Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
RavenHawk

A History Lesson on the Second Amendment

84 posts in this topic

23 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Actually, we are both right.  For those that have already been deported, if they return, then that is a felony.  If you are here for the first time, then it is just a misdemeanor.  But it’s a bit more than just a parking ticket.  Let’s look at this a bit closer.  Illegal mass migration brings poverty, disease, and crime, let alone problems in assimilation.  If you are willing to commit one crime (even a misdemeanor) to sneak into this country, then committing the next crime is easier.  Fraud is a felony and most illegals commit fraud to get assistance.  It’s this act that take resources away from people like Uncle Sam that need them.  Then there are the predators that follow the pack.  When they go to prey upon the illegal, it puts citizens in danger.  The President is tasked with protecting the American citizen (and wards).  He has full discretion to use USC 8 1182(f) to accomplish this.

 

 

31 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 

It is codified.  The Supreme Court cannot write law.  Congress must do that.  And until that law is changed, USC 8 1182(f) is the law.  It was enacted in 1952 and I believe that every President since Eisenhower has invoked it (I know for sure since Carter).

 

 

USC 8 1182(f) is this btw:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Which is fine and dandy when trying to argue a travel ban but does nothing for illegals already in the country nor does it address whether they have constitutional rights or not.

36 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 

Non-citizens that are here legally do have Constitutional protections.  These are wards.  I wasn’t talking about them.  But I think you are conflating two issues here.  I’m talking about illegals and unwanted populations.  You seem to think that the individual has the final say as to if they can come to this nation.  That is incorrect.  They don’t.  The President can use his powers to keep people out.  That is his job.  People have natural Rights, but our Constitution does not protect them for anyone not here legally.  By being here illegally means that they are not willing to abide by our laws.  And that makes them a danger to those that are here legally.  Do you understand the implication of allowing people here illegally?  Again, it is absurd to think that our Constitution protects the Rights of people that are citizens of other countries inside those countries.  It is up to those nations to grant or protect the Rights of their citizens, not us.

The Constitution is the basis of all our laws.  To test a laws worth is to determine if it is constitutional or not.  To say that our constitution doesn't apply to illegals is to say our laws and authority doesn't apply to illegals.  That is the reason why our forefathers made it specifically apply to "people" in general (and "citizens" in specific for certain articles like voting).  Our constitution was meant for everyone that America has dealing with.  It was our way of formally recognizing the rights we see in all men.  Even if they are murderers, rapists, or illegal aliens.

  Your last sentence is what truly sets us apart: "It is up to those nations to grant or protect the Rights of their citizens, not us."  You believe that rights come from the State and can be granted or removed by the state.  So of course stripping a class of peoples rights would be a simple concept for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

HEADBANG_DESK.gif?resize=480,270

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Israel would have that spot.

So, rather than "responsible", you look for "consistent" countries. 

Countries that do what they say. 

If that's your unit of measurement, then fair enough. 

 

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Ok, it’s a bit more than dedicated.  It would include the intent of that dedication.  NK and Iran want nukes for belligerent reasons.  Here, we work at securing our nukes.  My group has a motto, “Always/Never” (you can google “always never sandia”).  We assure that our nukes always go off when then are supposed to and never when they are not.  Somehow, I really don’t think NK and Iran are worried about that.  They are not interested in defending themselves as they are more interested in threatening others.

But that are all your assumptions, not facts.

So again, fair enough if you judge someone or something based on your beliefs, but let's be clear and don't pass them as facts. 

In Italian that's called "processo alle intenzioni" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/processo_alle_intenzioni), that roughly translates as "to judge someone on mere intent". An the intent is all in the accuser's head, it's not necessarily real. 

 

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s because of those last 70 years that I would give the US a gun.  It has been American Hegemony that has created a relative peace in the world.  Mankind hasn’t experienced such a period of peace and prosperity in a very long time.

That's quite relative. 

Actually, it is a lot relative. 

If you are really interested in understanding the world and its dinamics, you should try to see things not only from a US point of view. 

It could have been good for you living in the US, but not so much for your South American neighbours, with their military coups. 

Or for South East Asian countries. 

Or Italy for that matter.

We had quite tough years between the sixties and eighties because of terrorist attacks (both right and left wing). 

Just three examples, but in all of them the US played a pivotal role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I’m not assuming, just keeping things simple to stay in scope of the thread.  Initially, I would use the Rule of Thirds (not the photographic term).  The Rule of Thirds states that a third will be for, a third against, and a third indifferent.  So that would be basically 110 million in each camp.  This is more than what I wanted to get into, but if you want to create a new thread whose subject would be: The Anatomy of the next Civil War, then please start it and I’ll try to expand further.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  It is an important issue for all of us, and not one to be dismissed out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 6:40 AM, Peter B said:

Okay, so I've done some additional background reading to learn more about the Second Amendment's context and its relationship to a similar set of words in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

It’s similar but not exactly the same.  It basically gives Protestants the Right to bear arms against implications of heresy.  King William III was Protestant and as King it was his duty to defend the faith (so to speak).  But with events that led up to the Peace of Westphalia and the English Toleration Acts, people of all faiths were protected as long as they made their oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.  The Right to protect went from the Crown to the individual.  But it wasn’t to defend from the government but Catholics.  And that is a big difference because the vast majority of nations do not incorporate a clause for the people to defend themselves from the government.  That is what makes America unique and why most people, even Americans don’t understand the need.  At least not until after the abuse has been made.  On a side note, I have an ancestor that fought under William to defeat James at Boyne and later, it was his grandson that fought under Washington in the American Revolution.  So you might say that the Right to bear arms is in my blood.

 

1. You talk about the idea of the People being armed as protection against tyranny by the Government. In this sense you appear to be presenting American society as these two unified groups - the People and the Government. But isn't it the case that the People are divided (largely) into two groups with significantly different agendas about how society should operate and how the Government should bring about those outcomes, each trying to be the group which controls the operation of the Government?

You are correct in both regards.  In time, all governments become oppressive.  That is why the Founding Fathers put limits in place but they still knew that without a vigilant body politic, that these limits would be usurped.  And we see that today.  At the beginning, we had the basic divisions of Federalists and anti-Federalists.  Today we would call them Conservatives and Liberals respectively.  They would be at each other’s throats as to what the best way to govern was but you knew that both had the best interest of this nation at heart.  Over the years, these groups morphed and merged to end up with the current Republican and Democrat but somewhere along the way, something changed.  One can argue as to when exactly it was, but it was shortly after Bismarck had instituted his social reforms.  For being anti-Socialist, he infused Socialism into the world.  Starting with Wilson, Socialism began to intertwine its tentacles into the foundation of our nation and it’s been at work for a century now.  As one party was whole-heartedly absorbed, the other party had been resistant but that is no longer the case.  So those limitations on the government are now removed and we live in dangerous times.  Can Trump return the balance without civil war?

 

2. You talk about the People being armed so as to provide protection against the Government attempting to oppress them. And elsewhere in this thread you say: "If the government tries to oppress the people...there will be units across the board that will simply refuse to obey or all out mutiny and join the people." On that basis, why do you think the People have anything to fear from the Government? Wouldn't it in fact be the other way around? That the Government should fear the People because they have the capacity to impose their will on the Government thanks to their access to the threat of violence?

Indeed, the Founding Fathers wanted the government to fear the people.  But because the ruling elite get the benefit of the doubt, the people must always be vigilant in what our Representatives do.  The military are more part of the people rather than the government.  Obama was trying to change that.  So initially the Military will follow the government or the leaders established by the government.  That is until the individuals in the military can determine for themselves what the situation is.

 

3. Now let's put points 1 and 2 together. Consider that one of the groups of the People in point 1 is more heavily armed than the other. Consider also that, based on point 2, that group of the People has the capacity to impose their will on the Government. On that basis, what's to stop that group from

acting on its capacity, and forcing its will on the Government in order to enact its agenda?

That’s called civil war.  And that is what is happening now with groups like Antifa leading the way.  Right now, the Left still controls enough of the apparatus (MSM, academia, deep state, and establishment) that they could still depose Trump.  But that would be an ugly gambit at this point in time.  They have to weaken Trump before they can do that, but Trump is only getting stronger and the MSM/Hollywood is coming apart at the seams.  Then you have people like Hilary, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, & Green doing such a bang up job being the representatives of the DNC.

 

4. Now consider the possibility that the groups are equally heavily armed, to the extent that the Government is weaker than each of them. Wouldn't this lead to a situation where the groups would be racing each other to seize control of the Government, both of them fearing that if the other does so they will impose a tyranny against them?

At this point the government would be absorbed by one or the other.  This possibility doesn’t really exist.  By this time, the resources under control of the government will be divvied up between the camps.  I.e. aren’t most nukes in Red states?  And most military units will lean Conservative and hence control over their bases.

 

What group are you talking about here?

I’m speaking of the NCSF (National Civilian Security Force).  Obama touted that it would be just as equipped and just as funded as the military.  Why would we need a duplicate force?  Obama had also started to replace high ranking officers in the military with those that were closer to his ideology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the right to keep and bear arms being an individual right:

District of Columbia v Heller 2008

“... the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearmunconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the meaning of “well regulated” in context of the 2nd Amendment:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More...

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[163] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[164]

Meaning of "the right of the People"

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people" – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people".[167]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time the phrase “defense against tyranny” comes up, there’s immediate snickering and scoffing from the galleries and then the inevitable pointing following a circular motion around the ear... but if you’re a betting man (or woman)... and I’m not talking about in casinos... and pay attention to the odds, then you would know that democide is the biggest killer of the 20th Century and probably in the history of history.

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.”

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.