Piers Morgan is a Retard
-
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
Dexterus wrote:
The state lacked resources and logistics.
Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself.
Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence.I would suppose that the reason many people owned guns then was because it was considered a necessary 'tool' just as many probably owned a hammer.
Dexterus wrote:
The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country.
You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.That isn't why it was added. Following (although probably extremist) provides specific historical perspective. http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2005/12/09/why-does-the-second-amendment-exist/[^] And at the time it wasn't hypothetical either since the British government was trying to outlaw ownership. As well as outlaw speech and assembly, two other rights in the bill of rights.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy".
For those who don't pay attention to American football, the issue of head injuries and the effects they have on players has become a big issue. Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries. Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail, so at first glance this situation looks unrelated to the brain damage issue. But I think it's a fair question to ask if brain damage contributed to this player's lack of self-control. The manner in which he committed suicide may prevent us from finding out. I don't know if an autopsie has been suggested or will be attempted. I'm not suggesting football or anything else be banned, I'm saying that there are more relevant issues involved here and that Costas (and Jason Witless) did everyone a disfavor by bringing up gun control. It's become a huge distraction.
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries.
Huh? What exactly is "many"? And in comparison to other reasons for suicide?
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail,...
And that conclusion comes from what? A more likely scenario is that he was distraught over a failing/failed family life.
-
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed
You are wrong. As noted the "regular' in that referred to a specific type of armed individual and expressed that others should be able to arm themselves as well. It has nothing to do with being educated. And I suspect that the framers would have specifically not expected that.
ihoecken wrote:
but everyone has the right to his own opinion.
For everyone in the US. In many other countries it is quite possible that one not only does not have the right to express the opinion but in reality do not even have the right to a private opinion.
ihoecken wrote:
In my opinion:
Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays.And that is how the US works. In point of fact slavery is no longer allowed and women are now allowed to vote. Because rights changed. However the one you are referring to hasn't. And support for allowing such a change does not exist.
ihoecken wrote:
So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time.
And they are. Many of the cases the US Supreme Court hears are based specifically on the bill of rights.
ihoecken wrote:
and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
-
djj55 wrote:
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government
Well, I understand that, as I said, I don't want to say it should be abondened or changed, but there must be the chance to talk about every law - It's over 200 years old - so sometimes a review might be a good idea. If the majority decides that it should stay like it is. Well let it be, otherwise - as it's democracy and the US calls itself the land of the free - the majority of the free should have the right to change something - of course only in the meaning of democracy.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
ihoecken wrote:
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed
You are wrong. As noted the "regular' in that referred to a specific type of armed individual and expressed that others should be able to arm themselves as well. It has nothing to do with being educated. And I suspect that the framers would have specifically not expected that.
ihoecken wrote:
but everyone has the right to his own opinion.
For everyone in the US. In many other countries it is quite possible that one not only does not have the right to express the opinion but in reality do not even have the right to a private opinion.
ihoecken wrote:
In my opinion:
Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays.And that is how the US works. In point of fact slavery is no longer allowed and women are now allowed to vote. Because rights changed. However the one you are referring to hasn't. And support for allowing such a change does not exist.
ihoecken wrote:
So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time.
And they are. Many of the cases the US Supreme Court hears are based specifically on the bill of rights.
ihoecken wrote:
and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
jschell wrote:
You are wrong. As noted the "regular' in that referred to a specific type of armed individual and expressed that others should be able to arm themselves as well.
It has nothing to do with being educated. And I suspect that the framers would have specifically not expected that.I think I'm not wrong, perhaps it was not specific enough. But "regular" means well trained and educated in dealing with weapons.
jschell wrote:
And they are.
I didn't said they weren't. I'm very interested in international politics, I bet I read more about the laws and changes in US than most US-citizens. :rolleyes:
jschell wrote:
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
That means, that those, who state that there shouldn't be any argumentation about the 2nd constitutional amendment, didn't understand the meaning of "free". Nothing more - nothing less.
jschell wrote:
And that is how the US works.
Of course. It's a democracy, isn't it? So it should works in that way!
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Dexterus wrote:
The state lacked resources and logistics.
Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself.
Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence.I would suppose that the reason many people owned guns then was because it was considered a necessary 'tool' just as many probably owned a hammer.
Dexterus wrote:
The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country.
