I propose this change to 2A... - Page 10
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

I propose this change to 2A...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-30-2013, 03:34 AM   #91
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,655
Liked 3261 Times on 1948 Posts
Likes Given: 2365

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
The Bill of Rights, "Got the Constitution done". The Constitution became effective in 1789. The Bill Of Rights Became effective in 1791.
The Public Schools are teaching some revised history again.
you are right....it seems the BOR was more put in place because of the incredible protests created by states and anti-federalists who were protesting the constitution, which led to the BOR.

dates aside...the idea of compromise between opposite minded people played a HUGE part in the implementation of the BOR. if not for strong states objections and the anti-federalists....a BOR might not have been a part of the constitution.

federalists in general seemed to think a BOR would not be necessary as the constitution limited the government so much and they feared the BOR list might be incomplete, not covering all human rights. the federalists agreed to the idea of individuals rights, but likely would not have adopted the BOR without strong pressure from states and anti-federalists to do so.

so...yes...an agreement that there would be a bill of rights got the constitution ratified, based on the little i have read.


"During the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published all across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," "Centinel," and "Federal Farmer." Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution. This produced a phenomenal body of political writing; the best and most influential of these articles and speeches were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers in allusion to the Federalist Papers.

In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island — it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adherence. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.[3]

The Anti-Federalists played upon these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease, but the Massachusetts convention was far more bitter and contentious. Finally, after long debate, a compromise (known as the "Massachusetts compromise") was reached. Massachusetts would ratify the Constitution with recommended provisions in the ratifying instrument that the Constitution be amended with a bill of rights. (The Federalists contended that a conditional ratification would be void, so the recommendation was the strongest support that the ratifying convention could give to a bill of rights short of rejecting the Constitution.)
Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights, with one of the other two becoming the 27th Amendment—almost 200 years later. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. Anti-Federalists thus became recognized as an influential group among the founding fathers of the United States.

With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. Some activists joined the Anti-Administration Party that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were forming about 1790-91 to oppose policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton they opposed; it soon became the Democratic-Republican party.[4]"

Last edited by hawkguy; 10-30-2013 at 03:55 AM.
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 03:57 AM   #92
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4797 Times on 2683 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

What you have proposed in a very lengthy dissertation does in no way point to negotiated terms. The modern "Liberal" bending of history to limit debate is not historically based.
Without posting a 1,000 word Anti-Theses I would remind you? This was only a stale mate of contradictions. This whole issue created and ended with the Civil War April 1861.
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 05:31 AM   #93
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9088 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i wish there was an organization of the NRA's strength to protect ALL of the BOR's.
That should be the ACLU. Problem with them is that they have this thing with the 2A that contradicts what the Supreme Court has established many times over.

From the ACLU website:

Quote:
What is the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment provides: "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." Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For more information, please read our statement on the Second Amendment.
Yeah. Too bad an organization that devotes 100% of their efforts to fight for our Civil Liberties makes their own choices on which of the Constitutional Amendments it wants to ensure.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 05:41 AM   #94
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4797 Times on 2683 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

The Liberals always dissect the 2nd Amendment. They carve out and ignore the "the right of the people to keep and bear". The Colones feared the right of the Federal Government to maintain and control a standing army. Stopping the quartering of soldiers in private homes and protecting private property required firearms.
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 05:42 AM   #95
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2452 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default

ACLJ would be on the right side of the 2nd amendment I'd bet.
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 05:49 AM   #96
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9088 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post
ACLJ would be on the right side of the 2nd amendment I'd bet.
ACLJ? ...........
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 06:11 AM   #97
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2452 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad
ACLJ? ...........
American Center for Law and Justice. Pretty much the ACLUs nemesis when they hit libtard mode.
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 12:12 PM   #98
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,655
Liked 3261 Times on 1948 Posts
Likes Given: 2365

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
What you have proposed in a very lengthy dissertation does in no way point to negotiated terms. The modern "Liberal" bending of history to limit debate is not historically based.
Without posting a 1,000 word Anti-Theses I would remind you? This was only a stale mate of contradictions. This whole issue created and ended with the Civil War April 1861.
a "stalemate of contradictions"...lol! that is also called a compromise, stalker. does the word bother you for some reason? i mean its much easier to say....

well, i would normally think that change in the face of strong criticism and pressure normally equals a compromise or settlement.

federalists did not think a BOR was needed.....states and anti-federalists fought and protested....a BOR was promised in the constitution to ratify the document.

it was compromise because the anti-federalists DID NOT WANT the constitution AT ALL! their efforts did not stop the constitution, but led to the BOR included in it. both sides got something without either side getting exactly what they wanted. compromise.

heh....on a side note, the civil war was fought over economy more than anything else. dang those yankees telling us we can't exploit africans anymore....if you want to pull out the civil war, don't forget the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage.... the battle rages on to this day about federal vs state vs power. of the people (though admittedly none as drastic as the civil war). texas just lost a battle regarding abortion in a state vs federal case.

that is never ending, but has little to do with how the BOR was a compromise between two feuding parties in our country. highly unlikely the constitution would have ever been ratified w/o the promise of bill of rights, which yes....was enacted a bit later.

no liberal...no twisting...just history.

Last edited by hawkguy; 10-30-2013 at 12:15 PM.
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 12:30 PM   #99
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4797 Times on 2683 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

Now you are using sophomoric reasoning. Your liberal education and resorting to the "Yankee" and us slave owners against the world BS. What kind of serious debate is this?
The Liberals always argue just don't resist let us compromise. I can assure you the left wing Democrats would disarm the Nation if we followed your theory.
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 06:08 PM   #100
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9088 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
Now you are using sophomoric reasoning. Your liberal education and resorting to the "Yankee" and us slave owners against the world BS. What kind of serious debate is this?
The Liberals always argue just don't resist let us compromise. I can assure you the left wing Democrats would disarm the Nation if we followed your theory.
It could not possibly be a serious debate because you insist on calling anyone who points out the flaws in your cryptic, passive-aggressive arguments a Liberal.

Dude, you are not always correct in your reasoning. Calling everybody else a liberal will not win your argument.
Vikingdad is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Gov Quinn Teams Up With Mayor Rahm Emanuel To Propose Bill To Tax And Ban Your Guns Bigcountry02 Legal and Activism 21 08-02-2012 05:08 PM
Utah lawmakers propose M1911 as official state gun Bigcountry02 Legal and Activism 10 01-27-2011 03:00 AM
Obama to Propose More Taxes From Estates, Firms to Fund Health Care Reform Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 05-10-2009 08:06 AM
Propose a picture area for CCW? cbw Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 20 10-31-2008 12:10 PM



Newest Threads