The Real National Emergency

[Into the Night]

Stupid democrat plan: Confiscate guns from every American willing for their guns to be taken away so that thugs unwilling to give up their guns will have greater wicked advantages when committing gun crimes in largely unarmed populated areas.

That's because a lot of the thugs are Democrats.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So a form determines what is the 'wrong hands'? Why? Why this particular form? What is so magickal about it that gives it this power?

Do you have any other ideas?

 

[Into the Night]

Do you have any other ideas?

I would, for example, include prisoners as 'the wrong hands'. They have had their rights taken away by due process of law. I open the question for debate. Is a government form, or the government itself, really the best way to arbitrarily choose the 'wrong hands'?

 

[Atheist 2020]

WRONG.The 2nd amendment isn't Jello. It doesn't change with time.

The Federalist Party is dead. And the war of 1812 ended the theory of the Second Amendment as the Federalist Party believed. States demanded that white males from a certain age to own firearms. And second, troops only fight within there own state. And the ability to send troops into Canada with the army with men with their own firearm was a disaster. I hope you can study the war of 1812 and how poorly the use of the second amendment was during the war. We had men forced to own different firearms, have them untrained to understand their firearms, untrained to organized as a army, a believe they can take all of Canada with less than 5,000 men. The war was so bad, that American livestock farmers were feeding the average Canadian military with more meet then the American military got from the American livestock farmers. To be kind, American historians declare the war of 1812 was a draw. To be truthful, Canada won the war.

During the Lincoln Administration, if we decided to fight the south like the war of 1812, and use the second amendment -- the Confederate States of America would have won its independence. The south fought the Civil War like the war of 1812. General Grant cut the south in two with controlling the Mississippi river. Texas never sent any troops to fight on the Mississippi river, and reunite the Confederate States of America. General Sherman, took Atlanta and marched to the Atlantic ocean, and that cut off the south into three parts. The troops from Florida never marched out of its state to Atlanta. Florida, and what it did in the Civil War is finding little to what it did. True, General Lee did have some troops from different states, but that was uncommon.

Any current army general will not use the second amendment to fight a war. During the war of 1812, you would find generals to say yes. Yes, the second amendment has changed from the 19th century into the 21st century.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Federalist Party is dead. And the war of 1812 ended the theory of the Second Amendment as the Federalist Party believed. States demanded that white males from a certain age to own firearms. And second, troops only fight within there own state. And the ability to send troops into Canada with the army with men with their own firearm was a disaster. I hope you can study the war of 1812 and how poorly the use of the second amendment was during the war. We had men forced to own different firearms, have them untrained to understand their firearms, untrained to organized as a army, a believe they can take all of Canada with less than 5,000 men. The war was so bad, that American livestock farmers were feeding the average Canadian military with more meet then the American military got from the American livestock farmers. To be kind, American historians declare the war of 1812 was a draw. To be truthful, Canada won the war.

During the Lincoln Administration, if we decided to fight the south like the war of 1812, and use the second amendment -- the Confederate States of America would have won its independence. The south fought the Civil War like the war of 1812. General Grant cut the south in two with controlling the Mississippi river. Texas never sent any troops to fight on the Mississippi river, and reunite the Confederate States of America. General Sherman, took Atlanta and marched to the Atlantic ocean, and that cut off the south into three parts. The troops from Florida never marched out of its state to Atlanta. Florida, and what it did in the Civil War is finding little to what it did. True, General Lee did have some troops from different states, but that was uncommon.

Any current army general will not use the second amendment to fight a war. During the war of 1812, you would find generals to say yes. Yes, the second amendment has changed from the 19th century into the 21st century.

why is the anti gun movement tied so closely to the big government movement?

 

[Terryj]

Gun Deaths

We are the Worst developed Country in the World for them. And, each year, we are getting Worse. We've had a 50% increase in gun homicides from 2014.

40,000 gun deaths per year and counting....

Now, that is a National Emergency!

What this is called is "cherry picking" your data to fit your narrative.

I guess being killed in an "undeveloped" country is different than being killed in a "developed" country, maybe it's a different kind of death. I kind of thought that all death is just that death whether your killed by a firearm, knife or what have you. If you look at the murder rate worldwide the U.S. comes in at 37th on the list.

 

[Rucker61]

What this is called is "cherry picking" your data to fit your narrative.

I guess being killed in an "undeveloped" country is different than being killed in a "developed" country, maybe it's a different kind of death. I kind of thought that all death is just that death whether your killed by a firearm, knife or what have you. If you look at the murder rate worldwide the U.S. comes in at 37th on the list.

They claim that it's the gun laws that work while introducing a second variable "developed" vs "undeveloped". Univariate solutions for multivariate problems are seldom satisfactory.

 

[Into the Night]

The Federalist Party is dead.

Irrelevant.

And the war of 1812 ended the theory of the Second Amendment as the Federalist Party believed.

Irrelevant. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with war.
...deleted remaining irrelevant material...

During the war of 1812, you would find generals to say yes. Yes, the second amendment has changed from the 19th century into the 21st century.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with armies and war. It discusses two rights. The right of a State to self defense by organizing a militia, and the right of the individual to self defense by owning and bearing arms, including guns.

 

[Atheist 2020]

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with armies and war. It discusses two rights. The right of a State to self defense by organizing a militia, and the right of the individual to self defense by owning and bearing arms, including guns.

A true conservative, would understand the history of the second amendment and wars. Lets play a game, it is the year 1800 and your from Vermont and I am from Canada. I have a trained army and I am sending 20,000 men in arms to Vermont. You talk about the state right to self defense and to use a militia. I call that a war, and what are you going to call it -- a police action? Your liberal values are showing. What do you call the Korea conflict, a police action too? I am going to treat you like a child that sets in the back seats of a classroom. If you are going to have a policy of the second amendment, you have to understand the American wars of the 19th century. If you reject the understanding of the second amendment and wars, you are holding a very liberal understanding. Your not a conservative, your a bleeding heart liberal.

 

[Rucker61]

A true conservative, would understand the history of the second amendment and wars. Lets play a game, it is the year 1800 and your from Vermont and I am from Canada. I have a trained army and I am sending 20,000 men in arms to Vermont. You talk about the state right to self defense and to use a militia. I call that a war, and what are you going to call it -- a police action? Your liberal values are showing. What do you call the Korea conflict, a police action too? I am going to treat you like a child that sets in the back seats of a classroom. If you are going to have a policy of the second amendment, you have to understand the American wars of the 19th century. If you reject the understanding of the second amendment and wars, you are holding a very liberal understanding. Your not a conservative, your a bleeding heart liberal.

If Canada invaded Vermont, the US government would federalize the Vermont militia and other states' militias under Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution. The 2A doesn't enter in to it.

 

[Atheist 2020]

If Canada invaded Vermont, the US government would federalize the Vermont militia and other states' militias under Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution. The 2A doesn't enter in to it.

During the Spanish American War (1898), Theodore Roosevelt from New York organize the Rough Riders to join a military unit with the blessing of the state of Texas. He got so many to join, he became a Colonel. They used there own uniforms, and was not part of the regular army. Lucky, they won a battle in Cuba. Colonel Roosevelt was never a member of the regular army, or have a lower military rank then being a Colonel. Because he was a Colonel, he used that title to become Governor of New York, then Vice President and then become the President. All because of the second amendment.

Colonel Sanders (1890 - 1980), during the 1930's spent $300 dollars to become a Colonel in Kentucky. During the depression, the state of Kentucky was selling military titles. Colonel Sanders started the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food chain. Even today, they find a actor to play himself as Colonel Sanders. How many vets over the years decided to eat fried chicken from Kentucky Fried Chicken because the founder used the title Colonel Sanders. The title Colonel is a marketing tool. All because of the second amendment. The state of Kentucky organized a militia, and sold military titles. Today, Kentucky Fried Chicken uses Colonel Sanders as their icon. All because of the second amendment. So, the second amendment and fried chicken have something in common.

 

[Rucker61]

During the Spanish American War (1898), Theodore Roosevelt from New York organize the Rough Riders to join a military unit with the blessing of the state of Texas. He got so many to join, he became a Colonel. They used there own uniforms, and was not part of the regular army. Lucky, they won a battle in Cuba. Colonel Roosevelt was never a member of the regular army, or have a lower military rank then being a Colonel. Because he was a Colonel, he used that title to become Governor of New York, then Vice President and then become the President. All because of the second amendment.

The "Rough Riders" was the nickname of the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, called up by President Wilson to augment the US Army. This is exactly what I'm talking. It's a militia called up to federal service by the President under Article 2, Section 2. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with this. The Second Aemdnemtn protects the arms of the People so that the federal government can never disarms the states. Leonard Wood was the original commander of the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, not Roosevelt, who only took over when Leonard Wood became commander of Second Cavalry Brigade. Roosevelt had previously served as an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

Colonel Sanders (1890 - 1980), during the 1930's spent $300 dollars to become a Colonel in Kentucky. During the depression, the state of Kentucky was selling military titles. Colonel Sanders started the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food chain. Even today, they find a actor to play himself as Colonel Sanders. How many vets over the years decided to eat fried chicken from Kentucky Fried Chicken because the founder used the title Colonel Sanders. The title Colonel is a marketing tool. All because of the second amendment. The state of Kentucky organized a militia, and sold military titles. Today, Kentucky Fried Chicken uses Colonel Sanders as their icon. All because of the second amendment. So, the second amendment and fried chicken have something in common.

Kentucky Colonels have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[Atheist 2020]

The "Rough Riders" was the nickname of the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, called up by President Wilson to augment the US Army. This is exactly what I'm talking. It's a militia called up to federal service by the President under Article 2, Section 2. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with this. The Second Aemdnemtn protects the arms of the People so that the federal government can never disarms the states. Leonard Wood was the original commander of the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, not Roosevelt, who only took over when Leonard Wood became commander of Second Cavalry Brigade. Roosevelt had previously served as an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

President Wilson was president from 1913 - 1921. He was president during World War I, not the Spanish American War of 1898. During the Civil War, and even into the Spanish American War: if you get a number of people to join in the state militia -- you could end up as a Colonel or even a General.

George Custer, during the Civil War as a Michigan Cavalry was a Major General. When he was placed in the regular army, he was a Lieutenant Colonel. In 1876, at the age of 36, he was killed in the Little Bighorn, Montana. When the Civil War was over in 1865, he was 25 years old. In the Michigan Cavalry, he was a Major General and in the regular army he was a Lieutenant Colonel at the age of 25. If you study the Civil War, there were more political Generals coming from the states or the regular army. Both the north and the south had the same problem.

Kentucky Colonels have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

States have the right under the second amendment to have a well regulated militia. It comes from the Second Amendment. During the depression, the state of Kentucky needed money any way they could get it. So Kentucky, during the 1930's was selling military titles. For $300 dollars, you could purchase the title of Colonel. That is how Colonel Sanders got his title.

 

[Rucker61]

President Wilson was president from 1913 - 1921. He was president during World War I, not the Spanish American War of 1898.

Sorry, McKinley. I was multitasking during my reply.

During the Civil War, and even into the Spanish American War: if you get a number of people to join in the state militia -- you could end up as a Colonel or even a General.

George Custer, during the Civil War as a Michigan Cavalry was a Major General. When he was placed in the regular army, he was a Lieutenant Colonel. In 1876, at the age of 36, he was killed in the Little Bighorn, Montana. When the Civil War was over in 1865, he was 25 years old. In the Michigan Cavalry, he was a Major General and in the regular army he was a Lieutenant Colonel at the age of 25. If you study the Civil War, there were more political Generals coming from the states or the regular army. Both the north and the south had the same problem.

Even in WWII there was difference in rank between the Regular Army and the Army of the United States even for the same person. One could have a Regular Army (aka permanment) rank of colonel and be a Major General in the AUS during the war, holding the position of a major general.

States have the right under the second amendment to have a well regulated militia. It comes from the Second Amendment.

The power of having a state militia doesn't come from the Second Amendment. It comes from the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Second merely protects the arms of the People from the federal government. Otherwise all the federal government would need to do to disarm the state militias is federalize them, muster them and have Congress under Article 1, Section 8 determine that the militia would have no arms.

During the depression, the state of Kentucky needed money any way they could get it. So Kentucky, during the 1930's was selling military titles. For $300 dollars, you could purchase the title of Colonel. That is how Colonel Sanders got his title.

Interesting, but not germane.

 

[Atheist 2020]

The power of having a state militia doesn't come from the Second Amendment. It comes from the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Second merely protects the arms of the People from the federal government. Otherwise all the federal government would need to do to disarm the state militias is federalize them, muster them and have Congress under Article 1, Section 8 determine that the militia would have no arms.

I cannot fix stupid. Militia is only said within the second amendment. Only under a very liberal understanding of the term militia, is that it is every single American.

Side note of the 9th and 10th amendment. Under the constitution of the Confederate States of America -- there is no equal wording within that constitution.

 

[Rucker61]

I cannot fix stupid. Militia is only said within the second amendment.

None of the amendments grant person any rights or states any powers. The Constitution grants enumerated powers to the federal government. The Bill of Rights further restricts the powers of the federal government. The powers of the states to have militia are inherent by their existence.

Amendment X, Bill of Rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." US v Cruikshank, 1876.

Only under a very liberal understanding of the term militia, is that it is every single American.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution wherein the Congress derives its powers:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

In other words, the militia is exactly what the federal government says it is. Currently, that definition is found in 10 USC 246:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Side note of the 9th and 10th amendment. Under the constitution of the Confederate States of America -- there is no equal wording within that constitution.

Not germane.

 

[Rich2018]

So. What do you propose? Declaring a national emergency?

Then what? Declare the 2nd Amendment null and void? Good luck with that.

Then what?

Repeal the 2nd amendment.

Ban all guns

Seize all guns not surrendered.


Is that too simple for you ?

 

[Mycroft]

Repeal the 2nd amendment.

Ban all guns

Seize all guns not surrendered.


Is that too simple for you ?

Okay. Go with that.

1. Repealing the 2nd is a tall order. It'll never happen.

2. The National Emergencies Act doesn't give anyone the power to repeal anything.

Until you get that first step done, you are forbidden by the Constitution from doing the rest.

 

[Rucker61]

Okay. Go with that.

1. Repealing the 2nd is a tall order. It'll never happen.

2. The National Emergencies Act doesn't give anyone the power to repeal anything.

Until you get that first step done, you are forbidden by the Constitution from doing the rest.

There was something simple in his post, but it wasn't his process.

 

[Atheist 2020]

Amendment X, Bill of Rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I really do not support states rights. I travel a great deal, and I want to get the same services from one state to the next. I want to do something in one state as another state. In Tennessee, it is illegal to play BINGO because it is gambling. In other states nobody cares about. Living in the south, people that talk about the 10th amendment and states rights are the crazy people. It really gets strange when they talk about states rights and fly or display the confederate flag. Because, under the constitution of the Confederate States of America -- there is no equal wording of the 10th amendment or the 9th amendment within that constitution. Saying you support states rights, and you fly or display a confederate flag -- you just do not understand what your talking about.

Second, the National Rifle Association talks about the second amendment. They do not talk about gun rights on the 9th or 10th amendment. But, for some reason you do and the NRA says otherwise. Since your a states rights person, your just part of the loony bin. I find states rights as a cancer on the political social order.

 

[Rucker61]

I really do not support states rights. I travel a great deal, and I want to get the same services from one state to the next. I want to do something in one state as another state. In Tennessee, it is illegal to play BINGO because it is gambling. In other states nobody cares about. Living in the south, people that talk about the 10th amendment and states rights are the crazy people. It really gets strange when they talk about states rights and fly or display the confederate flag. Because, under the constitution of the Confederate States of America -- there is no equal wording of the 10th amendment or the 9th amendment within that constitution. Saying you support states rights, and you fly or display a confederate flag -- you just do not understand what your talking about.

What you want doesn't change reality. The US Constitution was based on states' powers and delegated federal powers. You'd really not like states with dry counties.

Second, the National Rifle Association talks about the second amendment. They do not talk about gun rights on the 9th or 10th amendment. But, for some reason you do and the NRA says otherwise. Since your a states rights person, your just part of the loony bin. I find states rights as a cancer on the political social order.

I'm just describing reality. You will note that the 14th Amendment took some of the powers of the states away. The NRA talks about the Second Amendment because they help protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. Does the NRA talk about the militia?

 

[Rich2018]

Okay. Go with that.

1. Repealing the 2nd is a tall order. It'll never happen.

2. The National Emergencies Act doesn't give anyone the power to repeal anything.

Until you get that first step done, you are forbidden by the Constitution from doing the rest.

1. You're probably right

2. Well emergency powers might persuade a future president he/she has the power to ban all gun and ammunition sales.


Then perhaps ban only certain types of firearm - like semi/fully automatic long guns....then hand guns....

The right to bear arms would not be infringed of course...just that those wishing to compensate for a small appendage would have to restrict their choice to those firearms approved by the White House.

 

[Rich2018]

There was something simple in his post, but it wasn't his process.

Was it the beautiful language ?

 

[Mycroft]

1. You're probably right

2. Well emergency powers might persuade a future president he/she has the power to ban all gun and ammunition sales.


Then perhaps ban only certain types of firearm - like semi/fully automatic long guns....then hand guns....

The right to bear arms would not be infringed of course...just that those wishing to compensate for a small appendage would have to restrict their choice to those firearms approved by the White House.

The National Emergencies Act doesn't give anyone the power to ban any firearms.

You really don't know what the Act is or what it allows to be done, do you?

 

[Rucker61]

1. You're probably right

2. Well emergency powers might persuade a future president he/she has the power to ban all gun and ammunition sales.


Then perhaps ban only certain types of firearm - like semi/fully automatic long guns....then hand guns....

The right to bear arms would not be infringed of course...just that those wishing to compensate for a small appendage would have to restrict their choice to those firearms approved by the White House.

Given that both semiautomatic long guns and hand guns are "bearable arms" and given that both are in common use for lawful purposes, any bans of those would in fact infringe the right to keep and bear arms. See DC v Heller and Caetano v Massachusetts.