ALL states. ALL states wanted and ratified the Second Amendment. This cockamamie idea that the Second Amendment was a brainchild of slave owners is just another dishonest smear to somehow associate Second Amendment rights with wanting to keep slaves. An "ugly" idea, so to speak.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mike Malloy controversial comments
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
ALL states. ALL states wanted and ratified the Second Amendment. This cockamamie idea that the Second Amendment was a brainchild of slave owners is just another dishonest smear to somehow associate Second Amendment rights with wanting to keep slaves. An "ugly" idea, so to speak.
Overthrowing isn't the same as defending against tyranny. And the entire constitution was constructed to prevent government overreach, not just the separation of powers. The Second Amendment is no exception.
Arms are no defense against tyranny. And the founders knew that.
The tyranny to fear in this country isn't political. It's economic. And the numbers don't favor the tyrants. And the economic tyrants don't benefit from giving everyone guns.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
You mean SOME states. But I said the founding fathers. Two different things.
Allowing for secession is the cheap and easy way out. That's what the Iraqis want to do. Same with the Afghans. We won't let them. Because we know the consequences. The biggest selling point of this country is how people from differing heritages and experiences manage to live together. That's what makes this country great. Except some people don't like it. Sorry, secession isn't an option that you get because you don't like something.
Don't forget... The Scots, The Quebecois, The Basque and Catalons.
Don't forget those 13 colonies which seceded from the UK.
Middle Eastern boundaries were drawn by the Brits and the French after World War I without regard for tribal and ethnic territories, language or geographic natural boundaries.
National boundaries were drawn by politicians. They were not handed down from Mt. Sinai.
Self-determination of nations was one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.
People don't come to the US for "diversity" (despite what NPR preaches). They come for money. Nobody really wants to manage to live with different people. If given the option, people locate to be with people like themselves. That's why this country is split between areas that are deep-died red and deep-died blue. That's why the most segregated hour (as Martin Luther King famously said) is 11am Sunday. That's why schools remain almost as segregated as before Brown v. Board - segregated by real estate, not Jim Crow. History shows only homogeneous societies are stable.
All states in existence did ratify the 2nd amendment.
Part of the rationale for "militia" was distrust of a standing army (the colonists recently had a bad experience with one of those) or a standing police force (which they didn't see as much different) - instead they embraced the idea of militias and posses.
Last edited:
ALL states. ALL states wanted and ratified the Second Amendment.
Not exactly true. They didn't get a line-item veto. They ratified the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was an inclusive part of the Constitution. Just as Congress passes certain bills with earmarks that some don't like. Consider the 2nd amendment an earmark for certain states. But the founders put limitations on it.
Last edited:
People don't come to the US for "diversity" (despite what NPR preaches). They come for money.
They come for both. No immigrant ever got rich selling strictly to their own family. The real money comes when you sell beyond your own neighborhood. And to do that, you have to make compromises. The Mexicans have learned they have to sell food in this country that isn't naturally Mexican. Jewish department store owners got rich by promoting Christmas. And Black entrepreneurs got rich selling R&B music to rich suburban youth. That's the trick. Sure it happens elsewhere, but not to the degree it happens here.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Not exactly true. They didn't get a line-item veto. They ratified the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was an inclusive part of the Constitution. Just as Congress passes certain bills with earmarks that some don't like. Consider the 2nd amendment an earmark for certain states. But the founders put limitations on it.
Wrong! The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states by the first congress after the constitution was adopted. There were 12 proposed amendments. 10 were ratified immediately and an 11th was ratified in 1992. The states voted on each proposed amendment individually.
Let me get this straight: Jews did not flea pogroms; they figured the Goyim would love bagels and there was an opportunity. Oh, wait. Not all department store founders were Jews. Noted Goyin include: R.H. Macy. John Wanamaker. J.L. Hudson. Marshall Field. Careful, SMG will accuse you of being anti-Semitic.
For the record most immigrants don't get rich. They don't even aspire to rich. For many, subsistence looked like "rich."
Last edited:
Not exactly true. They didn't get a line-item veto. They ratified the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was an inclusive part of the Constitution. Just as Congress passes certain bills with earmarks that some don't like. Consider the 2nd amendment an earmark for certain states. But the founders put limitations on it.
Remember a while back when I said you should stick to radio?
Please do that. You're embarrassing yourself. Not a single thing you said here was anywhere near true.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Overthrowing isn't the same as defending against tyranny. And the entire constitution was constructed to prevent government overreach, not just the separation of powers. The Second Amendment is no exception.
Indeed! The power of a deterrent lies in its potential power. That power need not be unleashed for it to accomplish its goal. Sadly, one of the things the Constitution doesn't provide protection against is the slow erosion of liberty.
Remember a while back when I said you should stick to radio?
Shall I go through a list of all the things you say that aren't true?
Shall I go through a list of all the things you say that aren't true?
You really don't want to go down this road. The fact that both Fred and I are telling you that you're wrong should speak volumes.
Last edited:
You really don't want to go down this road. The fact that both I and Fred are telling you that you're wrong should speak volumes.
It was one thing I didn't check. Still looking through the quotes from the founders to find one who said the right to bear arms was to defend against tyranny. Haven't found that one yet. Maybe one of you have it.
You really don't want to go down this road. The fact that both Fred and I are telling you that you're wrong should speak volumes.
Now he's teaming up with Fred. Will wonders never cease? Good night folks, I gotta sleep SOMETIME...
It was one thing I didn't check. Still looking through the quotes from the founders to find one who said the right to bear arms was to defend against tyranny. Haven't found that one yet. Maybe one of you have it.
I thought it said something about "defending from tyranny against a Kenyan usurper".
By the way, since you-know-who is always so convinced that Fred is WRONG about everything except for this--just because they agree, then maybe he should re-evaluate his own interpretation of that amendment.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Now he's teaming up with Fred. Will wonders never cease? Good night folks, I gotta sleep SOMETIME...
No teaming up involved. Unlike some people, I don't shape "facts" to suit my personal grudges. If you are right about something, I'll say so. Stopped clock theory and all that. Try giving an actual viewpoint sometime, instead of just taking shots at people.
Our conversation has been a bit rowdy the last few days. Some one suggested that I had not done Talk Radio since Carter was president. What was left out of the statement was that back then, people who did Talk Radio could actually read and write. There is little or no evidence to indicate that today's Talk Radio folks can.
So, overnight, read I did.
As recently as 1980 in the case of "U.S. vs. Miller", the United State Supreme Court continued to uphold the concept that ownership/possession of guns was linked to some kind or availability and/or participation in an organized Militia.
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court in "District of Columbia vs. Heller" finally caved in to the gun lobby and agreed that individuals had a right to own and possess guns not related to an organized Militia.
There is just tons and tons of writings by historians and the legal community indicating that it was commonly understood from the writing of the Constitution until that case in 1980, there was no mandate that gun ownership was an individual freedom. It was always assumed to be something you could do IF you were willing to be part of an organized Militia when needed and requested.
So, overnight, read I did.
As recently as 1980 in the case of "U.S. vs. Miller", the United State Supreme Court continued to uphold the concept that ownership/possession of guns was linked to some kind or availability and/or participation in an organized Militia.
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court in "District of Columbia vs. Heller" finally caved in to the gun lobby and agreed that individuals had a right to own and possess guns not related to an organized Militia.
There is just tons and tons of writings by historians and the legal community indicating that it was commonly understood from the writing of the Constitution until that case in 1980, there was no mandate that gun ownership was an individual freedom. It was always assumed to be something you could do IF you were willing to be part of an organized Militia when needed and requested.
But, as Grouch Marx used to say..... "Close... but no cigar!"
If your doctor can prescribe a medicine for you that includes "controlled substances".... then your doctor is required to have an up-to-date DEA Registration. TRANSLATION: Your doctor may be primarily licensed by your state, but for him/her to provide much medical care he/she will end up for a form of "licensure" by the Federal Government.