You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.That isn't why it was added. Following (although probably extremist) provides specific historical perspective. http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2005/12/09/why-does-the-second-amendment-exist/[^] And at the time it wasn't hypothetical either since the British government was trying to outlaw ownership. As well as outlaw speech and assembly, two other rights in the bill of rights.
jschell wrote:
And at the time it wasn't hypothetical either since the British government was trying to outlaw ownership. As well as outlaw speech and assembly, two other rights in the bill of rights.
Substitute "federal" everywhere you use "British", and the same is true today.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries.
Huh? What exactly is "many"? And in comparison to other reasons for suicide?
Leslie Sanford wrote:
Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail,...
And that conclusion comes from what? A more likely scenario is that he was distraught over a failing/failed family life.
jschell wrote:
Huh? What exactly is "many"? And in comparison to other reasons for suicide?
(I think he meant "two".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
jschell wrote:
You are wrong. As noted the "regular' in that referred to a specific type of armed individual and expressed that others should be able to arm themselves as well.
It has nothing to do with being educated. And I suspect that the framers would have specifically not expected that.I think I'm not wrong, perhaps it was not specific enough. But "regular" means well trained and educated in dealing with weapons.
jschell wrote:
And they are.
I didn't said they weren't. I'm very interested in international politics, I bet I read more about the laws and changes in US than most US-citizens. :rolleyes:
jschell wrote:
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
That means, that those, who state that there shouldn't be any argumentation about the 2nd constitutional amendment, didn't understand the meaning of "free". Nothing more - nothing less.
jschell wrote:
And that is how the US works.
Of course. It's a democracy, isn't it? So it should works in that way!
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
It's a democracy, isn't it?
Actually, it's (supposed to be) a republic (10th Amendment). It's often misidentified as a democracy. The Constitution is there to *limit* government. Any laws not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The 10th Amendment has been trampled into near non-existence.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Jim Henson. Because only a Muppet would believe that guff.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
Jim Henson.
Because only a Muppet would believe that guff.Nice one! I once met his son, Brian, while he was living in Sydney- that man had an amazing appetite for cocaine, an amazingly hot girl friend and the cash to maintain both.
-
He was pulled over? By a cop? Or did he encounter the border checkpoint just west of El Paso? (Those are two different things.) Cops have no authority to request a citizenship declaration, and you don't have to answer them if they ask, and if you do declare citizenship, they have no right to ask for ID without RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) that you're somehow involved in criminal behavior. In a traffic stop, only the driver is the "actor", not the passengers. Passengers don't even have to present ID.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Not really sure if it was a cop. My brother is a careful driver and therefore gives no cause to a cop to pull him over. Though fair-skinned, his complexion would be what is called 'olive' so right there is the RAS: driving while Mexican-looking in a border state! :laugh:
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
-
Dexterus wrote:
The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
I don't agree. The threat/prospect of an out-of-control too-far-reaching government is the PRIMARY reason we have the 2nd Amendment. That's why the revolution happen, and they didn't want to see it happen again. Unfortunately, most politicians today are/were lawyers, and their primary job (then and now) is to obfuscate the law.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997It does somewhat make sense. From their point of view, any central government was viewed to be almost as far out of reach as the Empire itself. And to have about the same purpose, make some decisions, get taxes, pay the army. And the fear of it turning into a dictatorship was there. They never actually thought that the country would someday become so small, the govt so intertwined with the states business, the weapons so powerful that it would sort of become irrelevant if you have or don't have handguns. As in every other country, the only hope is that the army has humans in it, not machines. That they'll eventually side with the people. There is no other hope in a revolution nowadays.
-
djj55 wrote:
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government
Well, I understand that, as I said, I don't want to say it should be abondened or changed, but there must be the chance to talk about every law - It's over 200 years old - so sometimes a review might be a good idea. If the majority decides that it should stay like it is. Well let it be, otherwise - as it's democracy and the US calls itself the land of the free - the majority of the free should have the right to change something - of course only in the meaning of democracy.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
This isn't a case of looking it over now and again. This is a case of "keep on causing the debate until we get our way" (this action, of coarse, by the people who want to get rid of it). I work with a guy who does the same thing. Never says anything new, but will keep drilling away until someone agrees with him. My brothers x-wife was the same way. Call the cops 4-5 times a week until they decide what you want them to.
