Cultureculture

Wed May 8, 2019, 01:41 PM

Question for Lefty, Re: Gun Controll

One of the Founding Fathers, George Mason of Virginia stated:
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Here is my question for Lefty. Do you agree or disagree with a Founding Father?
12 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
I'm a Lefty, I agree with the statement above.
0 (0%)
I'm a Lefty, I Do NOT agree with the statement above.
0 (0%)
I'm a Righty, I agree with the statement above.
6 (50%)
I'm a Righty, I Do NOT agree with the statement above.
0 (0%)
I'm an Indy, I agree with the statement above.
6 (50%)
I'm an Indy, I Do NOTagree with the statement above.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

8 replies, 277 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Question for Lefty, Re: Gun Controll (Original post)
Da Mannn May 2019 OP
rampartb May 2019 #1
Da Mannn May 2019 #2
Charlie Mike May 2019 #3
Currentsitguy May 2019 #4
SatansSon666 May 2019 #5
bobsal May 2019 #6
Muddling Through May 2019 #7
Iron Condor May 2019 #8

Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Wed May 8, 2019, 02:43 PM

1. if there is one thing mason knew

it was how to enslave people.

are we supposed to agree with the founding fathers, who frequently disagreed among themslves?

do you think people who are locked up for psychuatric evaluation should immediately be trusted with loaded weapons upon their release?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Wed May 8, 2019, 03:18 PM

2. Stop beating around the bush and answer the question. Agree or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Wed May 8, 2019, 03:27 PM

3. Were those slaves allowed to keep guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Wed May 8, 2019, 03:42 PM

4. If they are locked up they have undergone Due Process

There is no conflict here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Wed May 8, 2019, 04:24 PM

5. Yup. I wouldn't say "enslave" but it certainly makes it easier to control them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Wed May 8, 2019, 08:03 PM

6. Hmmmmmm ......

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

"United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)". Archived from the original on August 28, 2013. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Cornell University Law School. Archived from the original on September 28, 2013. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. Order Code RL34446 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2013. Retrieved June 27, 2013.

Seems like the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

But the Constitution is a living document. Maybe one day you'll get the Supreme Court you want, but not in our lifetimes, thank G*d. Terms like a "regulated militia" have a real meaning besides any moron with an AR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobsal (Reply #6)

Wed May 8, 2019, 08:06 PM

7. Terms like "Right of the People"

have real meaning besides any moron who doesn't like others owning firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobsal (Reply #6)

Wed May 8, 2019, 09:49 PM

8. You are misrepresenting both those cases...

United States v. Cruikshank (1875)


6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

7. Sovereignty, for the protection of the rights of life and personal liberty within the respective States, rests alone with the States.

8. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

_____________________________________________________

In Cruikshank the court is affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is a right, an inalienable right, not a privilege. Therefore it is not reliant upon the constitution for its existence, which goes for all other inalienable rights.

In Cruikshank the court is also saying that the 2nd amendment only means that congress shall not infringe upon the right. However, and not surprisingly this is the part you conspicuously left out. Additionally in paragraph (8) the court makes it clear that the states cannot infringe upon this right either.

And in Miller that case is referring to a shotgun who's barrel was sawed off/shortened shorter than the required legal length. Miller tried to argue that his 2nd amendment right was being infringed because this shotgun was a weapon as part of the unorganized militia. The court agreed with Miller that citizens meeting the definition of the unorganized militia are expected to furnish their own weapon of "common use" for the common defense of the nation. However, the court decided it didn't think that a shotgun with a shortened barrel could be considered a weapon of "common use" (for militia purposes), at the time. Which by-the-way can be argued is an M16 rifle. So the court remanded the case back to the lower courts.

So I suggest before you post court cases you understand them first before you misrepresent them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Cultureculture