• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Black Watch and Our Early Militias

OpportunityCost said:
You created this thread to have a reference to undermine 2nd amendment rights in regards to the right to keep and bear arms by using the militia clause. You even tried to do it in another thread, which I already quoted. You are like a cat trying to cover up on linoleum and you look just as silly as the cat.
Click to expand...

Uh, nooooo, I've been very topical. Others have as well. Perhaps you might like to try it; a very interesting conversation could be the result.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, nooooo, I've been very topical. Others have as well. Perhaps you might like to try it; a very interesting conversation could be the result.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no double standards. If you use this thread as an impetus for gun control and you place it in the gun control forum, don't be surprised when someone calls you on the idea it might be about gun control. Stop telling me what to post, if you have a legitimate complaint, you know what to do.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sorry, no double standards. If you use this thread as an impetus for gun control and you place it in the gun control forum, don't be surprised when someone calls you on the idea it might be about gun control. Stop telling me what to post, if you have a legitimate complaint, you know what to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're not good with the subject matter, so, that's enough.

:2wave:
 
OpportunityCost said:
You are reading it backwards. The militia is dependent upon the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the militia.

Factual point of proof is that those serving in the militia were not disarmed in the colonies before or after service and those that did not serve were armed at their option.

Your primary point is failing the most basic scrutiny and points of fact show it to be false on its face.
Click to expand...

Well stated....
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, you're not good with the subject matter, so, that's enough.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Apparently you are good with the subject matter but don't know how to draw conclusions.
 
jet57 said:
I was giving the roots of the second amendment, and of our colonial and new American militias a thought, and I remembered a passage from one of my European history books about the mid 18th century Scottish Highland Militias that were formed into the "Black Watch":

Clans Septs And Regiments of the Scottish Highlands; 1908, Frank Adam 5th edition:



The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

There was some paper or other that implied that the 2nd was put in to appease the South, who feared slave revollts. I'm sure it probably payed a part.

Here's a good article on the matter.

Slavery, the Second Amendment, and the Origins of Public-Carry Jurisprudence - The Atlantic
 
calamity said:
There was some paper or other that implied that the 2nd was put in to appease the South, who feared slave revollts. I'm sure it probably payed a part.

Here's a good article on the matter.

Slavery, the Second Amendment, and the Origins of Public-Carry Jurisprudence - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

LOL Saul Cornell-a joyce foundation butt boy whose dishonesty has been well documented. HE tries to claim that the founders really didn't believe in a second amendment preventing the federal government from acting because they knew and "approved" of STATE restrictions (duh, the fact that there were state restrictions cuts against the theory that the federal government should have gun control power). HE also claims that the original intent was to allow state regulations, and that someone means they wanted federal regulations. Saul also ignores the fact that federal powers did not "appear" until the Commerce clause was expanded under FDR.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL Saul Cornell-a joyce foundation butt boy whose dishonesty has been well documented. HE tries to claim that the founders really didn't believe in a second amendment preventing the federal government from acting because they knew and "approved" of STATE restrictions (duh, the fact that there were state restrictions cuts against the theory that the federal government should have gun control power). HE also claims that the original intent was to allow state regulations, and that someone means they wanted federal regulations. Saul also ignores the fact that federal powers did not "appear" until the Commerce clause was expanded under FDR.
Click to expand...
The article read like a good history lesson on concealed vs open-carry and the regional differences on who carried and didn't. We all know--or at least we should all know---that the people up North were less likely to be strapped in public than those down South or out West.
 
calamity said:
The article read like a good history lesson on concealed vs open-carry and the regional differences on who carried and didn't. We all know--or at least we should all know---that the people up North were less likely to be strapped in public than those down South or out West.
Click to expand...

Correct, out of necessity. While it may, repeat may, have started like that, I don't think its remotely true today. Consider why people concealed carry today. Its not the same mindset or rationale.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Correct, out of necessity. While it may, repeat may, have started like that, I don't think its remotely true today. Consider why people concealed carry today. Its not the same mindset or rationale.
Click to expand...

I'd carry if I was a woman with a job which required traveling and staying in hotels or driving long stretches of deserted roads. I guess, you can add to that someone who walked to bus stops or into dark parking garages or stairwells. Maybe even someone who just uses an ATM needs a gun too these days.
 
calamity said:
I'd carry if I was a woman with a job which required traveling and staying in hotels or driving long stretches of deserted roads. I guess, you can add to that someone who walked to bus stops or into dark parking garages or stairwells. Maybe even someone who just uses an ATM needs a gun too these days.
Click to expand...

Right.

So to characterize the Atlantic piece as a hit job on the current state of concealed carry as racist wouldn't be out of hand?
Because make no mistake, that's usually what any framing of gun rights in the South eventually rolls around to. Its like a liberal win/win as far as they can tell.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Right.

So to characterize the Atlantic piece as a hit job on the current state of concealed carry as racist wouldn't be out of hand?
Because make no mistake, that's usually what any framing of gun rights in the South eventually rolls around to. Its like a liberal win/win as far as they can tell.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't simplify it into a racist issue. Hell, it's overly simplistic to take anything racial from 1850 and applying it to today. But, that there may have been a racial component to the gun issues of that time is probably a just argument.
 
calamity said:
I wouldn't simplify it into a racist issue. Hell, it's overly simplistic to take anything racial from 1850 and applying it to today. But, that there may have been a racial component to the gun issues of that time is probably a just argument.
Click to expand...

Now look at the conclusions drawn at the end. The author is trying to tie the two ends up and conflate the two. Its yellow journalism.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Now look at the conclusions drawn at the end. The author is trying to tie the two ends up and conflate the two. Its yellow journalism.
Click to expand...

Today, Americans disagree about the best way to enhance public safety and reduce crime, and that disagreement is voiced in legislatures across the nation. Throughout most of the country and over most of its history, the Second Amendment has not determined the outcome of this debate nor stood in the way of popular public-carry regulations. Then, as now, such regulations were evaluated based on the impact they would have on crime and public safety. At the end of this deadly summer, the debate rages on over how best to balance public safety against the interests of people who wish to “pack heat.” If elected officials decide to restrict the right to carry to those persons who can demonstrate a clear need for a gun, present-day judges should not intervene on the basis of opinions about the right to bear arms from the slave South and its unique culture of violence.
Click to expand...

Not really. I see no problem with his argument even though I may not agree with it.
 
calamity said:
Not really. I see no problem with his argument even though I may not agree with it.
Click to expand...

If elected officials decide to restrict the right to carry to those persons who can demonstrate a clear need for a gun, present-day judges should not intervene on the basis of opinions about the right to bear arms from the slave South and its unique culture of violence.
Click to expand...

You don't need to demonstrate need for any other right. And its calling more unrestricted rights an intervention on behalf of the slave South and its unique culture of violence. Its DEFINITELY trying to conflate the two and discredit the current movement towards more freedom in carry laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom