UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 132675  
Subject: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/boom-ben-shapiro-cut...

By a worthy successor to Breitbart...he even uses the term "punch back twice as hard."
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114021 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 3:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I should say that Shapiro's argument hangs on the fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is to give the people the right and opportunity to defend against government tyranny.

Most people would give up such an abstract right for imagined comforts. However, Piers did not bring this up. He was too taken aback for being accused of standing on the graves of Chicago children.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114024 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 5:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Read the transcript. Freaking awesome. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done: Face down their bullcrap and throw it right back in their faces.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114029 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 6:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I should say that Shapiro's argument hangs on the fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is to give the people the right and opportunity to defend against government tyranny.

Shapiro is sort of right, except that "the people" in the historical context the Second Amendment was set in, more likely refers to the states. That's not to say that the Second isn't also based on common law notions of an individual right of self-defense. But with regard to defense against a tyrannical government, the idea was to defend the state against a "standing army," which some founders feared, and against which a well-regulated militia was a necessary protection. As I've opined before, the quaint common notion that the founders intended to make a mob rebellion easier by making weapon ownership ubiquitous is contradicted by historical fact.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Dwdonhoff Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114032 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 7:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
the quaint common notion that the founders intended to make a mob rebellion easier by making weapon ownership ubiquitous is confirmed by seperate statements of the framers themselves.

There... fixed that for ya.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114034 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 7:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Mob" rule as in that rabble that threw out the Redcoats?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114035 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 7:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
the quaint common notion that the founders intended to make a mob rebellion easier by making weapon ownership ubiquitous is confirmed by seperate statements of the framers themselves.
---
There... fixed that for ya.


Would you mind supporting your assertion with actual facts? In this case, please provide statements from the framers showing they intended for arms ownership to be ubiquitous in order to make a mob rebellion easier? (Just a few of them will do, since they were not of unanimous opinion on this or much else.) Jefferson's "tree of liberty" statement might be a good start, but be careful about the context.

I'll gladly argue the opposite.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Dwdonhoff Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114039 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 8:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 29
Would you mind supporting your assertion with actual facts?

Quite easily;
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=2nd+amendment+quotes

In this case, please provide statements from the framers showing they intended for arms ownership to be ubiquitous in order to make a mob rebellion easier?

On Preservation of the Common Power of Rebellion and Insurrection:

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
? Thomas Jefferson

...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)


On Preservation of Ubiquity:

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TiptreeTwo Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Global Fool Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114040 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 9:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
One more, one of my favorites:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788<

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114044 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/11/2013 11:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Some greyling just got owned. Nice job.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114047 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/12/2013 12:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Mob" rule as in that rabble that threw out the Redcoats?

No. Armed rabble as in the tax rebels in Massachusetts that sparked the Constitutional Convention and the one in Western Pennsylvania that President George Washington crushed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114053 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/12/2013 5:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
"Would you mind supporting your assertion with actual facts? In this case, please provide statements from the framers showing they intended for arms ownership to be ubiquitous in order to make a mob rebellion easier? (Just a few of them will do, since they were not of unanimous opinion on this or much else.) Jefferson's "tree of liberty" statement might be a good start, but be careful about the context."

You rely on the Shay's rebellion argument like it is the only point in history that actually matters. Clue: it isn't the be all and end all to this argument though I do have one.

While history is replete with quotes that support our contention, we do not need a lot. We really only need one from one of the authors of the second amendment, actully two. The author I speak of is George Mason.

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

There is a first. This is a two fold reminder. One, that America was shaking off the chains of tyranny England had wrapped around them and thus one could reasonably deduce the founding fathers wanted no government to ever again enslave the America people.

Two, history is replete with tyrannical governments slowly disarming the people. What our government is proposing now we already know will not fix the problem they are supposedly addressing and it is a slow disarming of the American people. Handguns are used to kill more children than any other gun in America. If this were truly about the children, we would be talking about banning all guns.

The second quote which supports the first quote and our argument.

"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

So here is the answer to the age old question about who the second amendment refers to and it is answered by one of its very authors.

Indeed, an idiot would say that the second amendment would only apply to the militia thinking it supported their argument that it was not an individual right. They would ignore the fact that everywhere the term "the people" refers to individual rights but in only one place in the entire thing it would not refer to the individual. This defies logic.

Despite what any leftist with a limited view of our founders intent says, they believed in the natural right of man to throw off their oppressors no matter who they were. They even believed one day our own government might become oppressive and we had the unalienable right to overthrow it and establish a new government. That is really part of the whole basis of a representative governmet. If they are no longer representing you, if they are oppressive, then it is time to get rid of them. These men would have believed that more than anyone.

There are those who say we couldn't possibly win against the government anyway. One, the government is ensuring that by taking away weapons for no other reason than they don't like them. Two, the military is part of the citizenry too and there is no one who can say 1/4, a 1/2, or 2/3's of those won't join in any potential rebellion that might happen. Why would you trust a government that would disarm you while giving you a clearly bogus excuse as to why they are?

