Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.

Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.

To be fair. They lived in an age when the average rate of fire was 3 rounds a minute.

And no, you couldn't sue your way into the military.

No court is that insane... Well maybe in Italy

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yeah, so?

Why do we think the founding fathers intentions matter? Given that they're so removed from current weapons technology, we have no means of knowing what they'd have thought about it. I.E. What they wanted shouldn't matter in the gun debate.

 easysauce wrote:



so put that card away. Calling that kind of argument "fair" is completely the opposite of true.

I'm not. I'm asking why it matters what the Founding Father's thought. Obviously we've been forced to just pick and choose as time has gone on. So debating their intentions is a farce. A vain attempt to appeal to authority so removed from us that it can't be considered valid.

 easysauce wrote:
so you are against free speech on any tech more modern then the constitution as well then?

Missing the point.

how could the founding fathers envision the internet?

They couldn't. Which is why their intentions don't matter. We choose where free speech is applied, not some guys from 250 years ago. They don't live in our world and couldn't imagine it. What they wanted doesn't matter anymore.

you are pro seizure of property so long as its more modern tech?

No. I think what the founders wanted is irrelevant to us. You can assume that means all kinds of nonsense I didn't say but you're talking to a fictional person who isn't here.

the intentions of the people writing down, inalienable, timeless, human rights, dont matter when determining human rights now?

Why do you think they should matter?

what malarky... and I do reserve that word for the times it is deserved.

Really? Cause you've got about five fallacies in your post other than the basic appeals to authority that make up almost this entire thread. Talk about malarky

You are applying such hypocritical double standards to the constitution, picking and choosing what is correct only as you see fit.

I am? Please point where.

I appeal to no authority, I quote truths that are SELF EVIDENT,

Ignorance is bliss.

The 3/5ths of a person thing was pretty clear at the time as well, but that doesn't mean we didn't change that as time went on. No reason we shouldn't be able to do the same thing on firearms, but yet...

Don't forget all (white land owning) men are created equal.

What's that, no land? Too bad bro.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The term "the people" always refers to individual citizens in the Constitution. The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.

And this is why I post in these threads. The idiocy that exists people's mouths is the best damn entertainment this side of Team America

 sebster wrote:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

People also miss the point that at the time, the Founders had no belief in the need (or security) of a standing army, making militia more essential to national defense.

Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?

Even if they did, who could afford one? The damn things cost $4 million (just for the drone, you still need a nerd who plays too much Flight Simulator ).

 MWHistorian wrote:
"The shot heard around the world" is junk history?

Arguing that taking away guns was even remotely a priority for the British or that it was a major reason for starting the Revolution is junk history. All the tax acts, the Intolerable acts, that silly law that gave British officials a free pass for any crime committed in the colonies, those were all decent reasons, but none of them really involved guns.

And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.

Well come on. Who wouldn't want to own a drone. Personally I'd rather have my own Abrams, but dreams are dreams

 MWHistorian wrote:
That was the sole reason they went to Concord.

Seizing a militia armory is not the same thing as taking away guns from citizens. Even if it was it's still junk history because you're willfully ignoring all the other reasons that sparked the conflicts at Lexington and Concord that had nothing to do with guns.

 Breotan wrote:
In many places, people kept guns to hunt with and to defend themselves against the more warlike Indian tribes. Militia weapons were often stored in armories like we do now. The whole thing about Paul Revere and his midnight ride ("To arms! To arms! The British are coming.") was because the British regulars were marching to seize the militia's armory at Concord.

There's also the reason why the British only moved against the armories in Massachusetts. Like only one state was building a militia

 Breotan wrote:
Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.

That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.

We just didn't like their laws They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea

(my grandfather's M1-Garand he carried in Normandy, which I pretty much have to keep)

There's a reason my dad and I have been maintaining my grandfather's 1911

 Frazzled wrote:


This statement has almost nothing to do with a sane relationship with the Bill of Rights. Did you just fall out of bed and miss over 200 years of jurisdprudence?

The past 200 years of Jurisprudence agree with my interpretation. As D-USA points out;

Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.

Its funny how people change tune with the Constitution (wasn't I accused of that like, a page ago?). It is the law. The highest law of the land, given that the government can't not do what it says under normal circumstance. The flaw with too many Americans is they treat the Constitution like a Fundamentalist treats the Bible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If we are not careful the legislature will legislate themselves more legislators...

