Members banned from this thread: cotton |
Cletus (07-31-2021),stjames1_53 (08-01-2021)
I think people should try wearing an N-95 mask all day before they answer this. Venting certainly helps but N-95 certainly interferes with breathing and collect moisture, bacteria, snarts, spit, sweat...
Vented helps quite a bit but even with vented mask the breaks are very welcome where they can be removed and hopefully tossed.
They are asking school kids to do what working adults only tolerate because they are getting paid and know the alternative is worse. The poor kids will get in trouble for lifting their masks for a minute to breathe.
Cletus (07-31-2021),stjames1_53 (08-01-2021)
So your argument is this: "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Your thesis hangs on that one line and anything that crosses that line you consider to be unconstitutional.
I have shown many times before that gun control/regulation has a very long history in this country and something that was thought necessary. I have picked up an article here that is well sourced, and I'd like you to read it all, and digest it before you raise a quick and uninformative reply.
https://theconversation.com/five-typ...rs-loved-85364
I have been researching and writing about the history of gun regulation and the Second Amendment for the past two decades. When I began this research, most people assumed that regulation was a relatively recent phenomenon, something associated with the rise of big government in the modern era. Actually, while the founding generation certainly esteemed the idea of an armed population, they were also ardent supporters of gun regulations.
The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result.
That is a sampling of my argument against the one line: "shall not be Infringed". There are a host of (objective) books and websites that get into the history of gun control in the United States. Not the least of which was the banning of carrying guns in some frontier towns and cities: i.e. Tombstone Arizona, and for good reason when we consider the context and purposes of such bannings.
Please get grounded in the material; one line is not an argument.
Last edited by jet57; 07-31-2021 at 03:36 PM.
Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
Pick your enemies carefully.
carolina73 (08-01-2021)
You need to do better.
Tombstone, Boston, the individual colonies... those are all LOCAL ordinances and have nothing to do with the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.
If you want to discuss it, start a thread. Such a discussion does not belong in the middle of this one.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater
carolina73 (08-01-2021)
According to whom?
The fact that something was not challenged in court does not mean it would withstand a constitutional challenge.
The other thing is that the "incorporation doctrine", which made the the First, Second, Fourth and Eighth Amendments apply to the states did not go into effect until 1868. Prior o that, the Bill of Rights applied only to actions taken by the FEDERAL government. Prior to 1868, none of those rights guaranteed in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution could be enforced at state level.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater
Captdon (08-02-2021)
The logical conclusion concerning colonial America post revolution is that very early in our history gun control was active and legal really for the same reasons it is now. STILL nobody's sued over any of it, and I'm quite sure, given what Scalia wrote in the Heller decision, that the gun rights people are scared to do it. What other explanation is there? The source article I provided lists exactly why gun control was an issue in 1776, and even having THAT, as close to ratification date as all that was, nobody was worried about the second amendment.
YOU can say all you want that any gun control is illegal under the phrase "shall not infringe", but as we've seen here, both American history and the law disagree with you.
Thanks; it was a fun debate.