Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

A video history of the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Trickster, Mar 30, 2021.

  1. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    9,628
    2,555
    1,068
    Sep 20, 2014
    “Originalism” is only invoked if the “original” suits your purposes, though, to be fair, history is subject to interpretation. This is one man’s.

     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. gator7_5

    gator7_5 GC Hall of Fame

    12,318
    426
    613
    Apr 9, 2007
    White terror gangs. Lol.
     
  3. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    9,628
    2,555
    1,068
    Sep 20, 2014
    What would you call them, starting with, say, the KKK? What would you call all those white people who stormed the Capitol, injuring cops and threatening to hang Pence?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. gator7_5

    gator7_5 GC Hall of Fame

    12,318
    426
    613
    Apr 9, 2007
    I didn't realize my 74-year-old middle school civics teacher was a member of a white terror gang. Thanks for the heads up.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. helix

    helix VIP Member

    5,603
    850
    468
    Apr 3, 2007
    So the premise is that the second amendment is bad because it allows the untrustworthy elite to use the people to defend their interests, so let's do away with it and consolidate all arms to be under the control of the untrustworthy elite?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    9,628
    2,555
    1,068
    Sep 20, 2014
    That makes zero sense.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    11,132
    1,570
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    Was he in the KKK or the group that invaded the Capitol?
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  8. gator7_5

    gator7_5 GC Hall of Fame

    12,318
    426
    613
    Apr 9, 2007
    I didn't learn about the second amendment from white terror gangs last year. I learned about it in grade school. In fact I'm not sure anybody I know who supports gun ownership does so because of what happened in January. Or the 10 years prior. That whole video is nonsense. Or the first half I watched anyway.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. gator7_5

    gator7_5 GC Hall of Fame

    12,318
    426
    613
    Apr 9, 2007
    I thought the premise was that our founding fathers are total assholes and no better than the British. Lots of hate on the founding fathers recently so I'm going with that theory.

    It's not an original thought though.

     
  10. littlebluelw

    littlebluelw Premium Member

    6,208
    822
    473
    Apr 3, 2007
    Just like the video you posted.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  11. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    10,673
    1,155
    608
    Apr 3, 2007
    I scanned through the video so I may have missed something. I generally stand these arguments because the Second Amendment debate is so profound and invoke so much emotion, but I believe it's not worth investing emotional energy into. I don't feel there's any possibility of any meaningful limiting legislation in the foreseeable political future. And in any event, the facts on the ground are what they are in terms of the number of guns out there.

    But if are going to engage in a purely esoteric exercise, I might quibble with the author of the video. I believe the Second Amendment structure is as much an anachronism as is the Third Amendment quartering act, for much the same reason. The Second Amendment was intended to be part of the structure to guarantee liberty but only if you don't believe in the legitimacy of a standing army, which was a big bete noir to the anti-Federalists of the time. The general structure was that the greatest danger to freedom was a standing army. You see this also in the Third Amendment

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    To provide and maintain a navy;
    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States


    The intended structure is clear - the United States would have no standing army. All appropriations would automatically sunset after two years for the Army but not for the Navy. The nation would be defended by state militias on the ground which were called into the actual service of the federal government at the time of invasion. And the 3rd Amendment would keep citizens from having to put up soldiers as a workaround, given that there would be no conventional "bases."

    If you wanted to engage in some fairly extreme interpretations of the language, it's illegal to have more than a two-year commitment for any member of the United States Army. Moreover, not only is the government prohibited from proscribing citizens from being armed as art of a militia, the Government is on the hook to pay and "arm" the militia - you could sue the government to pay for your weapons.

    Of course, we knew that structure was unworkable at the time the Constitution was ratified. It was basically how the Revolutionary Army worked, which Washington thought was lunacy. And there was a standing army fairly soon in the early days of the Republic, because there was no way the Constitutional structure would be workable. The whole structure was as much an anachronism as are much of the oft quoted provisions to the Federalist Papers - doing what had to be done to get to ratification. But they remain and control and it's folly, in my opinion, to maintain otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    5,121
    806
    428
    Dec 6, 2015
    The gist I got from the video is the 2nd Amendment is bad because it was crafted in favor and for the purpose of preserving rights of the Lords and upper classes like Washington and Madison, not the peasant and labor class.

    So the leftist answer to the Second Amendment is restricting guns from the labor and peasant class so that only the elites can protect themselves through gated communities and armed security. Also, let's defund the police. :D

    Then there's a bunch of opinion regarding Reagan, gun control, subtle imputations of racism, and opinions from people who don't like the conservative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the NRA. What's that reference regarding opinions and A-holes?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. homer

    homer GC Hall of Fame

    2,191
    701
    453
    Nov 2, 2015
    People are butt hurt over law abiding American citizens owning guns.

    SMDH
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. cluckugator

    cluckugator VIP Member

    1,561
    603
    463
    Aug 16, 2007
    That is pretty hard to argue with. Assuming that is why there isn't a reply.