This has happened many times.

Didn't they legislate that they couldn't have anymore legislators because the House was becoming too big

 Ahtman wrote:
You can change attitudes toward the Second Amendment without amending it. We know this because it has happened over the last 200 years. This idea that things mean the exact same thing and have been interpreted the same throughout our history is just silly.

The OP article says as such (and I posted a short version in another gun thread a month ago) but as expected, no one cares Doesn't fit their personal narrative of freedom.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Didn't they legislate that they couldn't have anymore legislators because the House was becoming too big

Did they? I've honestly never heard of this.

Pretty sure. The Constitution calls for a Representative per a certain number of citizens. As time went on the House kept getting bigger and we set the House to a fixed number and began appropriating Reps by percentage of population instead.

Yeah, something like that; EDIT: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" The House was fixed to 435 in 1911.

 44Ronin wrote:

I make fun of people who treat an ancient document as a quasi religious document.

Stop making fun of the Constitution. Heathen

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?

Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.

I never know with Dakka anymore

 Grey Templar wrote:


Long term, they likely would have kept the pattern of aggression.

Yeah, but at that point you're talking fantasy, not history. WWII didn't go that way, and never came close to going that way, so talking about what aggressive plans may have followed WWII for Imperial Japan is kind of relegated to the realm of implausibility.

And if they hadn't pissed off America they would probably have been much bolder.

Fighting us was them being bolder. America wasn't as opposed to war with Japan as is sometimes portrayed. Opposed to war with Germany at the time yes, but not with Japan. We'd had escalating tensions with them going on 20 years. The South East Pacific was as much a powder keg in the 1930's as the Balklands in the 1910's. Japan wanted to move south and seize oil rich islands from the Dutch, British, and French. To do so would force them to bypass the Philipinnes which was logistically impossible. They needed those islands. There wasn't any way around that. We knew it. They knew it. Both sides knew the war was coming (Billy Mitchell called it first ).

There was no way for Japan to get what they wanted without fighting us. We were already on edge with them over China. If they started aggressive expansion southward even by risking long logistic lines by not taking the Philippines, we'd have gotten involved, and they knew we would as much as we did. They chose to strike first rather than pretend otherwise, but like I said. They horribly underestimated our ability and willingness to fight them (It's kind of a trait of all the Axis powers really ).

EDIT: Hell just look at how hard they tried to calm us down over numerous blunders in China, like when they fired on a US ship and when one of their soldier's slapped a US ambassador during Nanking. We demanded apologies and got them, they paid us for damages to our ship, even disciplines the soldier involved in the Allison Incident. They were really big on trying to keep us out of their business in Asia. They really didn't want to fight us, but they ran out of options. If that's not bold I'm not sure what is.

And that's all a separate issue from them invading Australia. Britain may have been heavily involved in Europe, but they maintained a fighting force in Asia. They chose to be on a more defensive posture so long as Japan was content to focus mostly on us, but an attack on Australia would have forced Britain's hand. They'd have taken a more aggressive stance, one that would be disastrous for a Japan stress already on all fronts between the US, and China, as well as the fear of a Russian invasion. They did not want to risk escalation with Britain.

EDIT: And for those wanted a great read; Fighting Ships of the Rising Sun, a definitive text on the Japanese Imperial Navy and Japanese grand strategy. Finding a copy of your own would be hard (I paid $120 for mine) but many copies can be found in libraries.

Ah yes. The good old Roosevelt made Pearly Harbor happen history I hear it was going to be the plot of National Treasure 3; We Totally Never Cared About History Give Nick Cage More Money

To further explain;

Gaffes like that are common in diplomacy. Especially in the racist times that were the most of the 20th century. The idea that they were part of some scheme by Roosevelt to entice Japan to strike first is really silly. Many in his administration (himself included) did believe war with Japan was inevitable come the late 30's. They didn't know when but they knew it was coming. A lot of the 'evidence' that they were trying to instigate the conflict was really attempts to try and dissuade Japan from fighting using the typical international politics of the time; carry a bigger stick and make sure to show it off (International politics are about 50% brain dead stupidity).