Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesHiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:10 pm
Robert W. Thurston is Emeritus Professor of History at Miami University.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has tremendous symbolic importance but is of no practical value in thinking about gun control. After the key events of August-October 1794, which people know as the Whiskey Rebellion, the basic issues behind the adoption of the Amendment could be considered resolved: the United States would continue to have a regular, standing army; the federal government would exercise the right and obligation to suppress local rebellions; and only government-authorized troops would possess heavy weapons designed for military use.
Here is the entire Amendment, in its unstandardized eighteenth-century capitalization and free use of commas:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The tension between the two parts of the sentence has led to endless, pointless debate about whether the right to bear arms is a public one related to the militia or a private right of individuals. That argument will never be resolved. It is necessary to move on.
Before looking more closely at the critical year 1794, a brief review of recent court decisions and laws on bearing arms is in order. Let us start with the wisdom of a “Conservative Legal Titan” (The Heritage Foundation’s accolade), the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the majority opinion he wrote for District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, Scalia stressed that,
Justice Scalia thus not only accepted existing gun controls in The United States, he held the door open for further restrictions. It is not possible, as he well knew, to buy a hand grenade or a cannon, or to possess a fully automatic weapon except in narrowly specified circumstances. In most states, children many not purchase guns. Therefore the idea that the debate over firearms is between “gun rights” groups and “gun control” advocates is sterile. The question before us is what kind of controls and restrictions of firearms are right and proper.
After the massacre on February 14, the Florida legislature could, as other states have done, ban the sale of so-called assault rifles, raise the age at which any firearm might be purchased, and so on. New York and Connecticut have banned the sale of assault-style weapons and have tried to make it harder for everyone to buy firearms. Recent decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on concealed carry, as well as the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals from within New York State and Connecticut against restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, show that in the near future, the judiciary as a whole may well look favorably at broader and more rational gun laws.
Yet the events of the summer and fall of 1794 bear heavily on the most fundamental issues of gun possession. The Battle of Fallen Timbers, won by a federal force against an Indian coalition, took place in the Ohio territory on August 20. The Whiskey Rebellion, centered in western Pennsylvania, collapsed by October 24 as a federalized militia–as permitted by the Constitution—arrived in the area.
These two actions established several principles of federal power once and for all. Note that I am not speaking here of matters of right and wrong or justice, nor of the class conflicts which lay behind early republic uprisings, but only of power.
Fallen Timbers showed that, in contrast to earlier ignominious defeats by Indians, victory over them could be won by a standing, well-trained army. The end of the Whiskey Rebellion, a confused rising of farmers who hated a new federal tax on the liquor they made, cemented two principles: one was that taking up arms against national policy and hence against the federal government by a self-appointed group would be termed a rebellion, not a revolution. Actually, that same point had already been made in 1786-87 during Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts. But that affair remained within one state; the Whiskey Rebellion made the principle national.
President George Washington, a long-time land speculator in the “West,” and never a friend of the rough whites on the frontier, whom he called barbarians, led the federalized militia for a time against the Whiskey rebels, with Alexander Hamilton at his side. A force of some 12,000 men, called to federal duty from the official militias of several states, moved toward the scene of the trouble from Philadelphia. Upon learning that this army was on its way toward them, the disgruntled farmers dispersed.
The second major idea established during the Whiskey Rebellion was that the central government alone would hold arms intended solely for military use. The rebels prudently avoided the army garrison at Fort Lafayette (or Fayette), Pittsburgh, which was equipped with cannon, and which in all likelihood would have used that artillery against the farmers.
Thomas Jefferson complained that Hamilton had raised the army for his “favorite purposes of strengthening government and increasing the public debt, and therefore an insurrection was announced and proclaimed and armed against and marched against, but could never be found.” His last assertion was correct in a sense, as the rebels faded away before fighting could take place. Nonetheless, major constitutional issues had been at stake.
The violent events of August-October 1794 put to rest the old idea that the United States could not and should not have a standing army. In the heated discussions by patriots before during, and just after the Revolution, such an army had been branded an instrument of tyranny. But Fallen Timbers alone demonstrated that the new country had to have a permanent armed force. Another hoary principle, or rather a theory, fell by the wayside with the Whiskey Rebellion. Many voices argued in the 1770s and ‘80s that the citizenry had the right to make a revolution against a bad government. The Virginia Bill of Rights, developed in 1776 and later a model for the Constitution, maintained that “a majority of the community hath an indubitable . . . right to reform, alter, or abolish” an oppressive government.
The American rebels against the British crown needed to make such statements in defense of their own right to disloyalty. But the Whiskey Rebellion raised the question of resistance in a republic, where elections, however limited in eighteenth-century fashion to propertied white males, determined not only leadership but the form of government as well. How could anyone tell that a movement of resistance to a democratic government was a revolution and not a mere rebellion? In 1794, the answer was clear to most of the country’s leaders: even though the Whiskey Rebellion, or its sentiments, also erupted in western Maryland and as far south as western North Carolina, it failed to spread widely enough to qualify as even a nascent revolution.
And, in reality, the federal government could act to prevent a rebellion from growing into a revolution.
That point leads to the question of what makes a revolution in any event. Successful ones–in the sense of fundamentally altering the form and foundational principles of government–have depended above all, at least since 1789, on the unwillingness of the official instruments of coercion to uphold the existing regime. In the spring of that first year of the French Revolution, the French Guards, the internal security troops of the monarchy, went over to the side of “the nation.” The Old Regime’s ability to control the situation disintegrated. In Russia’s February Revolution, army units, including Cossacks, joined the crowds demonstrating in the streets of Petrograd. Not a single Russian front commander responded to an order from Tsar Nicholas II to march on the city and put down the “disorders.”
