- 23 Dec 2017 18:44
#14873862
The Fourteenth Amendment didn't change the process for adding or removing constitutional amendments, although SCOTUS often seems to ignore that fact.
We might also remind our gentle reader that the original thirteen colonies would not have ratified that constitution if there weren't 10 more amendments to it, since that constitution didn't even guarantee freedom of speech, separation of church and state, the prevention of quartering troops in private houses, a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, a right to due process, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
Right. And as long as we have a standing army, we should always maintain a well-ordered and equipped militia to prevent mischievious officers and politicians from ruling against the will of the people, as they often do today--albeit with the fear that the people of the United States are heavily armed.
Do you include George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin in your list of "shit birds"?
Incidentally, this is why I would repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, due to SCOTUS' constant abuse of these articles.
Good luck with that...
Sounds like the goals of some of the people on PoliticsForum...
That is because the Second Amendment applies to "The people" and not to "citizens." "The People" were free born white male adults that owned land or paid a poll tax.
Yet, "The People" had those rights secured under the Second Amendment. It was the Fourteenth Amendment that incorporated all of those rights to all citizens irrespective of whether or not they were "The People." Further, current lawmakers have hidden that distinction from the American people. Most Americans don't even realize that this was and is a legal distinction.
Eisenhower was deeply religious, having been raised by a precursor sect to the Jehovah's Witnesses and having become a Presbyterian as he assumed the White House. However, he was not highly regarded by conservative Republicans for his furtherance of Roosevelt's policies. Keep in mind, that the use of nuclear weapons was one of the ways to prevent the rise of the military industrial complex. So under Eisenhower, we had a nuclear air defense--that is, they put nuclear weapons on top of Nike Orion missiles, which they intended to launch and navigate into Soviet bomber fleets about 45 miles off shore, or off our borders and incinerate the bombers with air blast nukes.
Kennedy was more fiscally conservative than Eisenhower. He was the last fiscally conservative Democratic president.
The Democrats were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, and it wasn't pushed through until 1964 by Everett Dirksen. Enough Northern Democrats were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to get it through Congress. It was the Great Society that Republicans opposed, and many still do. Johnson pushed that with the idea that blacks would vote for the Democrats for the next 100 years. We're about 50 years into it, and Johnson hasn't been proven wrong yet.
Right! And don't forget the Welrod either. The action is louder than the report. Neither of those arms could have killed the number of people that were killed in Las Vegas. They simply didn't have enough velocity coming out of the barrel. Drop off is pretty fast. At that distance, little lumps of lead would fall like rain drops onto the street.
Drlee wrote:The notion that the constitution is a living document, carefully crafted to encourage its change when necessary, IS the conservative position. It is the very definition of 'original intent'.
The Fourteenth Amendment didn't change the process for adding or removing constitutional amendments, although SCOTUS often seems to ignore that fact.
Drlee wrote:May I remind our gentle reader that the right to bear arms was not part of the original constitution.
We might also remind our gentle reader that the original thirteen colonies would not have ratified that constitution if there weren't 10 more amendments to it, since that constitution didn't even guarantee freedom of speech, separation of church and state, the prevention of quartering troops in private houses, a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, a right to due process, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
Drlee wrote:Going back we can see what the founders thought of a "well ordered militia" as under the articles of confederation the states were not allowed a standing army but were required to "keep ready a well trained, disciplined and equipped militia".
Right. And as long as we have a standing army, we should always maintain a well-ordered and equipped militia to prevent mischievious officers and politicians from ruling against the will of the people, as they often do today--albeit with the fear that the people of the United States are heavily armed.
Drlee wrote:The world has changed but I refuse to allow these shit birds to claim the title 'conservative' and clothe themselves in what they wish to call "original intent".
Do you include George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin in your list of "shit birds"?
George Washington wrote:Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
Thomas Paine wrote:"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
Patrick Henry wrote:The great object is that every man be armed.
Patrick Henry wrote:Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Thomas Jefferson wrote:Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; …
Thomas Jefferson wrote:The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.
Incidentally, this is why I would repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, due to SCOTUS' constant abuse of these articles.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote:The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
Sara Brady, Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (1994) wrote:Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Good luck with that...
Adolf Hitler (1933) wrote:This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
Sounds like the goals of some of the people on PoliticsForum...
Drlee wrote:After the ratification of the constitution, free blacks in many states were prohibited from owning firearms. The founders were fine with this. So the right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the US was never universal. Further.
That is because the Second Amendment applies to "The people" and not to "citizens." "The People" were free born white male adults that owned land or paid a poll tax.
Drlee wrote:How about them believing in a difference between military and hunting firearms. Well they did in Virginia where they passed a law that read that free blacks were not allowed to, ""to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..."
So they were not adverse to that distinction either.
Yet, "The People" had those rights secured under the Second Amendment. It was the Fourteenth Amendment that incorporated all of those rights to all citizens irrespective of whether or not they were "The People." Further, current lawmakers have hidden that distinction from the American people. Most Americans don't even realize that this was and is a legal distinction.
Potemkin wrote:DrLee is an Eisenhower conservative.
Eisenhower was deeply religious, having been raised by a precursor sect to the Jehovah's Witnesses and having become a Presbyterian as he assumed the White House. However, he was not highly regarded by conservative Republicans for his furtherance of Roosevelt's policies. Keep in mind, that the use of nuclear weapons was one of the ways to prevent the rise of the military industrial complex. So under Eisenhower, we had a nuclear air defense--that is, they put nuclear weapons on top of Nike Orion missiles, which they intended to launch and navigate into Soviet bomber fleets about 45 miles off shore, or off our borders and incinerate the bombers with air blast nukes.
Potemkin wrote:By the 1950s, 'conservatism' had morphed into 'Eisehower conservatism' - high taxes, high social spending, anti-communism and social traditionalism.
Kennedy was more fiscally conservative than Eisenhower. He was the last fiscally conservative Democratic president.
Zagadka wrote:You literally go so far as to say that the Republican party totally was the right side of the Civil War while the Democrats were for the South... then instantly swap around and say that Eisenhower doesn't count because reasons.
The Democrats were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, and it wasn't pushed through until 1964 by Everett Dirksen. Enough Northern Democrats were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to get it through Congress. It was the Great Society that Republicans opposed, and many still do. Johnson pushed that with the idea that blacks would vote for the Democrats for the next 100 years. We're about 50 years into it, and Johnson hasn't been proven wrong yet.
ingliz wrote:The De Lisle carbine, a British World War II integrally suppressed rifle chambered in .45 ACP, was recorded at 85.5 dB in official firing tests.
Right! And don't forget the Welrod either. The action is louder than the report. Neither of those arms could have killed the number of people that were killed in Las Vegas. They simply didn't have enough velocity coming out of the barrel. Drop off is pretty fast. At that distance, little lumps of lead would fall like rain drops onto the street.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden