The history of the second amendment in American culture.

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
The Supreme Court has changed its mind on a lot of things.
Segregation, same sex marriage, interracial marriage and now gun rights.

Are all of these decisions "constitutional fraud"?

In the case of a constitutional amendment the SC has no real governing power there save to protect the right. Not change the constitution. You could be foolish with your reasoning or deliberately attempting to subterfute the 2nd amendment into a holding taken only by those that held positions contrary to the free exercise of other expressions found in your list above.

A government that's consistently trying to disarm it's own populace is a tyrannical government in my book.

Do you really want to live under a police state?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whywhynot

No one is trying to dummy....

I’m trying to stop you from looking like an idiot because your spouting nonesense..

Right, no one at all. Keep telling me this enough and I’ll believe it. NOT!

And, if the BIG LIE, doesn’t work then we move to name calling.

Sorry that’s not going to work on me any more than it did on Trump. He is President and I’m firmly holding on to my guns.

You guys better get a new game plan.

"Our founders made it extraordinarily difficult to amend the Constitution."

Barack Obama

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
God, guts, and guns made America free, not sniveling liberal communistas.

Although I agree with you totally I would even offer a anti gunner another alternative. Lead a push to offer an amendment to the Constitution that favors your cause.

originally posted by: whywhynot
No matter what you post you are never ever never going to get my guns.

Awesome summary!

it seems the crazy du jour is any thread discussing the second, even a podcast simply talking about the 2nd, automatically counts as 'they coming for our guns'...

Where in the op sourced does it talks about taking guns in anyway...

wtf is wrong w ppl.
.....

on the topic,
interesting look at the history of the relevancy of the second and the series of events which were the catalyst for the prominence of gun rights in modern day society.

A Supreme Court decision, that goes against previously established ideas about the Constitution, is not inherently "fraudulent" or illegitimate.

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
A Supreme Court decision, that goes against previously established ideas about the Constitution, is not inherently "fraudulent" or illegitimate.

care to elaborate?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
it seems the crazy du jour is any thread discussing the second, even a podcast simply talking about the 2nd, automatically counts as 'they coming for our guns'...

Where in the op sourced does it talks about taking guns in anyway...

wtf is wrong w ppl.
.....

on the topic,
interesting look at the history of the relevancy of the second and the series of events which were the catalyst for the prominence of gun rights in modern day society.

People are not all stupid. We see how things work.
First - turn the public against guns.
Then - gradually whittle away at gun rights, one thing at a time, in a slow trickle.
Finally - no one has any gun rights anymore. The government is finally in full control of citizens who are totally dependent upon the government.

a reply to: odzeandennz

The OP is insinuating that the Supreme Courts 2008 decision ,giving constitutional gun rights to the individual, is somehow fraudulent. Pointing to the fact that, from 1776 to 2008, the Supreme Court held a different position.

Slavery was once constitutional according to the Supreme Court.

Segregation was also, at one time, constitutional.


One of the OP's comments is below.

"How can it “be a lie when from 1776 to 2008 all Supreme Court decisions ruled the other way???

In fact , as the podcast covers republican and Nixon Supreme Court appointee was quoted as saying.

The shift in its interpretation is “the biggest case of fraud in the history of constitutional law “..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The English Bill Of Rights 1689, gave the American Colonists the right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment was just reaffirming a right that had already been in existence. There was no way that a newly formed U.S. Government was going to ask the people to give up that right, unless inducements where on offer.

a reply to: Ursushorribilis

something had to trigger the change from 2008. gun rights weren't the talk of pre 2008, even after 911, there weren't marches or proposition of arming flight attendants or townhall speak about gun control.

does time and context change and shape society?
if we somehow took an average citizen from 1700s and brought him to 2018, would he say we have twisted things a bit, or the virtue of gun ownership somehow got lost in translation.

...
i feel like I have to make a disclaimer for the mentalists.. THIS is JUST a discussion on society and context, NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS BASED ON A DISCUSSION OF SOCIETY OF TODAY AND YESTERYEAR..
armed blacks somehow changed the constitution a bit or added some provisions which weren't there initially...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How can it “be a lie when from 1776 to 2008 all Supreme Court decisions ruled the other way???

Because the forces loyal (Loyalists) to the crown were just as gun grabby as the US gubment are today. The supreme court justices were unelected, appointed for life. Another trade off, in the constant never ending battle of state vs. citizen rights.

The opening salvo from british occupation soldiers was directed at colonists retrieving their firearms that were kept under lock and key.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

If it actually meant regular citizens couldn’t be “infringed” then there couldn’t constitutionally be ANY fun free zones..

Yet no one has successfully sued to abolish them.

Thats because all the laws concerning guns are just passed, without being put before a vote of the people. Go ahead and try to sue... lulz. Or sue the gubment for attacking foreign sovereign countries, lol.

As far as Militia, the minutemen couldn't be a standing army, they were to be ready in one minute. Thats the local populace. That "Militia".

Like I said they were fully aware of this, didn't need mentioning, in their day. There was no National Guard in between civilians and the 'Regular' Army in their day. Not even a police force, like we have now..

originally posted by: odzeandennz
it seems the crazy du jour is any thread discussing the second, even a podcast simply talking about the 2nd, automatically counts as 'they coming for our guns'...

Where in the op sourced does it talks about taking guns in anyway...

wtf is wrong w ppl.
.....

on the topic,
interesting look at the history of the relevancy of the second and the series of events which were the catalyst for the prominence of gun rights in modern day society.

If it were intended to be a serious discussion it wouldn’t had been posted by the OP in the mud pit so I challenge that it was an interesting historical discussion.

And, YES, I equal a discussion of the 2 nd Amendment as they want to take my guns. If you don’t tie that together then that is your issue not mine.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I bet dollars to donuts that was a fake story...

When ever something seems too ridiculous for a Normal human to have done it.. then it takes multiple people to agree and call the cops..

It is usually just propaganda.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
it seems the crazy du jour is any thread discussing the second, even a podcast simply talking about the 2nd, automatically counts as 'they coming for our guns'...

Where in the op sourced does it talks about taking guns in anyway...

wtf is wrong w ppl.
.....

on the topic,
interesting look at the history of the relevancy of the second and the series of events which were the catalyst for the prominence of gun rights in modern day society.

The OP knew what he was doing when he placed this in the mud pit and not the history forum.

So if we were to start a well organized militia and got members , that the government wouldn't shut it down?
How are we supposed to do that?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: BlueAjah

I bet dollars to donuts that was a fake story...

When ever something seems too ridiculous for a Normal human to have done it.. then it takes multiple people to agree and call the cops..

It is usually just propaganda.

We live in a world where tax cuts and keeping internet control away from the government will kill people..

Keep trying to use the argument of "normal human".