It was not “the people” by themselves who won in any sense in Paris or Petrograd, but the people together with deeply disaffected regular forces of coercion. The only path to a new American revolution would be through recruiting similarly demoralized police and troops. That is not in prospect. Revolutions also need ideologies, however inchoate they are at first; a new American revolution would have to espouse something along the lines of total individual freedom–an illogical and impossible position–leavened with hatred for minorities. The forces arrayed against such ideas, even among the great majority of whites, are too powerful to allow broad acceptance of such an ideology here.
Yet today, various well-armed militant groups point toward a new revolution. One is Georgia’s 3 Percenters, who argue that a mere 3 percent of Americans, rushing from their homes with their muskets, successfully defeated the British in our Revolution. Like-minded organizations across the country are training for what they call self-defense against existing government. At times, their agenda is more openly stated. Mike Vanderboegh of Alabama became an important “militia” figure after the 1993 disaster in Waco, Texas, involving Branch Davidian cultists and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Vanderboegh then issued a manifesto called “Strategy and Tactics for a Militia Civil War.” On April 19, 2014, he gave a speech in Bunkerville, Nevada in support of Cliven Bundy’s right to graze his cattle on public land for free. “I proclaim to the world,” Venderboegh said, “to all the would-be tyrants in this country who would victimize such honest, simple people with their evil corruption, their follies, their schemes of power and their insatiable appetites for other people’s liberty, property and lives – YOU MESS WITH SUCH PEOPLE AT YOUR OWN DEADLY PERIL.”
Vanderboegh, a long-time recipient of monthly government disability checks, died in 2016. But of course his ideas live on.
Anti-government extremists frequently say they will fight in defense of the Constitution, and they see support for their position in Article I, section 8: the “militia” is the instrument designated “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The army receives less attention in the Constitution, although the president is designated as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” (II, section 2). Still, fears of a standing army resulted in the limitation that funds to support an army could only be authorized for two years at a time (I,
.
Yet the Framers, still very much intact as a group, passed the Militia Acts of 1791 and 1792. These referred to organized militias approved and managed by the states, to be made up of all white males between the ages of 18 and 45.
Later expanded beyond its original racist lines, the militia finally became thoroughly regularized in the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, after its sponsor Congressman Charles Dick. This law aimed to resolve the lack of clarity in the Constitution over who controlled the militia, the federal government or the states. Even though the Constitution authorized the president to call up the states’ militias in an emergency, with the agreement of a single Supreme Court justice–as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion—governors continued to resist such orders. The federal government had to supplement the regular army with volunteer militia units, including Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, as late as the Spanish-American War. The Dick Act created the National Guard to resolve the question, once again in favor of the central government. From 1903 on, the Guard has been both an internal security force and an additional reserve, as a national militia organized on a state-by-state basis, for the Army.
That is what became of the Constitution’s militia. No armed “body of the people,” a phrase often used by the Framers, exists today. Self-proclaimed “militias” have no basis in the Constitution.
In recent years, irregular “militia” members have killed police, for instance in Arkansas in May of 2010. Jerry and Joe Kane, father and son “sovereign citizens,” shot two officers who had pulled them over on an interstate highway. Such anti-government groups are not likely to win over the regular forces of coercion by killing some of them.
With all this in mind, there is a way forward to more rational gun control through the Second Amendment and a close look at that critical year in American history, 1794. (1) Gun control is a long-established principle and practice in the U.S. (2) Military-type weapons have no place in the hands of private citizens, at least where they can be used in public. Assault rifles, and indeed any semi-automatic weapon, can be banned or confined to closed ranges for sport shooting. (3) Citizens do have a right, as the clumsy Second Amendment states, to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms is the question; why not adopt the notion of some gun magazines and websites, that a revolver is a better choice for personal self defense than a semi-automatic weapon? A “wheel gun” is much less likely to jam than a semi-automatic, which must be cleaned and oiled regularly to work properly. Revolvers are slower to fire and to reload, giving the public more protection from mentally disturbed shooters, while giving good guys a reliable chance to shoot. Nor is there any self-defense need for a large magazine. In the hands of an untrained and frightened person, a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough. (4) Let each gun owner be restricted to a certain number of rounds at a time, say 12, a number that again provides for self-defense. Israel limits gun owners to 50 rounds a year. We can do that, although the task of reducing the 10-12 billion bullets and shells purchased each year in the U.S. to a manageable number will be immense. But there is no longer any excuse for not starting the process.
Numerous foreign models for rational gun control are available, for example Australia’s. Strict laws and a gun buy-back program there adopted from 1996 through 2002 have so far ended mass shootings and have played a major role in reducing homicides–although right-wingers here and Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon deny that fact. Australia is no less free today–indeed, if we consider that the prospect and the fact of gun massacres in America are grave violations of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then Australia is freer than our country is.
Hiding behind the Second Amendment to advocate few or no restrictions on firearms is a nasty scam and misunderstanding of American history. Although the path to reasonable gun control will be long, extremely hard, and even dangerous for its advocates, we have every reason to start on that task.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168359
________
Recommended Reading
Michael Waldman, “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment,” Politico, May 19, 2014.
John Ferling, Jefferson and Hamilton, 2013.
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion, 1986.
David C. Williams, The Mything Meanings of the Second Amendment, 2003.
Students protesting gun violence at the White House, February 19, 2018 - By Lorie Shaull, CC BY-SA 2.0
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has tremendous symbolic importance but is of no practical value in thinking about gun control. After the key events of August-October 1794, which people know as the Whiskey Rebellion, the basic issues behind the adoption of the Amendment could be considered resolved: the United States would continue to have a regular, standing army; the federal government would exercise the right and obligation to suppress local rebellions; and only government-authorized troops would possess heavy weapons designed for military use.