The second amendment says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." By taking specific guns and capabilities away from us is an attempt to infringe on our rights. It is nothing more than a naked gun grab as nothing they are talking about would have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. Nothing. Anyone who argues otherwise is arguing from a position of ignorance or dishonesty.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114054 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/12/2013 5:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

It doesn't really matter who the militia are.
The Supreme Court settled the argument about Militia confusion:

Issue
•What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?


Holding and Rule
•The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114064 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/12/2013 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You rely on the Shay's rebellion argument like it is the only point in history that actually matters.

No. I refer to Shays' Rebellion as if it were the catalyst and context for the Constitutional Congress.

In early 1787 John Jay wrote that the rural disturbances and the inability of the central government to fund troops in response made "the inefficiency of the Federal government [become] more and more manifest."[62] Henry Knox observed that the uprising in Massachusetts clearly influenced local leaders who had previously opposed a strong federal government. Historian David Szatmary writes that the timing of the rebellion "convinced the elites of sovereign states that the proposed gathering at Philadelphia must take place."[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion


I like this quote:

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

It supports my argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the existence of well-regulated militias to defend the state against a standing army led by a tyrant and to put down popular rebellions by malcontents like Shays' Rebellion. Also supporting this argument is the fact that President Washington used state militias to do exactly that when he led them against the Whiskey Rebellion.


Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

I've seen this before, but forget who said it. (You don't say.) At the time, 240 years ago, it was more or less true. It isn't anymore.


Indeed, an idiot would say that the second amendment would only apply to the militia...

Perhaps. I'm not saying the Second applies only to militias.


They would ignore the fact that everywhere the term "the people" refers to individual rights but in only one place in the entire thing it would not refer to the individual.

Actually, the phrase "the people" doesn't always refer to individuals. It didn't at the time of the Constitution's writing, and it doesn't now, as in the People's Republic of China. I read something on this recently that was specifically about the use of the phrase in the Constitution, comparing the way "the rights of the people" was used in the Second to it's absence in the other amendments. It argued that "rights of the people" had a collective, not individual, meaning. Can't find it right now, but I'll look it up if you ask nicely.


The second amendment says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Actually, it says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You can argue about the meaning of the introductory clause, but leaving it out weakens your argument. It's in there for a reason.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114073 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/12/2013 1:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
""[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

It supports my argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the existence of well-regulated militias to defend the state against a standing army led by a tyrant and to put down popular rebellions by malcontents like Shays' Rebellion. Also supporting this argument is the fact that President Washington used state militias to do exactly that when he led them against the Whiskey Rebellion."


But it doesn't support your argument since the other quote states that the militia is every citizen.

"I've seen this before, but forget who said it. (You don't say.) At the time, 240 years ago, it was more or less true. It isn't anymore."

I did say. You don't read well but we established that before. George Mason, one of the authors of the second amendment wrote it. And it is just as relevant if not moreso today given the founding fathers believed every man had a natural right to defend himself, especially against a tyrannical government.

"Actually, the phrase "the people" doesn't always refer to individuals. It didn't at the time of the Constitution's writing, and it doesn't now, as in the People's Republic of China. I read something on this recently that was specifically about the use of the phrase in the Constitution, comparing the way "the rights of the people" was used in the Second to it's absence in the other amendments. It argued that "rights of the people" had a collective, not individual, meaning. Can't find it right now, but I'll look it up if you ask nicely."

Actually the phrase does refer to individuals, even the supreme court says so. You are wrong once again. Let me put my shocked fact on. :0

I am not asking you to do anything as I already know it is an individual right.

"You can argue about the meaning of the introductory clause, but leaving it out weakens your argument. It's in there for a reason."

It doesn't weaken my argument. You just lack enough education on it or you are lying. It really says even though a militia may be required for a free state, no one will be banned from being able to arm themselves.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114081 of 132675
Subject: Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date: 1/12/2013 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But it doesn't support your argument since the other quote states that the militia is every citizen.

I'd say "was," 240 years ago, not is. It's simply not true anymore.

And to be clear, I believe everyone has a natural right to defense themselves. Lets take that as a given. It does not follow then that everyone has a natural right to possess whatever weaponry they like. Most agree on that too. The debate is over where to draw the line between pocket knives and nukes, so to speak. So you can stop pretending to possess the moral high ground. Our difference is about degree, not principle.


Actually the phrase does refer to individuals, even the supreme court says so.

The Supreme Court is wrong about this. It's not the first time the Supreme Court has been wrong about something, nor the last.


It doesn't weaken my argument. You just lack enough education on it or you are lying.

Your ad hominem taunts are so tedious.


It really says even though a militia may be required for a free state, no one will be banned from being able to arm themselves.

That's not what it means, but I understand why you want to think so.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement