Pierce Morgan OWNED by Ted Nugent

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

It's also an intellectually weak response to say that the "founders thought being armed was important". There was a lot of things they found important 300 years ago that wouldn't be considered important today. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it untrue.

To dismiss one and not another because it's inconvenient for you is typical. And does nothing for the debate.

I, for one, don't believe the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. But it's clear that some of us can look at it objectively and some can't.

----------



It's not a straw man if your argument for the 2nd Amendement is that the "founders thought being armed was important". You brought them into the debate. As I said, you can't pick and choose what they found important because it's inconvenient.

Slavery and the 3/5 compromise were for the sake of political expediency and assured constitutional ratification. Another difference is the 2nd like the 1st were codifying rights one was born with since self defense is a natural right.

Furthermore the 3/5 clause is not in itself an amendment, and the founders had no provisions in the constitution that said slavery is a right, which was why the 3/5 clause was easily nullified by the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery in the United States.

That does not apply to the 2nd where being armed is explicitly defined as a right.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery and the 3/5 compromise were for the sake of political expediency and assured constitutional ratification. Another difference is the 2nd like the 1st were codifying rights one was born with since self defense is a natural right.

Furthermore the 3/5 clause is not in itself an amendment, and the founders had no provisions in the constitution that said slavery is a right, which was why the 3/5 clause was easily nullified by the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery in the United States.

That does not apply to the 2nd where being armed is explicitly defined as a right.

Oy.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

I'll throw you another bone. Internment camps in WW2.

What about it?

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery and the 3/5 compromise were for the sake of political expediency and assured constitutional ratification. Another difference is the 2nd like the 1st were codifying rights one was born with since self defense is a natural right.

Furthermore the 3/5 clause is not in itself an amendment, and the founders had no provisions in the constitution that said slavery is a right, which was why the 3/5 clause was easily nullified by the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery in the United States.

That does not apply to the 2nd where being armed is explicitly defined as a right.

And you completely miss the point.

The point is that if someone challenged them and told them slavery was wrong and women's rights were wrong, they could and would use the 2nd Amendment to pretty much implement their own Castle Doctrine, say get off my lawn, and arm themselves to protect their interests, regardless of who told them it was wrong (read: government, other citizens).

You're trying to make one overturn the other, where I'm talking about how one could use the law to enforce the compromise.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

What about it?

mea culpa. this apples to the 3rd, not the 2nd, for the sake of your argument.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Oy.

Agreed.

BL.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

The point is that if someone challenged them and told them slavery was wrong and women's rights were wrong, they could and would use the 2nd Amendment to pretty much implement their own Castle Doctrine, say get off my lawn, and arm themselves to protect their interests, regardless of who told them it was wrong

What's your point? I'm not all that opposed to this line of thinking provided the person or person are aware that decisions have consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes fatal.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

What's your point?

1. See my previous post.

2. read it again.

if you still don't understand my point, see #1.

BL.

[sim667]

I hardly describe piers morgan as being 'OWNED' in that video, it was cut off before he even got a chance to respond.

[rdowns]

The OP hasn't returned to comment on his thread. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

... and the founders had no provisions in the constitution that said slavery is a right ...

Absolutely incorrect

Originally Posted by Article IV § 2.3

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Absolutely incorrect

You beat me to it.

Never ceases to amaze me that many people's knowledge of the Constitution ends after the words, shall not be infringed.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by rdowns

You beat me to it.

Never ceases to amaze me that many people's knowledge of the Constitution ends after the words, shall not be infringed.

There is a certain subset in this country that thinks the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ends right after the second amendment.

[Sydde]

And of course there is the idiotic blather about the Dick Act of 1902 that "invalidates all gun control laws and it cannot be repealed!"

A law that cannot be repealed? Some people really need to study some basic civics.

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

New York only seems safer because other cities, most cities, are off the scale disgusting. Everywhere is glistening compared to Detroit, Chicago, or St. Louis.

No, it actually is safer compared to how it used to be. Has nothing to do with guns tho. It has everything to do with the huge gentrification that has and still is happening. Money talks and gets things done.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

What's your point? I'm not all that opposed to this line of thinking provided the person or person are aware that decisions have consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes fatal.

My point, and tying everything back to Moyank's post, is that you are making the Founders of this country out to be infallible, which they are not. Three examples of such fallacy were given, two of which they had a chance to deal with in their lifetimes and failed to do so, yet you treat the 2nd Amendment, written by fallible, mortal men, as if it is the holy grail of amendments.

Their meaning and rationale behind the amendment, as it has been for many years, is up for interpretation, and is not absolute. That is why we have the ability to pass laws that modify the amendments, or repeal them outright, and we have SCOTUS to interpret those laws.

So don't treat the Founders of this country as all-perfect; they weren't. If they were, it wouldn't have taken 140 years for women and 190 years for non-Whites to be treated equally as Whites, and we wouldn't have the 200+ year controversy over Jefferson and Hemmings.

They were great, but they were not perfect; by that extension, their laws were great, but also not perfect.

BL.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery has been abolished for a long time. With that acumen, lets debate the merits of big dinosaurs eating little dinosaurs or the Volstead Act. Neither are relevant to the 2nd Amendment, why it exists and why there has never been a subsequent amendment to nullify the 2nd.

I disagree. The point is the framers of the Constitution were not infallible. The southern members thought that the ownership of people was economically necessary and thus cared more about protecting their own pocketbooks than the rights of human beings or the creation of a new nation. The northern members were willing to install slavery, including the importation of human beings for another 20 years, to make a new nation.

We also see the southern states fear of slaves, hence the language about "militias," and the colonials obsession with British wrongs, hence the 3rd Amendment.