Here is the entire Amendment, in its unstandardized eighteenth-century capitalization and free use of commas:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The tension between the two parts of the sentence has led to endless, pointless debate about whether the right to bear arms is a public one related to the militia or a private right of individuals. That argument will never be resolved. It is necessary to move on.
Before looking more closely at the critical year 1794, a brief review of recent court decisions and laws on bearing arms is in order. Let us start with the wisdom of a “Conservative Legal Titan” (The Heritage Foundation’s accolade), the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the majority opinion he wrote for District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, Scalia stressed that,
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion [recognizing, for the first time, a private right to bear arms protected by the Amendment] should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia thus not only accepted existing gun controls in The United States, he held the door open for further restrictions. It is not possible, as he well knew, to buy a hand grenade or a cannon, or to possess a fully automatic weapon except in narrowly specified circumstances. In most states, children many not purchase guns. Therefore the idea that the debate over firearms is between “gun rights” groups and “gun control” advocates is sterile. The question before us is what kind of controls and restrictions of firearms are right and proper.
After the massacre on February 14, the Florida legislature could, as other states have done, ban the sale of so-called assault rifles, raise the age at which any firearm might be purchased, and so on. New York and Connecticut have banned the sale of assault-style weapons and have tried to make it harder for everyone to buy firearms. Recent decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on concealed carry, as well as the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals from within New York State and Connecticut against restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, show that in the near future, the judiciary as a whole may well look favorably at broader and more rational gun laws.
Yet the events of the summer and fall of 1794 bear heavily on the most fundamental issues of gun possession. The Battle of Fallen Timbers, won by a federal force against an Indian coalition, took place in the Ohio territory on August 20. The Whiskey Rebellion, centered in western Pennsylvania, collapsed by October 24 as a federalized militia–as permitted by the Constitution—arrived in the area.
These two actions established several principles of federal power once and for all. Note that I am not speaking here of matters of right and wrong or justice, nor of the class conflicts which lay behind early republic uprisings, but only of power.
Fallen Timbers showed that, in contrast to earlier ignominious defeats by Indians, victory over them could be won by a standing, well-trained army. The end of the Whiskey Rebellion, a confused rising of farmers who hated a new federal tax on the liquor they made, cemented two principles: one was that taking up arms against national policy and hence against the federal government by a self-appointed group would be termed a rebellion, not a revolution. Actually, that same point had already been made in 1786-87 during Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts. But that affair remained within one state; the Whiskey Rebellion made the principle national.
President George Washington, a long-time land speculator in the “West,” and never a friend of the rough whites on the frontier, whom he called barbarians, led the federalized militia for a time against the Whiskey rebels, with Alexander Hamilton at his side. A force of some 12,000 men, called to federal duty from the official militias of several states, moved toward the scene of the trouble from Philadelphia. Upon learning that this army was on its way toward them, the disgruntled farmers dispersed.
The second major idea established during the Whiskey Rebellion was that the central government alone would hold arms intended solely for military use. The rebels prudently avoided the army garrison at Fort Lafayette (or Fayette), Pittsburgh, which was equipped with cannon, and which in all likelihood would have used that artillery against the farmers.
Thomas Jefferson complained that Hamilton had raised the army for his “favorite purposes of strengthening government and increasing the public debt, and therefore an insurrection was announced and proclaimed and armed against and marched against, but could never be found.” His last assertion was correct in a sense, as the rebels faded away before fighting could take place. Nonetheless, major constitutional issues had been at stake.
The violent events of August-October 1794 put to rest the old idea that the United States could not and should not have a standing army. In the heated discussions by patriots before during, and just after the Revolution, such an army had been branded an instrument of tyranny. But Fallen Timbers alone demonstrated that the new country had to have a permanent armed force. Another hoary principle, or rather a theory, fell by the wayside with the Whiskey Rebellion. Many voices argued in the 1770s and ‘80s that the citizenry had the right to make a revolution against a bad government. The Virginia Bill of Rights, developed in 1776 and later a model for the Constitution, maintained that “a majority of the community hath an indubitable . . . right to reform, alter, or abolish” an oppressive government.
The American rebels against the British crown needed to make such statements in defense of their own right to disloyalty. But the Whiskey Rebellion raised the question of resistance in a republic, where elections, however limited in eighteenth-century fashion to propertied white males, determined not only leadership but the form of government as well. How could anyone tell that a movement of resistance to a democratic government was a revolution and not a mere rebellion? In 1794, the answer was clear to most of the country’s leaders: even though the Whiskey Rebellion, or its sentiments, also erupted in western Maryland and as far south as western North Carolina, it failed to spread widely enough to qualify as even a nascent revolution.
And, in reality, the federal government could act to prevent a rebellion from growing into a revolution.
That point leads to the question of what makes a revolution in any event. Successful ones–in the sense of fundamentally altering the form and foundational principles of government–have depended above all, at least since 1789, on the unwillingness of the official instruments of coercion to uphold the existing regime. In the spring of that first year of the French Revolution, the French Guards, the internal security troops of the monarchy, went over to the side of “the nation.” The Old Regime’s ability to control the situation disintegrated. In Russia’s February Revolution, army units, including Cossacks, joined the crowds demonstrating in the streets of Petrograd. Not a single Russian front commander responded to an order from Tsar Nicholas II to march on the city and put down the “disorders.”