If it moves, compile it
-
It does somewhat make sense. From their point of view, any central government was viewed to be almost as far out of reach as the Empire itself. And to have about the same purpose, make some decisions, get taxes, pay the army. And the fear of it turning into a dictatorship was there. They never actually thought that the country would someday become so small, the govt so intertwined with the states business, the weapons so powerful that it would sort of become irrelevant if you have or don't have handguns. As in every other country, the only hope is that the army has humans in it, not machines. That they'll eventually side with the people. There is no other hope in a revolution nowadays.
"Hope" is for people that don't have the juevos to make changes in their lives proactively (and for girls). If you're not willing to fight for your rights, you have no business complaining when they're taken away.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
jschell wrote:
And at the time it wasn't hypothetical either since the British government was trying to outlaw ownership. As well as outlaw speech and assembly, two other rights in the bill of rights.
Substitute "federal" everywhere you use "British", and the same is true today.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Substitute "federal" everywhere you use "British", and the same is true today.
Alarmist poppycock. The allowed types of speech and assembly are vastly more free in any sense of the word now than compared to the past. Examples are numerous. Gun ownership isn't being instituted in any serious form by the "federal" government. State and municipal entities have and are trying to enact various statues in various places. But that is no different than attempts at other ordinances except of course that such ordinances could be required to get past the Supreme Court where other ordinances are less likely to even be allowed to be heard.
-
jschell wrote:
You are wrong. As noted the "regular' in that referred to a specific type of armed individual and expressed that others should be able to arm themselves as well.
It has nothing to do with being educated. And I suspect that the framers would have specifically not expected that.I think I'm not wrong, perhaps it was not specific enough. But "regular" means well trained and educated in dealing with weapons.
jschell wrote:
And they are.
I didn't said they weren't. I'm very interested in international politics, I bet I read more about the laws and changes in US than most US-citizens. :rolleyes:
jschell wrote:
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
That means, that those, who state that there shouldn't be any argumentation about the 2nd constitutional amendment, didn't understand the meaning of "free". Nothing more - nothing less.
jschell wrote:
And that is how the US works.
Of course. It's a democracy, isn't it? So it should works in that way!
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
But "regular" means well trained and educated in dealing with weapons.
No that is not what it means. Best I can suppose you think "educated" and "training" equate to the same thing. And then you are trying to expand the definition from what a standing army might or should do to suggesting that it is required. Which isn't the case. And all the while ignoring that the 2nd amendment is specifically not about the standing army.
ihoecken wrote:
I didn't said they weren't
Then the following statement was at best poorly phrased "Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays." And that is the statement I responded to.
ihoecken wrote:
That means, that those, who state that there shouldn't be any argumentation about the 2nd constitutional amendment, didn't understand the meaning of "free". Nothing more - nothing less.
Then you obviously failed to convey that point with the statement that I quoted.
-
This isn't a case of looking it over now and again. This is a case of "keep on causing the debate until we get our way" (this action, of coarse, by the people who want to get rid of it). I work with a guy who does the same thing. Never says anything new, but will keep drilling away until someone agrees with him. My brothers x-wife was the same way. Call the cops 4-5 times a week until they decide what you want them to.
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
This isn't a case of looking it over now and again. This is a case of "keep on causing the debate until we get our way" (this action, of coarse, by the people who want to get rid of it).
You mean for example like slavery, the right of women to vote, the right of people of different races to marry and even the right to have an alcoholic beverage? Because of course all of the those were the result of people trying to get a result over many years.
-
richcb wrote:
The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable. Therefore, the Constitution is only a solidification and proclamation of our natural rights.
First of course there is no such thing as a "natural" right. Humans live in societies and a "right" is only meaningful within groups of humans by agreement. If only one human is living by themself on an entire planet then they can do whatever they want. Second, even the rights of the constitution were debatable and were debated when it was created. And the rights have changed since then. Slavery and a woman's right to vote are examples of that. Third, because there are rights (plural) and individuals (plural) that means that there is no such thing as an absolute right. Thus resolution of conflicts between different rights and different individuals require a compromise. And the constitution recognized that. And there have been changes to that over time as well.
You are correct, no one has the right to live or the right to defend themselves or even the right to food, water, and shelter. That all has to be written on paper and approved by a group of people.
-
Jim Henson. Because only a Muppet would believe that guff.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Where, oh where is my +5... :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
As this will probably run afoul of the rule against discussing US politics, I don't expect it to last long. But I do want to agree with you that Piers Morgan is an idiot, for more reasons that you listed here.
True all of that. OT: Your username made me burst out laughing! Very Funny!
Bob Dole
The internet is a great way to get on the net.
:doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