Understanding that the colonials created a nation in their image, built on their obsessions and prejudices, and their need for expediency, helps illuminate why literal interpretations of the Constitution are flawed.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by rdowns

The OP hasn't returned to comment on his thread. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Sorry, I was off defending your right to misuse the first....

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery has been abolished for a long time. With that acumen, lets debate the merits of big dinosaurs eating little dinosaurs or the Volstead Act. Neither are relevant to the 2nd Amendment, why it exists and why there has never been a subsequent amendment to nullify the 2nd.

Yeah, and 150 years ago the slave owners used these same arguments the gun owners are using now.

The founders created this type of a government with a constitution that could be amended for these very reasons. They weren't psychics who could tell what the future would bring, how society would evolve, or what laws would or would not be needed 100, 200, or 300 years from when the constitution was originally drafted.

Just because there hasn't been something in the past doesn't mean there can't or won't be in the future.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Absolutely incorrect

That's great if we threw out contracted apprentices, debt repayment, indentured servitude, or the any other types of “bound” labor that was present in the late 1700’s.

Originally Posted by zioxide

Yeah, and 150 years ago the slave owners used these same arguments the gun owners are using now.

The founders created this type of a government with a constitution that could be amended for these very reasons. They weren't psychics who could tell what the future would bring, how society would evolve, or what laws would or would not be needed 100, 200, or 300 years from when the constitution was originally drafted.

Just because there hasn't been something in the past doesn't mean there can't or won't be in the future.

They also created a process for handling matters that relate to the constitution. It just so happens the gun grabbers don't have the votes, so until then, "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 militia is organized which in the modern terms is the National Guard, and unorganized which are the people.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Sorry, I was off defending your right to misuse the first....

You're still in active service?

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

That's great if we threw out contracted apprentices, debt repayment, indentured servitude, or the any other types of “bound” labor that was present in the late 1700’s.

Slavery was bound labour. What you still don't get is that those people were not people; they were PROPERTY, and treated as less than a person. If they tried to escape, they were brought back or still enslaved until their usefulness or tenure is over, if at all, and it wasn't until 1865 that that servitude and enslavement ended.

Of all times, it's funny that you should be reminded of that, in this, Black History Month.

They also created a process for handling matters that relate to the constitution.

Again, no argument, but you are perceiving their actions back then as infallible and absolute. They are not. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, and Franklin made just as many mistakes as Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Obama, Dole, Boehner, Reid, and Pelosi. Just because they played a part in shaping this country (as we all have) does not mean that how they shaped it is completely absolute. It doesn't mean that they couldn't say "wait, I was wrong, let's change it", because the framework they put together enables us to to just that. Case in point: the 18th Amendment.

It just so happens the gun grabbers don't have the votes, so until then, "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"

Gun grabbers don't have votes? WTH are you talking about? Wait.. you are saying that the only way gun owners vote is because of the 2nd Amendment? If so, that comment goes over as well as a pregnant pole vaulter having a shot at winning Olympic Gold. Talk about an unsubstantiated comment.

BL.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Gun grabbers don't have votes? WTH are you talking about? Wait.. you are saying that the only way gun owners vote is because of the 2nd Amendment? If so, that comment goes over as well as a pregnant pole vaulter having a shot at winning Olympic Gold. Talk about an unsubstantiated comment.

I was speaking about the legislative process, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

I was speaking about the legislative process, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Your words, not mine.. perhaps you should rephrase them to be intelligently to leave little room for misinterpretation. Saying that 'gun grabbers don't have the votes' is very vague and does nothing to strengthen your side of the debate.

BL.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Slavery was bound labour. What you still don't get is that those people were not people; they were PROPERTY, and treated as less than a person. If they tried to escape, they were brought back or still enslaved until their usefulness or tenure is over, if at all, and it wasn't until 1865 that that servitude and enslavement ended.

No, slavery was a matter of dispute until the end of the civil war. The words slave or slavery do not appear in the constitution at all. The founders did not make slavery a right like freedom of speech, religion, and right to bear arms.

----------

Originally Posted by bradl

Your words, not mine.. perhaps you should rephrase them to be intelligently to leave little room for misinterpretation. Saying that 'gun grabbers don't have the votes' is very vague and does nothing to strengthen your side of the debate.

BL.

Maybe focus less on pregnant pole vaulters and certain concepts might prove to be less elusive.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

No, slavery was a matter of dispute until the end of the civil war. The words slave or slavery do not appear in the constitution at all. The founders did not make slavery a right like freedom of speech, religion, and right to bear arms.

Again, you completely miss the point.

No-one is arguing if slavery was in the Constitution. You're trying to inject something into this debate that never was there to begin with. That makes your side of the argument look absolutely foolish.

The founders did not make slavery a right. However, they did condone it, or more so, didn't do much to eliminate it, if they did anything at all. If anything, Jefferson (himself a founding father) exacerbated it by having relations with Sally Hemmings! Something you would indeed know if you studied your history. From your comments, it is shamefully apparent you have not.

Again. Slavery is not in the Constitution; why you are trying to insinuate that we are saying that it is is asinine. Search this thread, and you will see nothing of the sort. So stop it.

What we are saying is that the founding fathers of this country, who wrote and shaped this country by the Constitution, whose words, in my opinion, you appear to take as infallible, are the same founding fathers that condoned slavery, and did nothing to eliminate it for almost 100 years, and none of them did anything to stop it in their lifetime. In fact, the last Founding father died roughly 17 years before slavery was abolished.

In short, our founding fathers aren't as infallible as you make them out to be, just like the framework they created is also not as infallible as you make it out to be.

BL.

[ohbrilliance]

What's depressing is that gun proponents see this as a win for Ted Nugent and their cause. Stupidity knows no bounds.