It was not “the people” by themselves who won in any sense in Paris or Petrograd, but the people together with deeply disaffected regular forces of coercion. The only path to a new American revolution would be through recruiting similarly demoralized police and troops. That is not in prospect. Revolutions also need ideologies, however inchoate they are at first; a new American revolution would have to espouse something along the lines of total individual freedom–an illogical and impossible position–leavened with hatred for minorities. The forces arrayed against such ideas, even among the great majority of whites, are too powerful to allow broad acceptance of such an ideology here.
Yet today, various well-armed militant groups point toward a new revolution. One is Georgia’s 3 Percenters, who argue that a mere 3 percent of Americans, rushing from their homes with their muskets, successfully defeated the British in our Revolution. Like-minded organizations across the country are training for what they call self-defense against existing government. At times, their agenda is more openly stated. Mike Vanderboegh of Alabama became an important “militia” figure after the 1993 disaster in Waco, Texas, involving Branch Davidian cultists and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Vanderboegh then issued a manifesto called “Strategy and Tactics for a Militia Civil War.” On April 19, 2014, he gave a speech in Bunkerville, Nevada in support of Cliven Bundy’s right to graze his cattle on public land for free. “I proclaim to the world,” Venderboegh said, “to all the would-be tyrants in this country who would victimize such honest, simple people with their evil corruption, their follies, their schemes of power and their insatiable appetites for other people’s liberty, property and lives – YOU MESS WITH SUCH PEOPLE AT YOUR OWN DEADLY PERIL.”
Vanderboegh, a long-time recipient of monthly government disability checks, died in 2016. But of course his ideas live on.
Anti-government extremists frequently say they will fight in defense of the Constitution, and they see support for their position in Article I, section 8: the “militia” is the instrument designated “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The army receives less attention in the Constitution, although the president is designated as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” (II, section 2). Still, fears of a standing army resulted in the limitation that funds to support an army could only be authorized for two years at a time (I,
.Yet the Framers, still very much intact as a group, passed the Militia Acts of 1791 and 1792. These referred to organized militias approved and managed by the states, to be made up of all white males between the ages of 18 and 45.
Later expanded beyond its original racist lines, the militia finally became thoroughly regularized in the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, after its sponsor Congressman Charles Dick. This law aimed to resolve the lack of clarity in the Constitution over who controlled the militia, the federal government or the states. Even though the Constitution authorized the president to call up the states’ militias in an emergency, with the agreement of a single Supreme Court justice–as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion—governors continued to resist such orders. The federal government had to supplement the regular army with volunteer militia units, including Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, as late as the Spanish-American War. The Dick Act created the National Guard to resolve the question, once again in favor of the central government. From 1903 on, the Guard has been both an internal security force and an additional reserve, as a national militia organized on a state-by-state basis, for the Army.
That is what became of the Constitution’s militia. No armed “body of the people,” a phrase often used by the Framers, exists today. Self-proclaimed “militias” have no basis in the Constitution.
In recent years, irregular “militia” members have killed police, for instance in Arkansas in May of 2010. Jerry and Joe Kane, father and son “sovereign citizens,” shot two officers who had pulled them over on an interstate highway. Such anti-government groups are not likely to win over the regular forces of coercion by killing some of them.
With all this in mind, there is a way forward to more rational gun control through the Second Amendment and a close look at that critical year in American history, 1794. (1) Gun control is a long-established principle and practice in the U.S. (2) Military-type weapons have no place in the hands of private citizens, at least where they can be used in public. Assault rifles, and indeed any semi-automatic weapon, can be banned or confined to closed ranges for sport shooting. (3) Citizens do have a right, as the clumsy Second Amendment states, to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms is the question; why not adopt the notion of some gun magazines and websites, that a revolver is a better choice for personal self defense than a semi-automatic weapon? A “wheel gun” is much less likely to jam than a semi-automatic, which must be cleaned and oiled regularly to work properly. Revolvers are slower to fire and to reload, giving the public more protection from mentally disturbed shooters, while giving good guys a reliable chance to shoot. Nor is there any self-defense need for a large magazine. In the hands of an untrained and frightened person, a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough. (4) Let each gun owner be restricted to a certain number of rounds at a time, say 12, a number that again provides for self-defense. Israel limits gun owners to 50 rounds a year. We can do that, although the task of reducing the 10-12 billion bullets and shells purchased each year in the U.S. to a manageable number will be immense. But there is no longer any excuse for not starting the process.
Numerous foreign models for rational gun control are available, for example Australia’s. Strict laws and a gun buy-back program there adopted from 1996 through 2002 have so far ended mass shootings and have played a major role in reducing homicides–although right-wingers here and Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon deny that fact. Australia is no less free today–indeed, if we consider that the prospect and the fact of gun massacres in America are grave violations of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then Australia is freer than our country is.
Hiding behind the Second Amendment to advocate few or no restrictions on firearms is a nasty scam and misunderstanding of American history. Although the path to reasonable gun control will be long, extremely hard, and even dangerous for its advocates, we have every reason to start on that task.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168359
________
Recommended Reading
Michael Waldman, “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment,” Politico, May 19, 2014.
John Ferling, Jefferson and Hamilton, 2013.
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion, 1986.
David C. Williams, The Mything Meanings of the Second Amendment, 2003.
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:50 pm
all have a right to bear arms, chicken legs, cats eyes, fish fingers, pigtails,
but only women get camel toes
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:01 pm
gelico wrote:
all have a right to bear arms, chicken legs, cats eyes, fish fingers, pigtails,
but only women get camel toes
I actually had to look that up Gelico, trust you.
