Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
    Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....
    Could all Europeans plz read some American history before commenting on it, kthxbi.

    1. We were not protesting against taxes, we were protesting against taxes which we had no say in. British parliament refused to have American representatives.

    2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

    3. British military also abused Americans by forcing them to quarter their soldiers whenever they wanted.

    For even moar examples of grievances plz see Declaration of Independence.


  2. #2
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.
    Or the British were protecting the rights of native Americans against abuse by the American colonists...

    Not to mention, West of the Appalachians lay French territory. And Canadian, which Britain tried to solve with the Québec Act of 1774.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Wikipedia:

    The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the act were:

    * The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.
    * The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
    * It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
    * It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.


    The Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking migrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French-speaking Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions.

    In the Thirteen Colonies, the Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was joined to those acts as one of the Intolerable Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies, and promote the Roman Catholic faith in preference to widely-held Protestant beliefs. It also limited opportunities for colonies to expand on their western frontiers, by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec.



    ~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


    Quote Originally Posted by GC
    Well said Louis, and some very astute observations on the psychology behind it. People underestimate the shared love of Liberty between France and the USA too much these days.
    There is great fun to be had for Francophile Americans or Americanophile Frenchmen with a love for historical political thought. Relations during the end of the eightteenth century were intense. A period that was of tremendous consequence for the future of either nation. One can never overestimate the importance one country had for the other.
    For all the differences between the nations, the birth papers of France and America are mere translations of one another.


    When I was a wee lad, I didn't have soccer posters on my wall. I was too much a nerd for that. When I was eleven, on my wall hung...the Declaration of Independence. Yes, I am not kidding. On a reproduction parchment.* I thought it was way cool, even if I didn't understand the half of it. I still don't understand it, but am still as determined to some day do. For one thing, I can quote the whole declaration on top of my head: 'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...'


    * I bought at at Disney World, in Liberty Square, after exiting the Hall of Presidents. Still one of my favourite areas of Walt Disney World, together with the American Adventure over at EPCOT. Yes, poor little Louis was indoctrinated to become an American patriot by the evil Disney corporation. Dammit, to this day I instantly start sobbing at the opening notes of 'Golden Dreams' at the American Adventure.


    ~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
    I disagree with his analysis. Some of his assumptions do not follow. Most obvious is the notion that something referred to as "The Bill of Rights" isn't really about enumerating rights.
    I am aware of the minority position of my explanation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people at all. This is not an obscure postion, and I am in excellent company in this.

    And I go one step beyond that, pushing me into even further minority position: I maintain that the BoR does not even limit the rights of government. It merely, superflously, puts on paper rights the people never abdicated to the government.

    Call me a conservative constitutional minimalist.
    Of course, I will not pass upon this excellent opportunity to accuse Xiahou of being a communist, one who maintains that the people have no rights vis-a-vis the federal government except for the ones government grants to them.
    Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 08-02-2009 at 03:20.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  3. #3
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    ~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


    There was another part of my previous post that I hoped would stir the emotions a bit: the Second Amendment does not regulate the right to bear arms. It regulates defense. This follows from:

    1 -The internal order of the amendments: two and three belong together.

    Second Amendment:
    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. [5][6]

    Third Amendment:
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


    2 -Legal historical interpretation. See, for example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, that served as the template for the BoR:

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

    And Hamilton's draft of the BoR:

    The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of the free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    This clearly regulates defense, in particular, military service, as exemplified by the exception it creates for those with religious objection to military service.
    Not a right to bear arms is granted, but the way in which government can organise defense is limited: a civil militia.


    3 - Comparative legal interpretation. Similar articles to the Second Amendment can be found in other revolutionary reuplican Bill of Rights'. For Example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1793:
    The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted
    This states in more elaborate wording, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Switzerland has (had?) a similar article, stipulating Swiss defense is to be performed by a civilian militia. As in the US Second Amendment, not a right to bear arms is protected, but the means of defense of governments are limited. Limited to, shall we say, defense by, of and for the people.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  4. #4

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    Or the British were protecting the rights of native Americans against abuse by the American colonists...
    Ha! Good one. British caring about the Native Americans, have not heard that one. More like the British wanted to make sure their colonies did not too big for debt saddled Britain to keep control of and with this act they managed somehow to gain a monopoly in granting land rights, how profitable.

