[Jim March]

We all run into some pretty weird types online, even among those supposedly pro-gun.

I came across a real strange dude on the Guns'n'Ammo magazine forum, and..."got into it".

http://floridasportsman.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=44677

Very surreal :).

[UnknownSailor]

I dunno. The guy seems just a bit......hard headed.
:confused:

[Gray Peterson]

The basic reasoning behind his belief is that the 14th amendment wasn't ratified, or rather, it was ratified at gunpoint.

From the US' perspective, the Confederate States were occupied territory, like the way we occupied West Germany and western Belin after the second World War. At that point, they could quite literally make any demands they wanted. Want to rejoin the union? Ratify the 14th amendment. Given the goodness of the amendment itself (it basically gave the American people the protections against state infringements on their liberties), I think it was worth it.

It wasn't until the SCOTUS of 1872 to 1900 started reviewing court decisions and started protecting the Southern States. It's widely believed that the courts were filled with confederate sympathizers at the SCOTUS level, and that they did not agree with the 14th amendment, and told the government to pound sand.

Then, the infamous 1876 election. My direct ancestor, Rutherford B. Hayes, made a deal with democratic team of Samuel Tilden to have them stop disputing the election. The cost? End of the Reconstruction, and therefor, the end of attempts to clamp down on state sponsored racism for nearly 80 years.

[fallingblock]

it's a bit like fighting the C.W. all over again!;)

[Cal4D4]

Great discussion. I enjoyed all the references to past milestones and millstones. The logic of the 2A battles is being refined in the crucible of honest debate. You may not sway "Hugh Damright", but his challenge gave you a great forum to expose the elitism behind the infringements. Somebody out there gained a better understanding. Well done.

[Blackhawk]

Seems so, Jim....

[Don Gwinn]

There's a lot of truth to the claim that the South was basically forced to ratify the 14th Amendment. However, this ignores the fact that the Confederate states resorted to military force in the first place. There was always the possibility that they could have achieved secession through the courts or legislation, but they didn't try. They tried to do it by military means and lost. When you resort to battle, you accept the consequences. One of the most easily-foreseen consequences of civil war was that if they lost, they'd be in a LOT more trouble than they were when it started. Sure enough, that happened.

The more I look at it, the more convinced I become that more than slavery, more than tariffs, more than anything else, the genesis of the Civil War was a fluttering panic among politicians on both sides.

Now, none of this means that the Federal Government had the right to fight to keep the Confederates in the Union. I'm still not convinced they did. But like a man facing a mugger, they had to deal with the reality of what they knew the Feds would do, not the ideal of what they ought to do.

[ahenry]

Did I handle this right?

Nope.

[Trisha]

You spoke clearly and in well-measured cadence of intellect, with depth and comprehensive resources (even when the whole issue was at risk of devolving into a pissing contest).

Hugh is something of a puzzle.

It is a delight to see our Republic's Constitution understood in some depth.

Well done.

Trisha

[ahadams]

sorta looked like you were wrestling with a pig and you know how that always ends up - both parties splattered with :cuss: and the pig loving every minute of it. You did well, but I don't think your opposition was worth the effort.

[NewShooter78]

Well I'm used to Hugh from over at Guns & Ammo's forum as well as a couple of the other posters on that thread. I don't know if you should have gone so far as to call him a Klansman, but I think besides that part, your arguments were sound. I'm all for State's rights, but not at the cost of personal liberties granted to me by the Constitution.

[moa]

I recently read that when Abe Lincoln won the Presidency, he did it without carrying one of the original deep South states. Lincoln won a plurality of the voters, but not the overall majority. Lincoln won enough electoral votes.

It was probably this fact that finally pushed the Southerns to war, probably figuring they were a separate nation with regards to a the National election results and what was to follow.

However, at that time in 1860/61 I think Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves.

[Jim March]

The whole shtick about the 14th not being ratified isn't what bothers me. He sorta has a point.

What honks me off is his belief that under the original pre-Civil-War constitution/BoR the states could and SHOULD be allowed to do whatever abuses they want, subject only to "mob rule democracy" and unimpeded by the BoR. And therefore, to "love the Constitution" is to be in favor of that happening TODAY.

The racist implications of that are so OBVIOUS, but he gets all aflitter when forced to face that reality.

:rolleyes:

Weirdest "pro-gunner" I've ever seen.

[NewShooter78]

Jim,
You should read some of his past posts at the Guns & Ammo forum. He's got some very strong convictions. But I guess its good to see some really out there opinions, because it does cause you to think. I think he once said I needed to be "re-educated" back before I was given some good arguments against all forms of gun control. I had to go to TFL to get those types of arguments.

[Col. Mustard]

If Hugh considers the 14th invalid because it was not "properly" ratified by the necessary 3/4s of the states, then presumably he considers the 13th to be invalid also. I'd like to hear him defend that position without appearing to be a KKK sympathizer...

[ahenry]

What honks me off is his belief that under the original pre-Civil-War constitution/BoR the states could and SHOULD be allowed to do whatever abuses they want, subject only to "mob rule democracy" and unimpeded by the BoR. And therefore, to "love the Constitution" is to be in favor of that happening TODAY. He did not say that, and your continued inference of that is what I think is hacking him off. All he has claimed is that under the original view of the make-up of our nation, the BoR was only a limitation on the Federal gov’t. It was not in any way, a limitation on the States. That is true despite your attempt to call his argument racist. :rolleyes: You did a nice job of throwing lots of useless data at him, but you never went after what he was actually saying. The bottom line is that good or bad, right or wrong, the end of the War Between the States changed forever the power of the States and the relationship between the states and the federal gov't. States are now little more than large municipalities rather than the “almost nations” they were prior to that little disagreement. Such a change came by use of force and some still resent that, and argue from that POV. Myself, I think the change in understanding of our federal gov’t harmed our nation, but then so did slavery. Regardless, its a done deal now. All I want is for Texas to be a Republic again. :p (just slightly kidding)

[Jim March]

AHenry: yes, that is *consistently* how he argues, on this and other threads.

According to Hugh, it's wrong to ask the Fed courts to control state violations of rights, ANY rights, but especially 2nd Amendment rights.

He refuses to admit the two implications:

1) States could then do whatever racism they wanted;

2) If we're unable to get California under control that way, we won't be able to at all, because they've driven out too many of "our kind" with their BS.

Finally, it is NOT "settled" that pre-14th-Amendment, the states could violate the BoR. Barron flew in the face of the original constitution, which said that the FED constitution took priority over state law and amendments had the full power of the Fed constitution. :scrutiny:

[Gary H]

I've also taken arguments to the personal level and sometimes wish that I hadn't. Implicit in my statement is that sometimes it just felt good. Other than the personal jabs on both sides, it was an interesting thread. You can't change the mind of anyone "Damnright", unless that is just an inside joke.

I've found that the generalization of federal power over local issues to be both beneficial and disturbing. Should the “second” be ruled an individual right by the supreme robes, I would look upon that as generally applicable at all levels. When a school board interprets a constitutional limit on federal limitations regarding religion as prohibiting a valedictorian from speaking of religion, I find that offensive. I must admit, I would also, most likely, find such a speech offense, but protected. Of course, the protection comes from an amendment which I prefer to see generally applied. How about that income tax?

[Jim March]

Well as to the separation of church and state, that's been twisted in a number of weird directions.

If a particular student speaker is prohibited from expressing a personal religious opinion, that's not "separation", that's using anti-religious bias to suppress personal free speech and is clearly wrong.

BUT if agents of the school are using the state school to promote a religious viewpoint, that's wrong too. Especially if they use their position of governmental authority to suppress religious views they don't like.

Now what about voucher schools? Should "government money" go to those, if the parents pick a religious school? I say yes. The parents originally gave that money to the schools, and should be free to direct it as they see fit, so long as other parents have non-religious school options.

[ahenry]

Jim, you are still missing his point (and the one I now find myself defending :uhoh: ). Let me try another approach. He is saying that sans the 14th amendment, the BoR does not apply to the States (you know, being semi autonomous “almost nations” and all). For support I recommend you try either the Federalist Papers or even the Anti-Federalist Papers. They both support such a stance. I don’t feel like holding your hand, so you can find it yourself...I have. You are approaching this argument from a different point of view however. You are saying (correctly) that the 14th amendment does cause the BoR to be binding on the States. You also argue (incorrectly) that the BoR was binding pre-14th, but I digress. You are going at this from the stance of how things are today, for better or worse. I’m in agreement with you that due to the loss of the War Between the States and the subsequent “ratification” of the 14th amendment we now have a document (constitution and all its parts) that is binding on State governments. Since that is the situation we find ourselves in today, I’m all for using it to help eliminate state gun-control laws, but that wasn’t something you would have been able to do pre 1860 or so.

According to Hugh, it's wrong to ask the Fed courts to control state violations of rights, ANY rights, but especially 2nd Amendment rights.

He refuses to admit the two implications:

1) States could then do whatever racism they wanted;

2) If we're unable to get California under control that way, we won't be able to at all, because they've driven out too many of "our kind" with their BS

Well I’ll come right out and do it for him.

1) Yep, they could sans 14th amendment (I hesitate to make such a statement, but you sorta asked for a blanket comment, and this post is long enough without more pontification on this issue. That doesn’t make such actions right, but it does make for a strong Republic (something we haven’t had for 150 years). Don’t like how your state does things, then change it (pay attention choir ;) ).
2) I love what you’re doing in that misbegotten state over there, but to quote and old movie, “frankly...I don’t give a damn”. There is a reason I passed up a honey of a job offer in beautiful Imperial Beach. You are doing some good things out there for your fellow Californian’s, but just as I don’t ask or expect your contributions to legal problems in Texas, you aren’t going to get mine for California. Sorry, I was raised to think like Robert E. Lee who owed his first allegiance to his State.*

Finally, it is NOT "settled" that pre-14th-Amendment, the states could violate the BoR. Barron flew in the face of the original constitution, which said that the FED constitution took priority over state law and amendments had the full power of the Fed constitution. Well if you're still confused, stop reading USSC decisions and lower courts, and read the opinions of the people that actually wrote the thing. Courts are often wrong, in fact you could even say they are habitually so. Better to see what the founders were really trying to accomplish than what narrow, confined situations opined on by biased men many years later suggest they were trying to do.


