I’m surpirsed that Michael Bellesiles is writing any more books after his incredibly hamhanded collection of lies written in “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture”. IIRC, the literary critics and many universities lavished praise on “Arming America” until people actually began reading the book and vetting Bellesiles alledged facts. Most of Bellesiles fans ran away from him, and their own embareassment, as fast as they could after the truth came out.
I’m not sure how much effect the 1876 election campaign had on the 1791 ratification of the BOR? It’s well known today that the Democrat Party fought for slavery before and during the Civil War. The Democrat Party, along with the Ku Klux Klan, also pushed for sensible gun control laws that would prevent poor farmers and newly freed slaves from owning firearms. Apparently, the Democrats and Klan were afraid that armed citizens who were being denied their voting rights would overthrow the Democrat Party’s control of State governments.
Getting one cultural reference right or wrong doesn’t greatly affect the overall worth of a written article, ie. Hartmann’s article. I’ve pointed out several errors of Hartmann’s, which I assume you agree with, and those errors comprise most of his article. I dismiss Hartmann’s article because of the overall number of errors and not his infatuation with anything spoken by Leonardo DiCaprio.
What does it mean when you say, “IF YOU THINK that individuals can own…” followed by, “trot out the case law” blah, blah, blah? Does that mean that if I don’t think individuals should be able to own atomic bombs that I would still be “required” by you to answer the question?
Thanks for the clarification. I believe that altering the emphasis of my quote changed it’s meaning but rules are rules.
It’s more likely that the brigands who were violated existing laws by invading homes would be in (illegal?) possession of dozapine. Assuming you had “several rounds” of dozapine, how would you suggest that they applied? Orally or by 1500 fps, copper-clad injections?
While the Constitution does not list a positive right to vote, it did mention that elections would be held under the rules of each State.
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
“IF” the Constitution had listed the right to own a car in the BOR, could the government prevent you from owning a car because you failed to buy government mandated insurance?
Very good. I was wondering if you pick up on the allusion. Of course, no one has disputed this book, and the facts I quoted are accurate, but what difference does that make to people who don’t understand the history of militias?
It means that either the second amendment is absolute or it is not. We know that the first amendment is not absolute, even though its wording seems to be clear. If the second amendment is not absolute, then the entire discussion becomes one of drawing a line, i.e. something that is the very essence of government. Are lines perfect? Never. Why should someone who is 17 years 364 days old not be allowed to vote while someone a day older can? Because lines must be drawn somewhere. Your claim to divine the minds of the Founding Fathers is irrelevant in such a case. The law comes down to mere politics, not principles. The right to have a gun is protected by the Constitution. The right to have **any **weapon is not. But that is the sole thing being argued about today. Nobody in their right minds thinks that guns are about to be taken away. The only argument - the sole, lonely, singular argument - is where to draw the line. If you won’t argue that, you have removed yourself from the discussion and taken to shouting at walls.
So which will it be? Can the government ban individuals from owning atomic bombs, tanks, missiles, and WMDs or not?
You seem to think that the mentioning of a line from a movie is somehow a justification for the belief that line expressed. A line from a movie is the repetition of an idea. Once people get ideas, they can believe them or reject them or scrutinize them or whatever they wish. Whether or not there is any truth to the idea. History is irrelevant to whether people get exposed to the idea and then start pondering the merit of the idea. History can answer the accusation of the idea, but not the mere promulgation of the idea.
In this particular case, the idea was something like “If blacks outnumbered whites on plantations in the south, why didn’t they just revolt, take over, and kill all the whiteys?” Proposed movie character answer: blacks are inherently mentally slavish. But that same idea is refuted within the movie itself. Rather, that character was a racist slimebag with very little insight to his own culture. The obvious answer from watching the movie itself: whitey had all the guns and dogs and chains and whips and government support and mutual aid.
But you also seem to think Hartmann was accepting that premise. But he wasn’t - he himself was refuting that premise:
Underlining added.
You see, Hartmann uses the movie line to propose a false idea that people may have been exposed to and thus seriously contemplating through some combination of ignorance, apathy, and stupidity. So he repeats the movie line in order to give his version of the answer, a version of the answer that you seem to be accepting - that militias were responsible for keeping the revolts down.
Citing “Hollyweird” in this instance does nothing to undermine his claim, because he’s not citing the movie line as evidence of anything, he’s citing it as an instance of the idea that people may have encountered and thus recognize. Your reference to Paul Revere is irrelevant, because that appears to be trying to use movie versions to define what actually happened. That is not the case for Harmann’s piece at all. He is merely referring to the movie as the mention of an idea, then addressing the reality of the situation about that idea.
Please cite where Hartmann states that words spoken by actors are historically accurate. The article states no such thing. In fact, it says the opposite.
I’m confused. Why would Southern Democrats - the cultural legacy of the Confederacy - be trying to ban militias and get rid of guns, while the Republicans - the Northern “Carpetbaggers” and heirs of Lincoln - be smuggling guns in to keep the militias alive and beat down the black man? I think you have something confused there.
You seem to be arguing that the Second Amendment justifies individuals owning any kind of weapon and that any kind of limitation by the Federal or State government on weapons is unconstitutional. Ergo, why can’t I own an ICBM? Not why shouldn’t I own an ICBM, or why can’t I afford one, but why am I legally not allowed to own one?
I know individuals can own tanks - like Sherman tanks. But can they keep fully operational tanks, or do they have to have the barrels plugged first?
People can own fully automatic weapons - heavy machine guns like .50 cal gatling guns. But they have to have federal permits and extensive background checks to get the license. Are you trying to suggest that those restrictions are unconstitutional?
Considering that Michael Bellesiles is a proven liar and a fraud, I would suspect the the reason no one has disputed another of his books is because no one has read it. What would be the point? Everything he says would have to be individually verified and anyone who quoted it would only reduce their own credibility.
As to your 2nd point, I answered you question by not answering your question, per your instruction. Your demanding that I response “IF” I think that individuals can own atomic bombs. I don’t believe that individuals should own atomic bombs so, per your instruction, there was no need to respond.
I reject the lines quoted in a fictional movie. You say that once people get ideas they can reject them. Yet you complain when people actually reject the idea of using a Hollyweird scriptwriter’s quote to prove a point. You’re free to quote from any of Leonardo’s scripts.
I find Hartmann’s article to have too many errors to be of much use except as an example of muddled or twisted thinking.
Would you recommend Hartmann’s article to anyone looking for historical facts?
I believe all of the ICBM’s (missles that were referred to as ICBM during a specific time frame) were dismantled. Sorry.
Now that it’s finally been decided that the 2nd is, in fact, a right of the individual to own arms, I think it’s possible that many of the existing restrictions, fees, taxes, rules, and regulations may be readdressed by the courts and the 51 legislatures in the U.S. that pass and repeal laws.
You can go to Google Books and read the section. If you start on p. 30 you’ll get enough to understand the situation. It’s well worth reading for the sheer horror of it. And completely accurate. Understated, even.
Here’s the three-sentence summary. Republicans had control of many of the southern states backed with the votes of black freedmen and therefore control of official militias. The Democrats were staging a terror campaign to intimidate blacks, killing hundreds through “gun clubs” and unofficial militia. If they could keep blacks from voting, they would seize control of the states and re-subjugate blacks, which is what happened.
I’d say that this post conveys all that needs to be said about the poster. It’s quite beautiful in its way. It completely sums up one side in all the gun threads here, an infinite hall of mirrors that allows in no outside light. A work of art, really.
Hahahaha. Your personal attack suggests that you’ve run out of tales to tell.
In post #19, I dismissed Hartmann’s article for three reasons. First was Hartmann’s inability to differenciate between “the people” and the government. Second, Hartmann confuses the Revolutionary War with the Civil War. Third, I question Hartmann’s use of quoting a Hollyweird movie script.
In post #22, you say I dismiss Hartmann “SOLEY” because he made a contemporary reference. You were wrong. You followed that error with your belief that individual rights was not a part of the discussion prior to the Constitution’s adoption.
However, it is undoubtedly true that the discussion of the militia prior to the adoption of the Constitution was virtually entirely about federal control over the states, not about individuals. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges the need for a well-regulated militia, but one that is to be a defense force for the country, not a private army to be set upon unfavored individuals.
You are wrong about that also. All of the first ten Amendments were the rights of “the people” and not the rights of any state. The “rights of the people” were an important consideration during the framing of the new government.
I corrected you in post #23.
In post #24, you didn’t know (or accept?) the SCOTUS decision in Heller that the 2nd was an individual right.
I again corrected your “soley” claim and your misunderstanding of the individual rights listed in the BOR in post #26.
You altered the intention of my post in post #32.
In post #40, you brought Michael A. Bellesiles, a proven liar and fraud, into the conversation. I assume that was to make Hartmann’s article seem stupid.
In post #43 you finally understand, or at least admit, that the 2nd was and is an individual right. Just as all of the other Amendments in the BOR.
You finish with a personal attack in post #49. I’m not responsible for your inability to phrase your own question in a manner that you would understand. “Irishman” asked a similar question and recieved an answer.