Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2017, 05:24:36 PM
-
The following article dates from 2014. I apoligize if it has been posted before, but it's worth dragging up. It's so awful, it's truly comical.
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2014/09/25/ignorant-gun-control-op-ed-american-history/
The majority of people I talk to seem to think that President Obama is “out to get your guns” when in reality, the first Bush administration had stricter gun laws.
In fact, two of the most critical gun control measures that ever passed took place in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban — both passed by a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) with the help of strong vocal support by former President Reagan.
The reality is that our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future. The notion that the constitution is static is absurd. This is why they are called “amendments” so that they can be amended to keep up with the times.
I have looked it up, and "Kasie Strickland" really is a byline at that newspaper. It was apparently not a hoax.
-
Layers and layers of fact checkers and editors
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
-
For the record, the Brady Bill was passed on November 11, 1993. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993.
The assault weapon ban was passed on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton the same day.
The only reason this qualifies as "stupidity" is that the writer stupidly assumed her flat out LIE that it was Bush and not Clinton who signed both bills wouldn't be recognized for the LIE it is.
But then again, she thinks Presidents pass laws.
:facepalm:
-
Hank, I suspect it stems from ignorance. She's probably very young, and got her facts mixed up. Nonetheless, I chose to call it "stupidity," as an intelligent human would have fact-checked something like that.
-
The reality is that our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future. The notion that the constitution is static is absurd. This is why they are called “amendments” so that they can be amended to keep up with the times.
No, the reality is that they are called "amendments" because each of them constituted a change (a.k.a. an "amendment") to the original Constitution. Once adopted, an amendment becomes an integral part of the Constitution and is subject to the provisions built into said document for changes (a.k.a. "amendments). The provision for amendments was written in so the Constitution could be changed, whether to "keep up with the times" or for whatever reason might be behind any particular amendment ... but the process is built into the Constitution itself.
-
No, the reality is that they are called "amendments" because each of them constituted a change (a.k.a. an "amendment") to the original Constitution. Once adopted, an amendment becomes an integral part of the Constitution and is subject to the provisions built into said document for changes (a.k.a. "amendments). The provision for amendments was written in so the Constitution could be changed, whether to "keep up with the times" or for whatever reason might be behind any particular amendment ... but the process is built into the Constitution itself.
Well, er, yes.
-
For the record, the Brady Bill was passed on November 11, 1993. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993.
The assault weapon ban was passed on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton the same day.
The only reason this qualifies as "stupidity" is that the writer stupidly assumed her flat out LIE that it was Bush and not Clinton who signed both bills wouldn't be recognized for the LIE it is.
But then again, she thinks Presidents pass laws.
:facepalm:
I also don't recall Reagan even saying anything. I thought he pretty much stayed quiet on the political front outside of a couple speeches.
-
I also don't recall Reagan even saying anything. I thought he pretty much stayed quiet on the political front outside of a couple speeches.
Reagan did sign a letter along with Carter and Ford supporting what would become the AWB and may have actively lobbied for it with some of the NRA leadership and Republicans. Of course he was also diagnosed with Alzheimer's later the same year. This is just one of the reasons I think Reagan is a bit overrated by many conservatives.
-
Wonder how she got the years correct but couldn't be bothered with doing the extensive research of finding out who was president during that time period. Oh well, add to that the fact that she apparently doesn't know how amendments work and it's just one more person not to trust with sharp objects.
-
...with the help of strong vocal support by former President Reagan.
Yeah, the old "but Reagan said" argument. Of course, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, and she and Barack were both against "marriage equality" before they were for it. To say nothing of Democrats' oh-so-principled stand on Senate rules, once upon a time. :lol:
-
I also don't recall Reagan even saying anything. I thought he pretty much stayed quiet on the political front outside of a couple speeches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_yLWttxc4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_yLWttxc4)
The reality is that our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future.
Being well-educated, they knew that firearms technology wasn't static. They may not have been familiar with the very first guns (most likely the 10th century Chinese fire lance) but they most certainly were familiar with the progression from matchlock to wheellock to flintlock. They knew the difference between smoothbores and rifled barrels, and a contingent (fortunately small!) of elite British troop used Ferguson rifles - early breech loaders - against Continental troops at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. The percussion cap was invented in 1820 - when some of the Founding Fathers were still alive. So it's quite certain they knew firearm technology would continue to develop in the future.