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:35 pm
Didge wrote:Robert W. Thurston is Emeritus Professor of History at Miami University.Students protesting gun violence at the White House, February 19, 2018 - By Lorie Shaull, CC BY-SA 2.0
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has tremendous symbolic importance but is of no practical value in thinking about gun control. After the key events of August-October 1794, which people know as the Whiskey Rebellion, the basic issues behind the adoption of the Amendment could be considered resolved: the United States would continue to have a regular, standing army; the federal government would exercise the right and obligation to suppress local rebellions; and only government-authorized troops would possess heavy weapons designed for military use.
Here is the entire Amendment, in its unstandardized eighteenth-century capitalization and free use of commas:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The tension between the two parts of the sentence has led to endless, pointless debate about whether the right to bear arms is a public one related to the militia or a private right of individuals. That argument will never be resolved. It is necessary to move on.
Before looking more closely at the critical year 1794, a brief review of recent court decisions and laws on bearing arms is in order. Let us start with the wisdom of a “Conservative Legal Titan” (The Heritage Foundation’s accolade), the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the majority opinion he wrote for District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, Scalia stressed that,
Justice Scalia thus not only accepted existing gun controls in The United States, he held the door open for further restrictions. It is not possible, as he well knew, to buy a hand grenade or a cannon, or to possess a fully automatic weapon except in narrowly specified circumstances. In most states, children many not purchase guns. Therefore the idea that the debate over firearms is between “gun rights” groups and “gun control” advocates is sterile. The question before us is what kind of controls and restrictions of firearms are right and proper.
After the massacre on February 14, the Florida legislature could, as other states have done, ban the sale of so-called assault rifles, raise the age at which any firearm might be purchased, and so on. New York and Connecticut have banned the sale of assault-style weapons and have tried to make it harder for everyone to buy firearms. Recent decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on concealed carry, as well as the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals from within New York State and Connecticut against restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, show that in the near future, the judiciary as a whole may well look favorably at broader and more rational gun laws.
Yet the events of the summer and fall of 1794 bear heavily on the most fundamental issues of gun possession. The Battle of Fallen Timbers, won by a federal force against an Indian coalition, took place in the Ohio territory on August 20. The Whiskey Rebellion, centered in western Pennsylvania, collapsed by October 24 as a federalized militia–as permitted by the Constitution—arrived in the area.
These two actions established several principles of federal power once and for all. Note that I am not speaking here of matters of right and wrong or justice, nor of the class conflicts which lay behind early republic uprisings, but only of power.
Fallen Timbers showed that, in contrast to earlier ignominious defeats by Indians, victory over them could be won by a standing, well-trained army. The end of the Whiskey Rebellion, a confused rising of farmers who hated a new federal tax on the liquor they made, cemented two principles: one was that taking up arms against national policy and hence against the federal government by a self-appointed group would be termed a rebellion, not a revolution. Actually, that same point had already been made in 1786-87 during Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts. But that affair remained within one state; the Whiskey Rebellion made the principle national.
President George Washington, a long-time land speculator in the “West,” and never a friend of the rough whites on the frontier, whom he called barbarians, led the federalized militia for a time against the Whiskey rebels, with Alexander Hamilton at his side. A force of some 12,000 men, called to federal duty from the official militias of several states, moved toward the scene of the trouble from Philadelphia. Upon learning that this army was on its way toward them, the disgruntled farmers dispersed.
The second major idea established during the Whiskey Rebellion was that the central government alone would hold arms intended solely for military use. The rebels prudently avoided the army garrison at Fort Lafayette (or Fayette), Pittsburgh, which was equipped with cannon, and which in all likelihood would have used that artillery against the farmers.
Thomas Jefferson complained that Hamilton had raised the army for his “favorite purposes of strengthening government and increasing the public debt, and therefore an insurrection was announced and proclaimed and armed against and marched against, but could never be found.” His last assertion was correct in a sense, as the rebels faded away before fighting could take place. Nonetheless, major constitutional issues had been at stake.
The violent events of August-October 1794 put to rest the old idea that the United States could not and should not have a standing army. In the heated discussions by patriots before during, and just after the Revolution, such an army had been branded an instrument of tyranny. But Fallen Timbers alone demonstrated that the new country had to have a permanent armed force. Another hoary principle, or rather a theory, fell by the wayside with the Whiskey Rebellion. Many voices argued in the 1770s and ‘80s that the citizenry had the right to make a revolution against a bad government. The Virginia Bill of Rights, developed in 1776 and later a model for the Constitution, maintained that “a majority of the community hath an indubitable . . . right to reform, alter, or abolish” an oppressive government.
The American rebels against the British crown needed to make such statements in defense of their own right to disloyalty. But the Whiskey Rebellion raised the question of resistance in a republic, where elections, however limited in eighteenth-century fashion to propertied white males, determined not only leadership but the form of government as well. How could anyone tell that a movement of resistance to a democratic government was a revolution and not a mere rebellion? In 1794, the answer was clear to most of the country’s leaders: even though the Whiskey Rebellion, or its sentiments, also erupted in western Maryland and as far south as western North Carolina, it failed to spread widely enough to qualify as even a nascent revolution.
And, in reality, the federal government could act to prevent a rebellion from growing into a revolution.
That point leads to the question of what makes a revolution in any event. Successful ones–in the sense of fundamentally altering the form and foundational principles of government–have depended above all, at least since 1789, on the unwillingness of the official instruments of coercion to uphold the existing regime. In the spring of that first year of the French Revolution, the French Guards, the internal security troops of the monarchy, went over to the side of “the nation.” The Old Regime’s ability to control the situation disintegrated. In Russia’s February Revolution, army units, including Cossacks, joined the crowds demonstrating in the streets of Petrograd. Not a single Russian front commander responded to an order from Tsar Nicholas II to march on the city and put down the “disorders.”
It was not “the people” by themselves who won in any sense in Paris or Petrograd, but the people together with deeply disaffected regular forces of coercion. The only path to a new American revolution would be through recruiting similarly demoralized police and troops. That is not in prospect. Revolutions also need ideologies, however inchoate they are at first; a new American revolution would have to espouse something along the lines of total individual freedom–an illogical and impossible position–leavened with hatred for minorities. The forces arrayed against such ideas, even among the great majority of whites, are too powerful to allow broad acceptance of such an ideology here.
Yet today, various well-armed militant groups point toward a new revolution. One is Georgia’s 3 Percenters, who argue that a mere 3 percent of Americans, rushing from their homes with their muskets, successfully defeated the British in our Revolution. Like-minded organizations across the country are training for what they call self-defense against existing government. At times, their agenda is more openly stated. Mike Vanderboegh of Alabama became an important “militia” figure after the 1993 disaster in Waco, Texas, involving Branch Davidian cultists and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Vanderboegh then issued a manifesto called “Strategy and Tactics for a Militia Civil War.” On April 19, 2014, he gave a speech in Bunkerville, Nevada in support of Cliven Bundy’s right to graze his cattle on public land for free. “I proclaim to the world,” Venderboegh said, “to all the would-be tyrants in this country who would victimize such honest, simple people with their evil corruption, their follies, their schemes of power and their insatiable appetites for other people’s liberty, property and lives – YOU MESS WITH SUCH PEOPLE AT YOUR OWN DEADLY PERIL.”
Vanderboegh, a long-time recipient of monthly government disability checks, died in 2016. But of course his ideas live on.
Anti-government extremists frequently say they will fight in defense of the Constitution, and they see support for their position in Article I, section 8: the “militia” is the instrument designated “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The army receives less attention in the Constitution, although the president is designated as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” (II, section 2). Still, fears of a standing army resulted in the limitation that funds to support an army could only be authorized for two years at a time (I,
Yet the Framers, still very much intact as a group, passed the Militia Acts of 1791 and 1792. These referred to organized militias approved and managed by the states, to be made up of all white males between the ages of 18 and 45.
Later expanded beyond its original racist lines, the militia finally became thoroughly regularized in the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, after its sponsor Congressman Charles Dick. This law aimed to resolve the lack of clarity in the Constitution over who controlled the militia, the federal government or the states. Even though the Constitution authorized the president to call up the states’ militias in an emergency, with the agreement of a single Supreme Court justice–as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion—governors continued to resist such orders. The federal government had to supplement the regular army with volunteer militia units, including Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, as late as the Spanish-American War. The Dick Act created the National Guard to resolve the question, once again in favor of the central government. From 1903 on, the Guard has been both an internal security force and an additional reserve, as a national militia organized on a state-by-state basis, for the Army.
That is what became of the Constitution’s militia. No armed “body of the people,” a phrase often used by the Framers, exists today. Self-proclaimed “militias” have no basis in the Constitution.
In recent years, irregular “militia” members have killed police, for instance in Arkansas in May of 2010. Jerry and Joe Kane, father and son “sovereign citizens,” shot two officers who had pulled them over on an interstate highway. Such anti-government groups are not likely to win over the regular forces of coercion by killing some of them.
With all this in mind, there is a way forward to more rational gun control through the Second Amendment and a close look at that critical year in American history, 1794. (1) Gun control is a long-established principle and practice in the U.S. (2) Military-type weapons have no place in the hands of private citizens, at least where they can be used in public. Assault rifles, and indeed any semi-automatic weapon, can be banned or confined to closed ranges for sport shooting. (3) Citizens do have a right, as the clumsy Second Amendment states, to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms is the question; why not adopt the notion of some gun magazines and websites, that a revolver is a better choice for personal self defense than a semi-automatic weapon? A “wheel gun” is much less likely to jam than a semi-automatic, which must be cleaned and oiled regularly to work properly. Revolvers are slower to fire and to reload, giving the public more protection from mentally disturbed shooters, while giving good guys a reliable chance to shoot. Nor is there any self-defense need for a large magazine. In the hands of an untrained and frightened person, a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough. (4) Let each gun owner be restricted to a certain number of rounds at a time, say 12, a number that again provides for self-defense. Israel limits gun owners to 50 rounds a year. We can do that, although the task of reducing the 10-12 billion bullets and shells purchased each year in the U.S. to a manageable number will be immense. But there is no longer any excuse for not starting the process.
Numerous foreign models for rational gun control are available, for example Australia’s. Strict laws and a gun buy-back program there adopted from 1996 through 2002 have so far ended mass shootings and have played a major role in reducing homicides–although right-wingers here and Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon deny that fact. Australia is no less free today–indeed, if we consider that the prospect and the fact of gun massacres in America are grave violations of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then Australia is freer than our country is.
Hiding behind the Second Amendment to advocate few or no restrictions on firearms is a nasty scam and misunderstanding of American history. Although the path to reasonable gun control will be long, extremely hard, and even dangerous for its advocates, we have every reason to start on that task.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168359
________
Recommended Reading
Michael Waldman, “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment,” Politico, May 19, 2014.
John Ferling, Jefferson and Hamilton, 2013.
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion, 1986.
David C. Williams, The Mything Meanings of the Second Amendment, 2003.
It's always been a bit of a problem. Which one of these should be banned?
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:37 pm
All of them
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:42 pm
Didge wrote:All of them
Well, even at the heights of our gun restrictions 20 years ago, all of them were not banned.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:46 pm
Maddog wrote:Didge wrote:All of them
Well, even at the heights of our gun restrictions 20 years ago, all of them were not banned.
So what, they still can kill.
They are designed to kill
To me this is like toddlers not getting their way and thinking they know better than their parents.
