F.U.B.A.R.
Bluelight Crew
Wow, so you're saying that anyone over 18 can turn up at a gun show and buy whatever they like with no background checks or anything? Fuck me, that's insane. You guys can't even buy a beer until you're 21...
I'm trying to answer but your question has a contradiction in it. How can "very few non Americans" not understand yet "just about everyone" agrees it's unusual by international standards? Your comments and questions really are at odds with each other from one sentence to the next.Could you please explain to me how you got that from what I said?
Cause I'm still at a loss for how saying that I've met very few non Americans who really understand this aspect of American politics, that just about everyone seems to agree is unusual by international standards, justifies any of what you've suggested.
^ Regulation is a balancing act.
I'm trying to answer but your question has a contradiction in it. How can "very few non Americans" not understand yet "just about everyone" agrees it's unusual by international standards? Your comments and questions really are at odds with each other from one sentence to the next.
Ehh I dont know lol Just thought Id throw that in randomally hahaha xDWot chu talkin bout Chris?
Thank youWelcome, Chris.
Jess, I hate to steal your thunder, but the constitution is actually the document which was amended to allow for the bearing of arms by all citizens. It has to do with the need for raising a militia. The Revolutionary War actually transpired on a much smaller scale than most Americans think. The continental congress could raise about 50,000 fighting men at any given time, although hundreds of thousands would serve throughout the course of the war. The British fielded an approximately equal force, although the British were a well-oiled, trained and disciplined fighting force. Along with their loyalist allies, it made the colonists' victory that much more surprising.
Anyway, the Bill of Rights which you have referenced does not contain the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Thanks for playing Jess, but I'm a history teacher and to be blunt, you're not likely to pull one over on me in this context and I tell you this for your own good. I take no pleasure in schooling you on the foundation of our country.
The musket argument stands. All they had were muskets. The Brown Bess was pretty ubiquitous although the Charleville Carbine would be imported and also see significant action. At any rate, these were Muzzle-Loading Long Guns and were capable of firing only a few rounds per minute by a skilled, well trained and drilled soldier. How many shots do you think your average Revolutionary Patriot could fire as he's pissing his pants staring at a solid line of the aforementioned, well-trained Lobsterbacks or Hessians?
I think you're conflating the declaration of independence with the constitution. I'd also like to remind you that in the historical context of the US constitution, it was only intended to constrain the federal government. Even the bill of rights didn't apply to state power. That came later on.
As for the "they only had muskets back then" argument. I don't think it works. Soon as you say that, you say the first amendment doesn't cover the internet, for exactly the same reason.
You can't get around it. The law is the law. Now, I actually agree with you that we can't reasonably expect to know how the founders might have made the 2nd amendment different had they known what the consequences would be. But it's not an excuse to just ignore laws you don't like arbitrarally.
The constitution and the founders provided a method to modify the constitution. Through an amendment. That's the lawful way to change the 2nd amendment. Creative reinterpretation of it is illegitimate and undermines all legal protections that exist.
I tend to think the 2nd amendment could stand to be changed too, I don't know that I really believe in an absolute right to own a gun for everybody. But I for one will never support illegally ignoring the law and just having the government do whatever it wants. Even if the reason is altruistic.
The reason we can't change it legally is because a lot of people don't agree. And regardless of if they're right or wrong not to agree, they have a say too in a democracy.
And I'd rather live in an imperfect democratic country with rights that aren't so easily thrown out or reinterpreted as you would seem to prefer.
Doing the right thing doesn't justify doing it the wrong way.
When the constitution was written, one could fire a musket maybe 3 times per minute. To say that the historiography of this mess applies to automatic weapons and assault rifles. It's just not possible to say that the "Founding Fathers" would have had any idea of how things would turn out, which in my opinion makes the constitution invalid. I believe the constitution to be completely invalid anyway.
Our "Founding Fathers" had no problem proclaiming that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, yet, it is still okay for us to own human beings. The constitution was an absolute farce from the moment it was written as those who wrote it clearly either had no integrity whatsoever or are simply two-faced. I find it hilarious... HILARIOUS that Americans continue to discuss this document as if it is relevant in any way whatsoever.
Learning History sucks. You inevitably get to a point where you realize all men are dishonest, liars, violent to the death and disregarding of the wants, needs and desires of others.
It's pretty simple Jess. The Bill of Rights does not contain the second amendment. There was no need to write a novel on the subject. Arrogance is not my primary setting, but it rubs me the wrong way when folks actively disseminate information that is incorrect. There is no argument available to you in which the Second Amendment is contained within the Bill of Rights. You can discuss it and twist it until the cows come home, but it will never be historically accurate.
This doesn't mean every argument you've ever made is inaccurate. Things that have happened in the past cannot be changed, so unfortunately, there is no gentle way of correcting inconsistencies. History is unbending, so if I were to be polite and say "Well, you do have a somewhat valid argument, but..." I would only be further propagating these historical inaccuracies and as is evident in this thread, Americans are vastly under-educated in the History of their own country.
I don't really understand what the internet and/or free speech have to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing and only further confuses what should have been an easy point. No need to get nasty. I'm still arguing about the constitution not about a Straw Man named JessFR.
Wikipedia: The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
Guy on internet: It's pretty simple Jess. The Bill of Rights does not contain the second amendment.
Can someone clarify this please? I am not American.
Wow, so you're saying that anyone over 18 can turn up at a gun show and buy whatever they like with no background checks or anything? Fuck me, that's insane. You guys can't even buy a beer until you're 21...