*I often do many things out of kindness, generosity, or friendship that I have no obligation to do. Contributing to the betterment of another State would fall into this category.

[ahenry]

Well as to the separation of church and state, that's been twisted in a number of weird directions. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell the class where such a “separation of church and state” appears in the constitution.




I more or less agree with your post, I just grow weary of people using a misapplied statement that doesn’t even appear in the constitution.

[eotp]

I believe that ahenry is correct in the things that he has asserted above.

[Diesle]

ahenry,

The arrogance in your posts makes it ALMOST unpalatable to read.

Anyhow…

Better to see what the founders were really trying to accomplish than what narrow, confined situations opined on by biased men many years later suggest they were trying to do.

Is it better...? Or is it better to live in the real world where past cases establish the precedent 'code' by which we are all subject to live by today?

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the task at hand, the document is written with enough ambiguity to leave room for all sorts interpretation. So, unless you have some sort of channeling ability, are have mastered time and space and are able to directly speak to the framers, your in a real pickle. One could insist that ones interpretation of dead mans writings are absolute hard coded fact, or one can rely on “the opinions of biased men” to form a consensus interpretation of a broadly worded document…. Hmmmm….

How in the hell do you survive in today’s world without crawling out of your skin relying on 150 whatever year old standards….? Ya ya …. Texas wants out…… sure sure….

“"The Republic of Texas is no more," proclaimed Anson Jones, the last president of the republic, as he stood on the steps of the old wooden Capitol building in Austin and hauled down the Lone Star flag. The date was Feb. 19, 1846, and the ceremony was the culmination of years of effort on the part of Jones, Sam Houston and other Texas leaders who orchestrated Texas' annexation into the union.”

Get with the times man,

Diesle

[Jim March]

AHenry: I won't argue with you on the exact phrase "separation of church and state". In case anybody doesn't know, the real 1st Amendment phrase this is derived from reads:

------
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html
------

What's interesting is that CONGRESS is prohibited from establishing (or supporting, I assume?) a religion, but states and local gov'ts supported churches circa 1,800ish.

When DID that end, anyhow?

Come to think, the "individual rights" portions of the first amendment are clearly "incorporated" against the states via the 14th but the FIRST clause regarding establishment of religion is a restriction on Fed powers only, and I'm not at all sure that would be incorporated.

Which leaves open fascinating possibilities, don't it?

Aaaaanyways. Doesn't matter much.

[ahenry]

Diesle,

Go back to bed and get up on the other side this time. Dad-gum. First of all, I apologize for coming across so arrogant, wasn’t trying to and it appears that the person I was directing my posts to was able to understand where I was coming from if not the point I was trying to make. However, if you find my posts so “unpalatable” do feel free to ignore them. It isn’t really any skin off my nose. Anyhoo...

Is it better...? Or is it better to live in the real world where past cases establish the precedent 'code' by which we are all subject to live by today? Well first of all, the day I let somebody else (Supreme Court Justices) dictate what is right and wrong (notice the terms please) is the day I roll over and die. However, you have a point that there are two different points of view here. This is why every post I have posted in this thread has included this very point. Thanks for paying attention though. :rolleyes:

Speaking of paying attention, did you read what I wrote? When I joked about Texas did you read the little part in the parenthesis? You know, where I said I was kidding? You entire diatribe about my need to “get with the times” just re-enforces why Jim and Hugh were arguing. They were both coming from two completely separate points of view, and it would appear that “never the twain shall meet”. I sure made every attempt to be clear about the different POVs, but apparently I was still too ambiguous.

And speaking of ambiguity, I couldn’t disagree more with you about the constitution being a broadly worded document. Court Justices seeing the constitution as ambiguous is a big contributor to the situation we find ourselves in today. The only possible portion of the constitution that even remotely approaches “broad” or “ambiguous” is the commerce clause, and we’re not discussing that one in this thread.

[ahenry]

Jim,

As I said, I pretty much agree with your points about the First Amendment, I just get annoyed with the use of a misapplied term. I sort of like accuracy, and while I often fail to use the most appropriate term, and sometimes even use the complete wrong one I do make every effort to make sure I’m not using an incorrect one...

[Diesle]

Go back to bed and get up on the other side this time.

YAAWWNN.. OK im better now. Sorry....

But I still choose to beleive that you want Texas back...! :rolleyes: