights, we're all fucked.

 

[calpoon]

well you could argue that the 2nd amendment only gives you the right to own guns, it doesn't say that you can shoot them or in any other way dictate the manner of their use.

it also doesn't say that they can be used to overthrow the government, and in fact doing so violates the constitutional law against treason, which has not ever been amended or repealed.