    Not to mention, West of the Appalachians lay French territory. And Canadian, which Britain tried to solve with the Québec Act of 1774.
    Answer after wikipedia article.

    Wikipedia:

    The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the act were:

    * The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.
    * The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
    * It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
    * It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.


    The Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking migrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French-speaking Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions.

    In the Thirteen Colonies, the Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was joined to those acts as one of the Intolerable Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies, and promote the Roman Catholic faith in preference to widely-held Protestant beliefs. It also limited opportunities for colonies to expand on their western frontiers, by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec.
    Well, it was not French territory. It was British territory that Americans lives helped capture with their blood and lives in the Seven Years War. The only thing the British tried to solve with the Quebec Act was to pacify the recently conquered French by allowing semi autonomy, practicing the Catholic religion and by giving their province lots of more land at the expense of the Americans who had already been settling there and fought for it a decade or so earlier.
    Reply within quote.


  5. #5
    Member Megas Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Prairie Grasslands
    Posts
    5,040

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Lol, British protecting the rights of Native Americans. Dreams.

  6. #6
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    ACIN, Megas Methuselah:

    The Proclamtion of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774:

    http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/pp/ppa.html
    'The Proclamation laid down entirely new and equitable methods of dealing with the Indians. It established a constitutional framework for the negotiation of Indian treaties. As such it has been labelled an "Indian Magna Carta" or and "Indian Bill of Rights".'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_1763



    Yes, we're dealing with perfidious Albion here. That is, they will rob and kill the natives while claiming they are defending them. However, it was better than what the American colonists had in mind, and eventually in store. Or maybe not, and genocide and etnic cleansing are just that, whatever the orderly manner in which they are performed.
    If one must make a hierarchy, then the best course for native Americans was, in order: no white infringement, French, British, American.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  7. #7

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    I think it is laughable that you believe that the British act of pretending as if they are respecting the Indians with treaties and rights while killing them and establishing trading posts on their lands nevertheless is better then the Americans outright and obvious hatred for the numerous bloody skirmishes and wars they have had with them over the centuries.

    I think the best part is how they worked to treat the Indians west of the Appalachians with respect but when they had more pressing matters, oh no they took from them and moved the land in the hands of the bigger threat: angry, conquered French colonists.

    The Native Americans had no friends but themselves for the most part, and it is sad to suggest that within American-European politics at the time that they were used for the most part for anything other then tools to keep control of the lands for which they had no troops to effectively defend.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 08-02-2009 at 05:22.


  8. #8
    Member Megas Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Prairie Grasslands
    Posts
    5,040

    Post Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    ACIN, Megas Methuselah:

    The Proclamtion of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774:

    http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/pp/ppa.html
    'The Proclamation laid down entirely new and equitable methods of dealing with the Indians. It established a constitutional framework for the negotiation of Indian treaties. As such it has been labelled an "Indian Magna Carta" or and "Indian Bill of Rights".'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_1763



    Yes, we're dealing with perfidious Albion here. That is, they will rob and kill the natives while claiming they are defending them. However, it was better than what the American colonists had in mind, and eventually in store. Or maybe not, and genocide and etnic cleansing are just that, whatever the orderly manner in which they are performed.
    If one must make a hierarchy, then the best course for native Americans was, in order: no white infringement, French, British, American.
    I know my own history, than you very much.

    EDIT: And I agree with your last statement.
    Last edited by Megas Methuselah; 08-02-2009 at 05:25.

  9. #9
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    I am aware of the minority position of my explanation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people at all. This is not an obscure postion, and I am in excellent company in this.
    It doesn't grant rights. It specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing on certain rights. (In theory at least. Because, in practice, even that has not held true...)

    And I go one step beyond that, pushing me into even further minority position: I maintain that the BoR does not even limit the rights of government. It merely, superflously, puts on paper rights the people never abdicated to the government.
    I don't really think of the government as having any rights- it has powers. That aside, the Bill of Rights does indeed restrict the power of government- if you had read the preamble you'd see that much. Your view may have its adherents, but history and precedent has left them far behind.
    Last edited by Xiahou; 08-02-2009 at 05:30.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  10. #10
    has a Senior Member HoreTore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    12,014

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Could all Europeans plz read some American history before commenting on it, kthxbi.

    1. We were not protesting against taxes, we were protesting against taxes which we had no say in. British parliament refused to have American representatives.

    2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

    3. British military also abused Americans by forcing them to quarter their soldiers whenever they wanted.

    For even moar examples of grievances plz see Declaration of Independence.
    Alright, I'll give you "independence" as well. But I won't give you freedom
    Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban

  11. #11

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
    Alright, I'll give you "independence" as well. But I won't give you freedom
    Ahh, but why do people want independence? If you are living under the control of a powerful empire, why abandon such security? Because independence means the freedom to live your life they way you want you, not some parliament in Europe. For colonists back then, with independence came the freedom to spread out where ever you want and own your own piece of prosperity and tranquility, the freedom to meet with traders from all across the world, throwing off the chains of a trade monopoly with Britain and talk and negotiate freely with all. Colonists wanted these freedoms that the British denied them (colonials actually regarded themselves as English citizens and subject to the same treatment those on the isles received) and independence (as Americans not English) for many was the only way such freedoms could come to the thirteen colonies.


  12. #12
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    About the proclamation line.

    The British were making a sound military decision. They were most definitely not protecting Indians. I am American and looking at it in hindsight i can see the reasoning. however, at the time it would have pissed me off as well.

    The Indian tribes had sided with the french. Even after the French and Indian war, the Indians were on the warpath against any non-french whites. It would have been suicide for any settlers to cross over the borders. so the colonists were being protected FROM the Indians.

  13. #13
    has a Senior Member HoreTore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    12,014

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Ahh, but why do people want independence?
    1. Nationalism.
    2. Personal power.

    Face it, the colonials were not oppressed by the brits. It's kinda like how Norway became independent. We weren't oppressed or anything by the swedes, but all the same, people wanted their own country. Bloody fools...

    Now, fighting Germany, that was a fight for freedom.
    Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban

  14. #14

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
    1. Nationalism.
    2. Personal power.

    Face it, the colonials were not oppressed by the brits. It's kinda like how Norway became independent. We weren't oppressed or anything by the swedes, but all the same, people wanted their own country. Bloody fools...

    Now, fighting Germany, that was a fight for freedom.
    1. Wrong, as I said up until the war began to escalate colonists still considered themselves as British citizens. Fighting began at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the Declaration of Independence, our formal recognition of ourselves as Americans was not approved until July 4, 1776.
    2. What power? From the beginning of the war until the ratification of the constitution, (about 1777 until 1788) the United States was governed under the weak Articles of Confederation where there was practically no Federal Government strength and each state did as it pleased. It was like this for about 5 years after the war ended, so tell me, without any central authority in the years after the war ended how could the quest for personal power be one of the main goals of these Revolutionaries.

    Maybe you should just stop talking about things you don't know anything about? I don't know if America bashing is popular in Norway right now, but it is quite tiresome for us Americans who have to explain why we broke off from "Enlightened" Europe.


  15. #15
    has a Senior Member HoreTore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    12,014

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Maybe you should just stop talking about things you don't know anything about? I don't know if America bashing is popular in Norway right now, but it is quite tiresome for us Americans who have to explain why we broke off from "Enlightened" Europe.
    I'll leave it to Louis.... He likes the grumpy ones more than I do.
    Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban

  16. #16

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
    I'll leave it to Louis.... He likes the grumpy ones more than I do.
    I look forward to refuting his arguments as well.


  17. #17
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I don't know if America bashing is popular in Norway right now, but it is quite tiresome for us Americans who have to explain why we broke off from "Enlightened" Europe.
    Perhaps you should have thought about that before you broke off from Europe...


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  18. #18
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

    Sigh i see this all the time. As everyone can see from the real facts, Europe broke off from America. Ah, someday you will understand children.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO