FARK.com: (7464867) The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion (americanthinker.com)		502
		More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths

• • •

1706 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7464867

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

502 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

FriarReb98		2012-12-03 08:14:59 AM

I'm sure there's more of a point to that 225-year old "oldnewsisexciting.jpg" statement, but I'm sure as hell not clicking the article to find out what it might be.

ThatGuyFromTheInternet		2012-12-03 08:19:27 AM

Militia Clause.

GAT_00		2012-12-03 08:21:01 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

FlashHarry		2012-12-03 08:22:00 AM

the right to practice religion and be free from government-sanctioned religion. the establishment cause cuts two ways, submitter.

whistleridge		2012-12-03 08:30:22 AM

True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha		2012-12-03 08:30:47 AM

The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims

Doctor Funkenstein		2012-12-03 08:33:32 AM

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

You are completely correct. The problem is that you're trying to reason with people who probably think this is a documentary.

Lansydyr		2012-12-03 08:34:58 AM

/oblig

vpb		2012-12-03 08:39:53 AM

Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

dittybopper		2012-12-03 08:42:22 AM

GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

whatsupchuck		2012-12-03 08:43:19 AM

I might have believed this, prior to the Stinker trying to tell me. Now I wouldn't be so sure.

Cythraul		2012-12-03 08:44:37 AM

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

I'm in a militia. We meet every week to chat about American Idol and the latest Twilight gossip.

Imperialism		2012-12-03 08:45:01 AM

Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Hobodeluxe		2012-12-03 08:46:08 AM

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.

Cythraul		2012-12-03 08:46:08 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs		2012-12-03 08:46:25 AM

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

This is America. We invent our own threats. Several at a time.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-12-03 08:47:42 AM

The Founders also though a large standing army was a grave threat to liberty.

jake_lex		2012-12-03 08:47:50 AM

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"

xanadian		2012-12-03 08:47:52 AM

NOWAI

/it's not news...

Arthen		2012-12-03 08:48:07 AM

If you love 1787 so much, why don't you marry it?

Hobodeluxe		2012-12-03 08:48:33 AM

Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.

Britney Spear's Speculum		2012-12-03 08:48:56 AM

Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.

Pants full of macaroni!!		2012-12-03 08:49:55 AM

GUN PR0N THREAD

shastacola		2012-12-03 08:50:12 AM

They lived in an era when your typical American would have starved to death without a gun.So,yeah, it was probably up there with other important stuff.

Hobodeluxe		2012-12-03 08:50:28 AM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.

BUT I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!

dittybopper		2012-12-03 08:50:51 AM

whistleridge: The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

There is a specific process to do that. It requires 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 75% of the states. We've amended the Constitution 17 times since the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified.

The Constitution *IS* a living document, in the sense that it can be changed to suite modern times, but you can't just say "Oh, well, we know better, so we'll just ignore the parts we don't like". The founding fathers understood that times change, and they also understood that people sometimes panic and do stupid things for transient issues, so they made the Constitution changeable, but not *EASILY* changeable.

It's brilliant, actually: It's hard enough to change it that the latest panic about whatever can't be easily written into it, but for long term changes (like stopping slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc.), you can change it. I'd say the only real exception to the "latest panic" in history was the Volstead Act, and we all know what problems that caused.

bulldg4life		2012-12-03 08:51:16 AM

dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-12-03 08:51:40 AM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.

www.wgbh.org

Cardinal Law frowns on your shenanigans.

SkunkWerks		2012-12-03 08:52:00 AM

Your blog sucks.

whistleridge		2012-12-03 08:52:10 AM

Lansydyr: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]
/oblig

Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

But the people...Jesus Loving Christ, the people...

What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is inevitable, you aren't safe to trust with a bb gun, much less an assault rifle.

bwilson27		2012-12-03 08:52:21 AM

American Stinker- Those who brought you this gem: "What's with the revenge theme coming from two successful black multimillionaires? First it was Barack Obama. Now Beyonce has posted this vengeful message on her Tumblr account following Romney's defeat:
Take That Mitches".

American Stinker, beating back the uppity ni**ers since 1776!

dittybopper		2012-12-03 08:52:23 AM

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

EyeballKid		2012-12-03 08:52:58 AM

By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

Tyrone Slothrop		2012-12-03 08:53:14 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Strange that no other amendment needed a "justification". Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting.

Hobodeluxe		2012-12-03 08:53:38 AM

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.

yep. my interpretation of that is that it requires membership into a group like police or national guard. a state sanctioned force.

vpb		2012-12-03 08:54:11 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.

bulldg4life		2012-12-03 08:54:26 AM

Hobodeluxe: and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

Whoever wrote the above is a commie socialist freedom hating bastard.

IlGreven		2012-12-03 08:54:35 AM

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

Maybe you mean to say that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes (as in, how many seats a state got in the House and how many EVs a state got). Slaves didn't have the right to vote, and any white man with property that did still only got one vote.

This is actually a common misconception...even TDS got it wrong, for humor ("I cast my 5 slaves' 3 votes for James K. Polk"). If people who made the misconception were correct, then women and children would have been voting as well (as they are counted as "free persons" in that clause of the Constitution, despite not having the right to vote.)

JudgeItoBox		2012-12-03 08:54:39 AM

Cinaed		2012-12-03 08:55:39 AM

I'll.... buy that, sure.

Though I'd put the first amendment and all that it covers, along with equal protection, before the right to bear arms.

Altair		2012-12-03 08:56:41 AM

That's right subby, the "Framers" all shared one consciousness and agreed on every single aspect of the Constitution.

/read a book, dumb ass
//I support gun ownership
///but not ignorance

Dr.Mxyzptlk.		2012-12-03 08:56:56 AM

Guns are like abortions. If you don't want one . Don't get one.

/ Only one these was written into the Constitution. They other one was mined out of abstraction.

dittybopper		2012-12-03 08:56:58 AM

whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".

Cythraul		2012-12-03 08:57:09 AM

dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

rjw57.github.com

jayhawk88		2012-12-03 08:57:33 AM

It must be horrible to live in a world when even when "your side" wins, it's just a terrible reminder of how you might one day lose.

bulldg4life		2012-12-03 08:57:52 AM

dittybopper: No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true.

ChaoticLimbs		2012-12-03 08:58:02 AM

Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-12-03 08:58:30 AM

dittybopper: whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".

I can also make large bombs with common materials, so those should be perfectly legal too, right?

bwilson27		2012-12-03 08:59:23 AM

ChaoticLimbs: Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.

Them's just sissy communist words..