The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 1, 2019, 01:39 PM   #51
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 11,514
The framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't think everybody should be allowed to vote either. Nor would they ever have considered a media misused term like "assault weapons" would ever be possible. They expected the newspapers to print the truth and not repeat fallacies.
"...and Canadians..." You didn't. You lost the War of 1812 to British Regulars backed up by Militia and The Iroquois Confederacy. We had no bears enlisted and we were not Canadians until 1867.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old November 1, 2019, 04:59 PM   #52
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. O'Heir
You lost the War of 1812 to British Regulars backed up by Militia and The Iroquois Confederacy. We had no bears enlisted and we were not Canadians until 1867.
I wouldn't say we lost. Each side won some rounds and lost some rounds. In the end, both sides got tired of the whole thing and called it quits with no changes in the national boundaries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 1, 2019, 05:49 PM   #53
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,668
Quote:
They expected the newspapers to print the truth and not repeat fallacies.
The is both the most uneducated and hysterical thing I have read all day.

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

“advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country, nor suffer yourselves to be wheeled out of your library by any pretense of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” - John Adams, on the Boston Gazette

Some coverage of the election of 1800.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2.../17/party-time

Remember, a vote for Adams is a vote for Satan! You don't support Satan do you? I didn't think so.

I'm not even scratching the surface here.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old November 1, 2019, 06:59 PM   #54
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,317
As natman in ost #15 says-ask your youngriend what about TV, radio and the internet??

In no way could the founders ever envision those "new" things but try and take away the 1A from those and WOW...

Why should the SECOND be any different??
langenc is offline  
Old November 3, 2019, 09:36 AM   #55
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
"...and Canadians..." You didn't. You lost the War of 1812 to British Regulars backed up by Militia and The Iroquois Confederacy. We had no bears enlisted and we were not Canadians until 1867.
Is that what they teach you in Canada?

Actually the War of 1812 ended " quo ante bellum" with everything returning to as it was before the war.

The four goals of the United States were accomplished:

1. Stop British Impressment of US Sailors

2. End British Support for Native American Tribes

3. Secure territorial honor and integrity vs former rulers.

4. Reopen trade lanes with France

All of those goals were accomplished by the United States in the War of 1812. Strategically it was a major US victory.

What did Britain the Commonwealth colonies accomplish? Nothing in terms of territory or treasure. In fact, it diverted much needed resources from the War with France.

Long term though, Britain and the Commonwealth colonies gained the friendship of the United States which has benefited your Country more than anything else. So in that sense, it was a victory for Canada.

As for being a Military Victory for Canada....nope.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 3, 2019, 11:40 AM   #56
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,363
That status quo ant "draw" was a bit hard on Pakenham . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pakenham
... but one has to admire how tough men were those days, irrespective of which side.

(Though the children/grandchildren of few Scots survivors of Culloden might have thought the Royal Scots Fusiliers finally got their due . . . )
mehavey is offline  
Old November 3, 2019, 09:56 PM   #57
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,668
Quote:
1. Stop British Impressment of US Sailors

4. Reopen trade lanes with France
These happened independent of any US actions as the War with France ended.

Quote:
2. End British Support for Native American Tribes
The Creek Indians were the big losers. The British threw them under the bus as soon as the war was over. It was back to genocide in America.

Quote:
3. Secure territorial honor and integrity vs former rulers.
Their actual goal was to seize Canada. This failed miserably as the militia was poorly led, resourced and trained for such a task. Some militia units even refused orders to invade Canada. Which brings us back to a really important point.

The founders knew perfectly well that a militia was a poor and ineffective tool as a military. That was the point. So long as the people made up the military it could never be used as a tool of oppression domestically or internationally. Unfortunately it was never going to be sufficient to protect the country either.

Quote:
What did Britain the Commonwealth colonies accomplish? Nothing in terms of territory or treasure. In fact, it diverted much needed resources from the War with France
They did not need to do much. They fought a defensive war on the cheap. Once the war with France was over the War in the Americas was on borrowed time. The blockade shut down American trade and brought them to the treaty table. They lost nothing.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old November 4, 2019, 09:02 AM   #58
Bozz10mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2013
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 263
"
Quote:
The framers of the Constitution had never even imagined assault weapons that can slaughter hundreds of people in mere minutes. --- Their wording related to private citizens having the right to have simple weapons of that time in their homes.
Ask the young person at what point in history it occurred that firearms became too deadly for citizens to own. I imagine the founders never imagined 6 shot revolvers or lever action rifles either. But by the late 1800s they were quite common.

Was this young person implying that we should only be allowed to own muskets?
Bozz10mm is offline  
Old November 4, 2019, 11:09 AM   #59
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
These happened independent of any US actions as the War with France ended.
British Impressment of US sailors ended with the War of 1812. It was not an official policy until 1835 but there are no more incidents of impressment after the war.