I agree with you -- but in my post I was referring to specifically, the examination itself. My own personal opinion about medical practice is that it would be very difficult for a doctor to practice it without much of it being interstate commerce. But the examination itself? I see Avid's point there.
Things like you just described -- i.e., prescriptions either being controlled substances, or otherwise regulated by the DEA -- are examples of the interstate commerce clause giving Congress authority that the founding fathers probably did not envision.
This isn't to say some of them would have disagreed with it.. but did they really envision the pervasive nature of Congress's reach that there is today? I sort of doubt it.
It was one thing I didn't check. Still looking through the quotes from the founders to find one who said the right to bear arms was to defend against tyranny. Haven't found that one yet. Maybe one of you have it.
I've already posted it several times. Federalist 29.
Now let's look at your assertion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a package deal. Even though they were written several years apart and part of the Bill of Rights wasn't even passed, shall we?
Last edited:
Our conversation has been a bit rowdy the last few days. Some one suggested that I had not done Talk Radio since Carter was president. What was left out of the statement was that back then, people who did Talk Radio could actually read and write. There is little or no evidence to indicate that today's Talk Radio folks can.
So, overnight, read I did.
You really are a petty and ugly person. And you STILL are missing the point.
The "militia" is all able bodied men. The Fourteenth Amendment extended rights protected for those able bodied men to everyone.
You can copy paste all the Supreme Court decisions you want, you still don't have any idea what you're talking about. The Supreme Court is hardly infallible, unless you want to all of a sudden defend Dred Scott or Korematsu.
The difference between you and I is that I DID MY READING on this topic years ago. You can throw out all the insults you want, but you're out of your class. As usual.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court in "District of Columbia vs. Heller" finally caved in to the gun lobby and agreed that individuals had a right to own and possess guns not related to an organized Militia.
What an incredibly UGLY post! The Supreme Court didn't "cave in" to anyone. They simply ruled correctly, based on the clear wording of the Constitution.
That's exactly what you would say about any Supreme Court decision you agreed with. If your blather about respectful discussions was anything other than hollow rhetoric, you'd practice what you preached in what you posted.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Then and now, the 2nd amendment was a contentious issue. Different people and groups pushed for it and they gave different reasons.
One, not mentioned, was historical. Under Feudalism, serfs could not bear arms (meaning knives or swords). That was a right reserved to the free-born. In an era when slavery still existed, even in the North, free-born was an important and meaningful distinction.
Related to this, many people fear slave rebellions and wanted the right to bear arms for protection from slaves and to keep slaves in their place.
There was the issue of posses being able to pursue criminals (as de facto militias).
And, of course, some people feared a strong central government and wanted arms and militias as protection from federal "tyranny." Remember, the colonies first adopted the Articles of Confederation because they did not want a strong central government. They fought a war to get rid of one. They just got finished fighting off a regular army with self-armed militias. Each colony were fighting for its own independence, in alliance with other colonies doing the same. At least that's how they saw it at the time.
It was a different time and a different world. The 2nd amendment, like the other original nine, was a reaction to things that had just happened to those people, things they feared could happen again.
One, not mentioned, was historical. Under Feudalism, serfs could not bear arms (meaning knives or swords). That was a right reserved to the free-born. In an era when slavery still existed, even in the North, free-born was an important and meaningful distinction.
Related to this, many people fear slave rebellions and wanted the right to bear arms for protection from slaves and to keep slaves in their place.
There was the issue of posses being able to pursue criminals (as de facto militias).
And, of course, some people feared a strong central government and wanted arms and militias as protection from federal "tyranny." Remember, the colonies first adopted the Articles of Confederation because they did not want a strong central government. They fought a war to get rid of one. They just got finished fighting off a regular army with self-armed militias. Each colony were fighting for its own independence, in alliance with other colonies doing the same. At least that's how they saw it at the time.
It was a different time and a different world. The 2nd amendment, like the other original nine, was a reaction to things that had just happened to those people, things they feared could happen again.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.