With the United States Constitution, that is.
I’ve encountered this claim a number of times. It is pure solid digestive waste from a male bovine.
In fact, it is the gun control movement that is rooted in racism. Early gun control laws were specially aimed at recently-freed slave, and were mostly supported by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, who wanted to be able to persecute blacks, without the danger of having their victims be able to shoot back.
Later, the Sullivan Law became the forerunner of most modern gun control laws, and it reflects a similar intent. Timothy Sullivan was the head of an organized crime syndicate, and he managed also to get himself elected to public office, where he was able to author and get passed the law bearing his name, for the purpose of insuring that he and those allied with him could obtain arms, but those who he regarded as his enemies could not. A law of criminals, by criminals, for criminals.
All gun control is ultimately based on similar intentions; to give one group unjust power over another. I got “warned” earlier for coming out and saying whose side those who support gun control are on; but an examination of the history of gun control, and of who the most prominent supporters are of it to this day, ought to make this obvious without my having to say it again and risk another moderator action.
It doesn’t work that way. You can’t “replace” one amendment in the Constitution with another. Any provision in the Constitution—including an amendment—can be repealed by passing an amendment to that effect. The original text remains in the Constitution, but is rendered ineffective by the later amendment which overrides it. The Twenty-First Amendment is a clear example; it repeals the Eighteenth Amendment. The Eighteenth Amendment is still in the Constitution, but it is no longer in effect.
If you wanted to repeal the Third Amendment, then this would be done by ratifying a new Amendment which repeals it. This would be separate from, and irrelevant to, the process of ratifying some other Amendment that you think you want to “replace” the Third.
I don’t agree. I posit that most gun control is based on an intention of keeping the populace at large safer.
I grant you that this intention is not the result of most gun control. But you ascribe to malevolence what is is at worst error and more likely a difference of opinion.
But… didn’t you read the link that makes the case? The quotes from the founding fathers seem rather unambiguous to me. If I’m wrong, well hey, learning new things is part of why I’m here. What do you make of Patrick Henry’s objection to federal control of militias, and the subsequent transfer of that authority to the states?:
It is a matter of history that the word “state” in the 2nd Amendment was “country” in the first draft. The edit is no accident.
That wouldn’t surprise me- American history, alas, is less pride-inducing that one would hope. But you’re kind of making my point. The 2nd Amendment itself was a kind of gun-control measure, in that the slaves were not allowed to possess weapons and the slave patrol militias enforced that. After emancipation, yah, the Klan would have wanted to keep guns out of blacks’ hands. I stated that already, that the lynch mob (and not the National Guard) was the final expression of the slave patrol militia of the 2nd Amendment.
Perhaps. I’m not a big partisan either way on this issue. If you’ve got a good link or book that lays out this argument, I’d be interested. But rascals in history does not in itself mean much- you can’t throw a rock at American history without beaning a rascal of one stripe or another.
Well, that is certainly the case with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. After that, I dunno, I never made up my mind on these issues. But, unless you believe people ought to be allowed artillery, machine guns, nukes, and whatever else, you too support ‘gun control’.
Not to be critical, but truth-out.org? That’s all you have? This is not exactly an unbiased website, wouldn’t you agree?
I was thinking along the lines of a Wikipedia-type source… Or encyclopedia britannica. Something that would be considered a bit more middle of the road and mainstream.
You are correct in saying that insurrection would not be protected. But I thought one of the unwritten yet understood reasons of why the 2nd amendment is there was because a government was being created by breaking away from the crown, and they were doing it by using the lives and weapons of the citizens of the country itself It would be hypocritical to use people and their private weapons to fight a war for independence, and then turn around and confiscate and deny those very same tools by which independence was gained. Implicit in that is the notion that an armed citizenry would be able to take up arms against their government if necessary.
I don’t believe any confederate soldier was prosecuted for fighting against the union, and this was an insurrection. They just had to take an oath of loyalty to the union and they were given back their weapons and sent home.
No, the new government didn’t want armed insurrections every year, but they wanted the citizens to feel safe and not fear the government which they were fighting for.
The second amendment goes a long way in providing that security. Debaser quotes the NH state constitution, which was written around the same time as the US constitution, that last part is a key phrase that the founders clearly were wise enou to leave out of the US BoR, but I believe the implication is there. An armed populace has more freedom than an unarmed one. The arms give them that freedom or power, even if it is today more illusion than reality.
See post #168.
Not even you believe that. Brits are free.
Seems like a point for academia alone. In practice, millions were kept in bondage. Of course the slaves were not allowed to own guns- they were slaves!
But they were also “the people.” Of course, slaves are only ever allowed to have what their masters let them have, but it does raise constitutional and ethical questions. In Tom the Dancing Bug, the comic strip by Ruben Bolling, there was once a bit about a genetically-engineered organ-donor man-cow (property of Nerrex Corporation, and regularly being mined for livers and kidneys) who one day announced, “I want a gun!” "The creature had inadvertently presented an ethical dilemma!" “Can we deny this creature its right, as an American, to bear arms?” “But is it an American? And does it have the capacity to responsibly use such a weapon?” “At last it was decided that a gun could safely be offered for purchase, since as a slave and the property of Nerrex Corp., the beast had no money.” But then the man-cow announced, “I . . am . . gay!” :smack:
I meant to put this in the context of 18th century colonial America. Sorry about that. As I said, today this is more an illusion than reality.
As I’ve said, the second Amendment doesn’t hold up in the same way it did back in the day. I still feel, however, that it is an important right that we should not toss away.
I am not unreasonable, however. I do think background checks, for example, don’t infringe upon an honest citizen’s right to own a gun, for example.
I don’t get it.
ETA: @ BrainGlutton
Why should it not be tossed away? There are no modern examples supporting its value.
:dubious: Oh, yes, you do.
You think the Patrick Henry quotes are invented?
Pretty damn weak, fella. But yet *this *has credibility to you:
:dubious:
I know. It was a joke.
Yes. Less free than Americans, though.
You should read American Hunter magazine. There are a dozen examples on the first page of every issue in a feature called “The Armed Citizen”.
ETA: It comes free with your NRA membership!
Only in the respect that Americans are free to bear arms, which begs the question.