Quote:
It was back to genocide in America.
Propaganda. The Creeks were not innocents brought to some holocaust genocide by the United States. They were willing participants in a war and every bit deserving of the title Warrior Tribesman.

They lost because they were technically outmatched but that does not take away from their bravery nor does it remove the fact they were combatants in a war. The idea they were some innocent natures children is pure poppycock pushed by the ignorant as a sound bite.

Quote:
The Creek War (1813–1814), also known as the “Red Stick War,” began as a civil war within the Creek nation. A faction of younger men from the Upper Creek villages, known as “Red Sticks,” sought aggressively to resist U.S. invasion into their territories.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...e-war-of-1812/

The Creek War was started by the Creeks when the Red Sticks massacred over 300 families at Ft Mims. Most of the casualties were women and children.

The Creek Nation was in the midst of its own civil war. The Red Sticks brought the United States into that conflict and as a result, the Creeks lost. As part of ending that war, they ceded 23 million acres of land.

Moral of the Story, do not start a war and lose.

Quote:
Their actual goal was to seize Canada.
No. The acquisition of Canada was not a goal or reason why the United States entered the war. That was strategy once the war was entered.

Quote:
Why invade Canada?
It was the closest British colony, but Madison also had political reasons for targeting America's northern neighbor. His Democratic-Republican Party drew much of its support from the rural South and what was then the American West — the territory stretching up the Mississippi basin to the Great Lakes. Frontier inhabitants were eager to strike at the British in Canada because they suspected them of arming Native American tribes that were standing in the way of America's westward expansion.
https://theweek.com/articles/473482/...-brief-history

And they most certainly were arming the Native Americans and encouraging armed conflict along the frontier. That was very much a Part of England's strategy with the eventual goal of retaking the Rebellious colonies.

Once more, Freedom Loving Americans thought their Canadian cousins did not relish living in English bondage as a colony. They actually expected the Canadians to fight on our side. It turned out the Canadians did love it and were loyal to the British Crown.

Goes to highlight how new the concepts of Governance and individual freedom were in the world put into action by the United States and philosophers of the French Revolution.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 4, 2019, 03:41 PM   #60
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,668
Apologies to the OP for taking bait and helping to take us down the wrong path. I stand by my opinions. If anyone wishes to discuss further about the War of 1812 send me a PM.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old November 6, 2019, 08:46 AM   #61
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 16,634
Good move. Thanks.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old November 6, 2019, 09:34 AM   #62
PolarFBear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2015
Posts: 279
I "kicked" this topic off NOT as "click bait" but as a legitimate attempt to LEARN. It has been rewarding. Even enlightening. The off shoot to the War of 1812 was informative. Thanks for all that have contributed.
PolarFBear is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 12:01 PM   #63
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Ever since Lenin reduced the Russian population by means of starvation, socialists have known that they are better off controlling private production by means of regulation and fiat than outright ownership.
Actually I think Stalin did most of the starving part when he did away with the Kulaks and forced collectivization. Small matter though.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 01:42 PM   #64
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,935
We are getting rather far afield here. As a reminder, the original post was:

Quote:
What DID the Founding Fathers really mean?

I recently had interaction with a younger member of our society. They posed this platform for which I have meager reply.

"The framers of the Constitution had never even imagined assault weapons that can slaughter hundreds of people in mere minutes. --- Their wording related to private citizens having the right to have simple weapons of that time in their homes."

I have searched TFL in depth and find no good replies. I ask for assistance on historical documentation from our Founding Fathers. What did they envision for our Right to bear arms? The Militia Act of 1792 is as good as I can find.
Let's get back to the original topic, please, and not wander off into discussions of political movements and philosophies.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 09:04 PM   #65
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Let's get back to the original topic, please, and not wander off into discussions of political movements and philosophies.
With that in mind, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people had the ability to resist tyranny by force, if necessary.

If anyone doubts that, ask them just exactly what they think the colonists were doing during the American Revolution.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 09:21 PM   #66
MoArk Willy
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2018
Posts: 91
Regardless of where you lie on this discussion there is only one true fact.
The first amendment, as written, is far more dangerous than the second.
Do you believe that the first amendment was written to protect liars and propagandists any more than the second was written to protect criminals?
MoArk Willy is offline  
Old November 12, 2019, 09:13 AM   #67
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,998
Quote:
"The framers of the Constitution had never even imagined assault weapons that can slaughter hundreds of people in mere minutes. --- Their wording related to private citizens having the right to have simple weapons of that time in their homes."
Where did you read that??????
Or are you stating YOUR opinion on what they wrote?????
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 12, 2019, 01:05 PM   #68
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,366
Quote:
--- Their wording related to private citizens having the right to have simple weapons of that time in their homes."
This is a personal opinion, and not found in or supported by anything written in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.