-
Being well-educated, they knew that firearms technology wasn't static. They may not have been familiar with the very first guns (most likely the 10th century Chinese fire lance) but they most certainly were familiar with the progression from matchlock to wheellock to flintlock. They knew the difference between smoothbores and rifled barrels, and a contingent (fortunately small!) of elite British troop used Ferguson rifles - early breech loaders - against Continental troops at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. The percussion cap was invented in 1820 - when some of the Founding Fathers were still alive. So it's quite certain they knew firearm technology would continue to develop in the future.
Don't forget that the only documentation we have of the Belton Repeater is from Congressional records a few years before the 2A was ratified.
May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover'd an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg'd, to be loaded and fire'd with cartridge as usual, which I am ready to prove by experimental proof and can with equal ease fix them so as to discharge sixteen, or twenty, in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time, which I have kept as yet a secret, thinking that in two, or three Months we might have an army thus equipt, which our enemy should know nothing of, till they should be maid to know it in the field, to their immortal sorrow
And if you Gentlemen are desirous to enquire into this improvement, your Humble Servent, is ready to wait upon you at any time, or place, or he may be waited on at the Widow Fords, in Walnut Street, between second & third street.
from your most Obedient
Humble Servent
Philidelphia April 11th 1777 Joseph Belton
Eight shots in three seconds, or 20 in five seconds, and a basic range of 30 yards. Essentially a SMG, made to mow the enemy down late in their bayonet charge when they think all the shooting is done until a reload break. Likely large and unwieldy compared to a MP5, but still a far cry above single shot muskets.
-
Come on, you guys, it clearly means muskets. That's why they put the word musket right in the amendment.
-
Don't forget that the only documentation we have of the Belton Repeater is from Congressional records a few years before the 2A was ratified.
Eight shots in three seconds, or 20 in five seconds, and a basic range of 30 yards. Essentially a SMG, made to mow the enemy down late in their bayonet charge when they think all the shooting is done until a reload break. Likely large and unwieldy compared to a MP5, but still a far cry above single shot muskets.
Also, the Lewis and Clark expedition used a repeating air rifle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi266.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii249%2Fbluestarlizzard%2Fmusket.jpg&hash=92986fd6acd369b0b4ec7314f2211b1a9e24f0e6) (http://s266.photobucket.com/user/bluestarlizzard/media/musket.jpg.html)
Sure, let's go back to the stuff the founding fathers were talking about.
I give it a month before they are begging us to go back to our modern weapons. >:D
-
Yeah, the old "but Reagan said" argument. Of course, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, and she and Barack were both against "marriage equality" before they were for it. To say nothing of Democrats' oh-so-principled stand on Senate rules, once upon a time. :lol:
And Nancy Pelosi saying, before the election, that both sides should abide by the results. Now that her gal pal lost, Pelosi is leading the charge to empanel an investigation into Russian hacking.
-
And Nancy Pelosi saying, before the election, that both sides should abide by the results. Now that her gal pal lost, Pelosi is leading the charge to empanel an investigation into Russian hacking.
Now, now, we could spend years doing this, if you insist on dragging up every example.
-
So let's write a book. If it sells 23 copies and we split to royalties 50 ways, we'll each get about 5 cents.
Plus each of us will be able to say "I are a author." WOO HOO!
-
Some really hilarious back and forth with the erstwhile scholar and commenters...
https://disqus.com/by/kasiestrickland/
-
I also don't recall Reagan even saying anything. I thought he pretty much stayed quiet on the political front outside of a couple speeches.
Incorrect. Reagan made a speech supporting the Brady Law in 1991. I was working at American Rifleman at the time and we watched it.
It was accompanied by this Op-Ed in the New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
And here's his speech at George Washington University... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_yLWttxc4
-
I always love discussing "The Founders never could have forseen..." with those who claim that we're only allowed flintlocks.
They couldn't have forseen modern printing presses, radios, televisions, computers are smart phones, so the First Amendment doesn't allow those, either. Hand them over.
Normally their faces crumple in confusion and they start spewing BUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUT...
You can't have it one way and not the other just because it's convenient to you.
-
Incorrect. Reagan made a speech supporting the Brady Law in 1991. I was working at American Rifleman at the time and we watched it.
It was accompanied by this Op-Ed in the New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
And here's his speech at George Washington University... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_yLWttxc4
Yeah ... Reagan was for these gun control laws....as governor of California I believe he signed one law into existance prohibiting the carry of loaded weapons IIRC (which I may not be, but I do believe he signed a law...). All it proves is a president I otherwise greatly admire took a few decisions I dislike.
If you agree with the guy in charge 100% .... something's wrong, and probably not with the guy in charge .... ;)
-
I always love discussing "The Founders never could have forseen..." with those who claim that we're only allowed flintlocks.
Actually, there's some solid documentation that the Founders envisioned people having a lot more than flintlocks.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, lists, among the other powers of Congress, the power to " . . . grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Letters of Marque in the 18th century were intended to legitimize privateers to act in a warlike manner against a government's enemies; in other words, the Founders envisioned and allowed for private ownership and operation of warships on the high seas! Much more than mere muskets . . .
Perhaps this should be revisited if and when the question of how to deal with pirates in places regular navies aren't interested in intervening. (e.g., offshore from Somalia.)
-
The marque and reprisal argument was broached on this forum some time ago, and someone (can't recall who) replied that those letters really just went to captains of the regular navy. I tried to talk him out of this viewpoint, but I didn't find any good sources to specify who would have received such letters, among my own library, or online.
-
Some really hilarious back and forth with the erstwhile scholar and commenters...
https://disqus.com/by/kasiestrickland/
Hmmm ...
Perhaps my opinion is formed from a lack of firearm knowledge.
Quod erat demonstandum.
Perhaps it is formed by the countless mass shootings and accidental deaths. Perhaps it is formed by the fact that countries with stricter gun laws don't have the problems we do here.
Paging fact checker. Fact checker please pick up the orange fake news phone.
And to answer your questions: It's both open carry and concealed weapons that frighten me.
And I think we have just identified the root of the issue.
-
You can't have it one way and not the other just because it's convenient to you.
You can't?
Are you sure?
Are you REALLY sure?
Are you SURE you're really sure?
WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
-
Actually, there's some solid documentation that the Founders envisioned people having a lot more than flintlocks.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, lists, among the other powers of Congress, the power to " . . . grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Letters of Marque in the 18th century were intended to legitimize privateers to act in a warlike manner against a government's enemies; in other words, the Founders envisioned and allowed for private ownership and operation of warships on the high seas! Much more than mere muskets . . .
An example I have used more than twice.
And let's not forget the militia. Militia units had their own cannon(s). It wasn't unusual, or so I've been given to understand, for the local unit's cannon to have been owned by the wealthiest local land owner, and that same guy was often elected the commanding officer, due in part to his prominence in the community and (perhaps) due in part to the fact that he owned the cannon, and if he got upset he might take his cannon and go home.
-
. . . if he got upset he might take his cannon and go home.
Funniest line in this thread yet! =D
-
Even the UK recognized the right to bear arms and the ownership of firearms was not uncommon until 1920.
-
Actually, there's some solid documentation that the Founders envisioned people having a lot more than flintlocks.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, lists, among the other powers of Congress, the power to " . . . grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Letters of Marque in the 18th century were intended to legitimize privateers to act in a warlike manner against a government's enemies; in other words, the Founders envisioned and allowed for private ownership and operation of warships on the high seas! Much more than mere muskets . . .
Perhaps this should be revisited if and when the question of how to deal with pirates in places regular navies aren't interested in intervening. (e.g., offshore from Somalia.)
That's an EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous position to take, and not one that you, I, or anyone else wants to run with.
If Congress has the authority to grant, or NOT TO GRANT, letters of marque, well it just goes to reason that they also have the authority to grant, or NOT TO GRANT, firearms rights under the Second Amendment.
After all, letters of marque were included in the main body of the Constitution, they weren't an obvious afterthought...
And, given the fact that letters of marque haven't been granted since the 1856 Paris Declaration, well, Congress isn't interested in issuing you any Second Amendment rights, either.
-
An example I have used more than twice.
And let's not forget the militia. Militia units had their own cannon(s). It wasn't unusual, or so I've been given to understand, for the local unit's cannon to have been owned by the wealthiest local land owner, and that same guy was often elected the commanding officer, due in part to his prominence in the community and (perhaps) due in part to the fact that he owned the cannon, and if he got upset he might take his cannon and go home.
There's been a lot of discussion, research and debate about what the phrase "bear arms" means in the context of the Second Amendment, but when one factors in the text of the US Code, it's pretty evident that the Founders and Framers men single-person portable weapons, not cannons. Not everyone could afford a cannon, and not everyone was expected to provide a cannon as part of their membership in the militia.
However, ALL members of the militia were expected to provide a personal firearm if called up.