My view, is US gun advocates never learn any discipline
They needed guns to to use whether for hunting to vent frustrations.
Maybe we need to treat gun advocates like toddlers having tantrums?
Last edited by Didge on Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:48 pm
Didge wrote:Maddog wrote:
Well, even at the heights of our gun restrictions 20 years ago, all of them were not banned.
So what, they still can kill.
They are designed to kill
To me this is like toddlers not getting their way and thinking they know better than their parents.
My view, is gun advocates never learn any discipline
They needed guns to to use whether for hunting to vent frustrations.
Maybe we need to treat gun advocates like toddlers having tantrums?
You're post mentioned the second amendment and how the question was which guns were legal under regulations that the 2nd amendment allowed for.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:50 pm
Maddog wrote:Didge wrote:
So what, they still can kill.
They are designed to kill
To me this is like toddlers not getting their way and thinking they know better than their parents.
My view, is gun advocates never learn any discipline
They needed guns to to use whether for hunting to vent frustrations.
Maybe we need to treat gun advocates like toddlers having tantrums?
You're post mentioned the second amendment and how the question was which guns were legal under regulations that the 2nd amendment allowed for.
Indeed, how about an 88mm anti-air craft gun?
Should that be legal.
I mean using the terminology of the second ammendment that gun advocates use, it would be.
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:50 pm
"Hiding behind the Second Amendment to advocate few or no restrictions on firearms is a nasty scam and misunderstanding of American history. Although the path to reasonable gun control will be long, extremely hard, and even dangerous for its advocates, we have every reason to start on that task."
Reasonable, is the problematic word. No one can agree on it.
Reasonable, is the problematic word. No one can agree on it.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:50 pm
Didge wrote:Maddog wrote:
You're post mentioned the second amendment and how the question was which guns were legal under regulations that the 2nd amendment allowed for.
Indeed, how about an 88mm anti-air craft gun?
Should that be legal.
I mean using the terminology of the second ammendment that gun advocates use, it would be.
Can you agree its wrong for civillians to own one of these?
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:50 pm
Didge wrote:Maddog wrote:
You're post mentioned the second amendment and how the question was which guns were legal under regulations that the 2nd amendment allowed for.
Indeed, how about an 88mm anti-air craft gun?
Should that be legal.
I mean using the terminology of the second ammendment that gun advocates use, it would be.
I'm OK with it, but most folks wouldn't.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:07 pm
Maddog wrote:Didge wrote:
Indeed, how about an 88mm anti-air craft gun?
Should that be legal.
I mean using the terminology of the second ammendment that gun advocates use, it would be.
I'm OK with it, but most folks wouldn't.
You are okay with some Muslim extremist US citizens owning a weapon that can knock out a passenger jet out of the sky?
Or even any Far right extremist?
Seriously?
You are okay with that?
You would be okay, with the recent shooter in Florida, having the ability to detonate a nuke bomb where you live?
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:21 pm
Didge wrote:Maddog wrote:
I'm OK with it, but most folks wouldn't.
You are okay with some Muslim extremist US citizens owning a weapon that can knock out a passenger jet out of the sky?
Or even any Far right extremist?
Seriously?
You are okay with that?
You would be okay, with the recent shooter in Florida, having the ability to detonate a nuke bomb where you live?
If someone doesn't mind getting caught, they could likely do that now.
I guess the .88 may give them a slight advantage.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:23 pm
Maddog wrote:Didge wrote:
You are okay with some Muslim extremist US citizens owning a weapon that can knock out a passenger jet out of the sky?
Or even any Far right extremist?
Seriously?
You are okay with that?
You would be okay, with the recent shooter in Florida, having the ability to detonate a nuke bomb where you live?
If someone doesn't mind getting caught, they could likely do that now.
I guess the .88 may give them a slight advantage.
That is not what i asked you is it mate?
Woould you mind, if they had the capabilities here?
Guest- Guest
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by veya_victaous Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:29 am
I think All Mini-14s would be 'banned' because they are true Semi Autos, with no manual action, that can be fitted with extended magazines.
veya_victaous- The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo
- Posts : 19114
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 41
Location : Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:25 am
veya_victaous wrote:I think All Mini-14s would be 'banned' because they are true Semi Autos, with no manual action, that can be fitted with extended magazines.
They weren't in the past, when we had an "assault gun" ban.
And once you try to ban those, then how you not ban the handguns.
There is zero desire to do that over here.
Besides, the semi auto rifles are used in like 4% of all murders. Which is why the old assault ban was lifted. It wasn't working and it was just making criminals out of someone with the wrong magazine on their rifle.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by veya_victaous Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:48 am
Maddog wrote:veya_victaous wrote:I think All Mini-14s would be 'banned' because they are true Semi Autos, with no manual action, that can be fitted with extended magazines.
They weren't in the past, when we had an "assault gun" ban.
And once you try to ban those, then how you not ban the handguns.
There is zero desire to do that over here.
Besides, the semi auto rifles are used in like 4% of all murders. Which is why the old assault ban was lifted. It wasn't working and it was just making criminals out of someone with the wrong magazine on their rifle.
Yeah but you NEVER had real Gun control that's the problem, Americans are like an Abused Animal that doesn't know any better.
Of course you'd ban hand guns
there one of the main ones you'd ban to limit smaller scale crimes. No one needs to carry one for defence, and it makes it a lot easier to catch and prevent criminals if you can arrest them when you find them with a 'Tool for Crime' like a handgun.
Making Criminals out of a criminal isn't really a problem. it sort of the point.
the problem is the US has a weak populist gov't that lets the NRA demagogues drive policy to the detriment of the normal Citizen.
veya_victaous- The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo
- Posts : 19114
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 41
Location : Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:53 am
veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
They weren't in the past, when we had an "assault gun" ban.