BUT, just for the sake of argument, look at what that statement implies. Our natural rights only exist up to the level of 1790s technology.

Freedom of the Press would only apply to things hand written or printed using a hand operated printing press (and not a typewriter). Our right to free speech would not cover anything transmitted electronically. SO the government (ANY and all parts) would not need a search warrant to tap your phone, iPad, computer, or anything like that.

No electronically stored record would be protected from search and seizure, they aren't paper... literally ALL your privacy rights are GONE, if you use any modern device.

If you are going to apply a tech time limit "litmus test" to any part of our enumerated rights, you must apply it to ALL our enumerated rights or you are being a hypocrite.

I think that the people who would make a statement like this
Quote:
--- Their wording related to private citizens having the right to have simple weapons of that time in their homes."
Simply didn't think through the non-firearms ramifications of the principle.

If they had, they'd realize how barking STUPID it makes them sound....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 12, 2019, 06:20 PM   #69
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,363
"... necessary to the security of a free state ...."
would certainly define weapons consistent with competent use in combat.

So easy . . . even a caveman can see it.



.

Last edited by mehavey; November 12, 2019 at 08:27 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old November 12, 2019, 08:04 PM   #70
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,360
The founders made the second amendment short and to the point for a reason

If they want the second amendment gone, why not repeal it? Recent weeks have shown that they don’t merely want to restrict guns, they want guns out of the hands of civilians. They have let it known that the second amendment is their target.
Why not just repeal or change the amendment? They state that most of the country wants it gone.
Let’s do it. Attempt to repeal it. The impeach whoever your going to impeach. Indict whoever you want indicted. Let’s just get on with the stuff the country needs and get all of this BS out of the way.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 13, 2019, 01:17 AM   #71
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,366
Quote:
If they want the second amendment gone, why not repeal it?
First off, if the could, they would, but they can't yet and won't make a direct try until they think they will win.

Next, almost every session of Congress for many years now has had a bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment introduced. It never goes anywhere.

There is a specific process for repealing an amendment, and a bill in congress won't do it.

The process is to approve a new amendment which repeals a previous one, which was what was done to repeal Prohibition. Congress didn't pass a law repealing Prohibition. (doing that is beyond their authority) the NATION passed an amendment through the amendment process and that amendment repealed Prohibition.

there's a reason I'm using amendment so many times. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Constitutional Amendments are changes to that law, and the process for ratifying an amendment is spelled out in specific detail in the Constitution. Laws passed by Congress are lesser or lower level laws than the Constitution, and since made by Congress they can be unmade by Congress, or the Supreme Court. The Constitution cannot be unmade or changed in any way by Congress or the Supreme Court, it can only be changed through the processes in the Constitution itself, the Amendment process or by a new Constitutional Convention.

The gun banners don't want an up or down vote on the 2nd A, its too risky for them. IF they lost that would effectively settle the matter for decades, possibly generations. They much prefer the current tactics of keeping the 2A in place but rendering it ineffective and essentially meaningless via regulations. They don't even really consider it infringement, or likely more accurately, they simply don't care as long as they can get what they want.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 13, 2019, 04:11 AM   #72
Geezerbiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Location: Willamina, OR
Posts: 1,163
Liberals are very fond of saying the majority agrees with them but when it all shakes out, they're lucky to have 30% of the population on their side for most of what they want to do...

Tony
Geezerbiker is offline  
Old November 13, 2019, 01:21 PM   #73
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,366
Quote:
Liberals are very fond of saying the majority agrees with them...
They way they look at it, the majority of the people who matter do agree with them. The rest of us are a "basket of deplorables" living in flyover country, clinging to our guns and religion (implying that is somehow an undesirable thing...)

However, don't discount having "only" 30% or so of the people behind you. sufficiently motivated 30% of the people can and have changed history.

When the colonies declared Independence only about a third of the people supported revolution. About a third wanted to remain loyal Crown subjects, and the other third just wanted to be left the hell alone to get on with their lives.

Look how that turned out, in the long run...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 17, 2019, 05:21 AM   #74
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan View Post
No, those are social welfare programs, not Socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If the government confiscates US Steel from the shareholders and nationalizes it, that's Socialism. Providing for social welfare and infrastructure is not Socialism.
At least someones knows the difference between Socialism and Social Welfare.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old November 17, 2019, 05:29 AM   #75
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerbiker View Post
Liberals are very fond of saying the majority agrees with them but when it all shakes out, they're lucky to have 30% of the population on their side for most of what they want to do...

Tony
They're Leftist there Tony, they hijacked the term "liberal", which is was liberty loving folks like us are.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10655 seconds with 10 queries