And once you try to ban those, then how you not ban the handguns.
There is zero desire to do that over here.
Besides, the semi auto rifles are used in like 4% of all murders. Which is why the old assault ban was lifted. It wasn't working and it was just making criminals out of someone with the wrong magazine on their rifle.
Yeah but you NEVER had real Gun control that's the problem, Americans are like an Abused Animal that doesn't know any better.
Of course you'd ban hand guns
No one needs to carry one for defence, and it makes it a lot easier to catch and prevent criminals if you can arrest them when you find them with a 'Tool for Crime' like a handgun.
Making Criminals out of a criminal isn't really a problem. it sort of the point.
the problem is the US has a weak populist gov't that lets the NRA demagogues drive policy to the detriment of the normal Citizen.
BLAH, FUCKING BLAH.
America this, America that.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by veya_victaous Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:42 am
Maddog wrote:veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
They weren't in the past, when we had an "assault gun" ban.
And once you try to ban those, then how you not ban the handguns.
There is zero desire to do that over here.
Besides, the semi auto rifles are used in like 4% of all murders. Which is why the old assault ban was lifted. It wasn't working and it was just making criminals out of someone with the wrong magazine on their rifle.
Yeah but you NEVER had real Gun control that's the problem, Americans are like an Abused Animal that doesn't know any better.
Of course you'd ban hand guns
No one needs to carry one for defence, and it makes it a lot easier to catch and prevent criminals if you can arrest them when you find them with a 'Tool for Crime' like a handgun.
Making Criminals out of a criminal isn't really a problem. it sort of the point.
the problem is the US has a weak populist gov't that lets the NRA demagogues drive policy to the detriment of the normal Citizen.
BLAH, FUCKING BLAH.
America this, America that.
Considering that the USA has been at war for 224 years out of 241 years of existence
Do Americans every look at themselves introspectively and ask think "Maybe we are the problem"
Cause Clearly the only thing that stands in the way of preventing the majority of these mass shootings is America's love of guns.
veya_victaous- The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo
- Posts : 19114
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 41
Location : Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:20 am
veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
BLAH, FUCKING BLAH.
America this, America that.
Considering that the USA has been at war for 224 years out of 241 years of existence
Do Americans every look at themselves introspectively and ask think "Maybe we are the problem"
Cause Clearly the only thing that stands in the way of preventing the majority of these mass shootings is America's love of guns.
No. Were too busy worried about what people in Australia think of us.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by veya_victaous Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:29 am
Maddog wrote:veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
BLAH, FUCKING BLAH.
America this, America that.
Considering that the USA has been at war for 224 years out of 241 years of existence
Do Americans every look at themselves introspectively and ask think "Maybe we are the problem"
Cause Clearly the only thing that stands in the way of preventing the majority of these mass shootings is America's love of guns.
No. Were too busy worried about what people in Australia think of us.
Clearly your not or you'd be doing Much better
veya_victaous- The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo
- Posts : 19114
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 41
Location : Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:33 am
veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
No. Were too busy worried about what people in Australia think of us.
Clearly your not or you'd be doing Much better
You would think the envy we have for Aussies would be enough to straighten us out!
God it's got to be great to be an egotistical bastard that knows what's best for everyone in every other country.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by veya_victaous Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:50 am
Maddog wrote:veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
No. Were too busy worried about what people in Australia think of us.
Clearly your not or you'd be doing Much better
You would think the envy we have for Aussies would be enough to straighten us out!
God it's got to be great to be an egotistical bastard that knows what's best for everyone in every other country.
egotistical bastardS ... you could listen to NZ too
Hell Even the UK Could tell you, I mean it is Literally that obvious
veya_victaous- The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo
- Posts : 19114
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 41
Location : Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Maddog Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:25 am
veya_victaous wrote:Maddog wrote:
You would think the envy we have for Aussies would be enough to straighten us out!
God it's got to be great to be an egotistical bastard that knows what's best for everyone in every other country.
egotistical bastardS ... you could listen to NZ too
Hell Even the UK Could tell you, I mean it is Literally that obvious
Blah fucking blah.
Maddog- The newsfix Queen
- Posts : 12532
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:59 am
gelico wrote:
all have a right to bear arms......
..............
It was unfortunate that the "founding father" wot wrote that amendment couldn't spell properly...
What they originally meant to write was that "all have a right to bare arms"..
Could have solved a lot of hassle.
'Wolfie- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 8189
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 66
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:10 am
Maddog wrote:You would think the envy we have for Aussies would be enough to straighten us out!veya_victaous wrote:
Clearly your not or you'd be doing Much better
God it's got to be great to be an egotistical bastard that knows what's best for everyone in every other country.
You really shouldn't be that hard on yourself, DopeyDawg...
You obviously can't help being so sure that you know what is best for everyone else -- it goes with that bold know-it-all 'Libertarian' mindset..
'Wolfie- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 8189
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 66
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia
Re: Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History
by Sponsored content
Sponsored content
Similar topics» Our history has made Britons nice. Terror means we must learn to be nasty
» Question regarding American History
» ‘Lost city’ discovery: Kansas site sheds new light on Native American history
» Beat The Ancestors: Byzantine Flame Throwing Boat | History Documentary | Reel Truth History
» Donald Trump Is On His Way to Second or Third Shortest Presidency in American History
» Question regarding American History
» ‘Lost city’ discovery: Kansas site sheds new light on Native American history
» Beat The Ancestors: Byzantine Flame Throwing Boat | History Documentary | Reel Truth History
» Donald Trump Is On His Way to Second or Third Shortest Presidency in American History
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...