Late night thoughts on guns

I am amazed that they -the gun lobby - have been able to convince so many people that there is such a “right”. The only thing I can relate it to is a general acceptance that whatever is not specifically prohibited is allowed. Applying the amendment out of context to weapons in general is simply not rational. Of course politicians give the voters whatever it takes to get elected and re-elected. Supply and demand. Probably best for everyone to repeal the amendment and prohibit specific weapons.

Btw, the select fire “tommy gun” was sold to the public and marketed to, among others, farmers and ranchers to use against aggressive Indians when it came out too late to be used in WW-I.

I can accept that more guns would likely result in more gun violence, but probably not violence in general. I think most people will shy away from killing another person and would prefer a non-lethal weapon to achieve whatever action they intend. Access to a more efficient weapon may induce those bent on aggression to actually take action. Perhaps we should encourage manufacturers to focus on developing a more efficient non-lethal weapon which would make short-range guns (non-military weapons), particularly hand guns, obsolete. I would much rather confront an aggressor in my home with a non-lethal weapon than my 1911 45. Offer me something that isn’t so very, very loud and something that doesn’t put blood, guts and brains on my walls and carpets and I’ll buy one.

I think the article summarizes it just fine

Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.

This kind of covers “belief in god” (small g), but you claimed an influence of the 10 commandments. That can’t be demonstrated. Hume’s inlfluence can be found almost verbatim.

Our laws are not based on Xianity or any deity. The founding fathers came here for religious freedom and they made it clear in the first amendment. Our country is not founded on any religious beliefs and none will be established unless our government destroys the Constitution.

BTW, pull up the Constitution and find one mention of the Xian god or any god. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find it.

1 Like

Error, error. Does not compute.

This land was invaded by people looking for gold and land. They committed genocide to get both. The colonies separated from the British empire because of money issues. Taxation without representation, anyone? Yes, a few came to escape religious persecution, but this nation has always been about business.

I think the term “Creator” (capital C) in the Declaration of Independence" shows a reference to a divine entity, God, not a general concept of a god, a worshipped idol, as the authority for “We the People” to form a government. The Constitution contains the rules for administration of the government formed under that authority, but does not express a basis for such authority.

No I did not. I repeat my post 33:

“You seem to have missed the important part of my statement. I refer you to “… the generic rules for a successful society presented in six or eight of the ten commandments in the Bible.” Note that I did not refer to the two or three or four that set out God as the ultimate authority.”

You should also note that I did not claim these rules originated in the Bible. I simply referred to the book most commonly known by and available to the people of that time, and indeed to the people of our time.

It’s not an error. This country was not founded on any religious beliefs.

No, they were looking for religious freedom… for themselves.

Yes, they committed genocide, but it wasn’t for gold. By that time it was greed, but committing genocide was not the original intent. Religious freedom was.

Not just money issues. They didn’t want anyone from across the pond telling them what to do or what to believe.

True, but it was also religious freedom, thus why the number one Amendment deals with freedom of religion, speech, and press. It doesn’t deal with taxation. That’s another Amendment, but not the first one. Religious freedom and speech was primary and then everything else fell after that.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

First Amendment

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.

Do you see anything about taxation in that very first Amendment? No. Taxation without representation was not the #1 thing. Freedom of religion, speech, and press was.

More on the first Amendment:

If you think this country was started on religion, specifically the 10 Commandments, and taxation without representation, then you need to reread the very first Amendment, as well as the 10 that follow. Very first one addresses religious freedom, not taxation, land, or gold.

In fact, the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, don’t mention “Taxation without representation”. It maybe a side note, but not the primary emphasis.

Bill of Rights

Primary tabs

Yes, you found the one reference. And it’s about as generic as they get. It could refer to any religion or mythology, or even to an uninvolved god, like the one in Deism. In 1776, they didn’t have Darwin or any sense of the age of the universe or the physics of how we came to be, so the idea of a creator was still plausible to them. They also were starting to realize that the future was likely to uncover new knowledge, and government needed to be formulated in a way that allowed for that.

I did miss that. Probably because they are not that generic. George Carlin gets it down to 3, and even says that’s too many. And if they are generic, then why do we need the rest of the Bible? Why is so much left out, like how to treat children, instead of just “honor thy parents”?

You are confusing the role that ritual and tradition played in the early development of society with the baggage it created.

Yes, you did make that claim, which was early on in the conversation, unless you edited it after being quoted as saying it. I’ll find it after work, unless, as I said, you edited it after being caught in saying it.

George Carlin referred to the first three Commandments as:
“Spooky language, … spooky language!” :rofl:

“Aggressive Indians”?
You do come out with the most peculiar statements. Where you get them from is a mystery to me.

Is this what you are referring to?

‘We Became Warriors Again’: Why World War I Was a Surprisingly Pivotal Moment for American Indian History


The American Indians who served with Company E, 142nd Infantry, 36th Division, during World War I were some of the nation’s first “code-talkers”
National World War I Museum and Memorial

I think what I saw was a picture of a poster advertising the gun. Sales were so slow, they did everything they could to sell them. That time was at the end of the so called “wild west”. Some native peoples still hadn’t accepted being restricted to reservations and cattle rustling, sometimes by them, was a problem. The incongruent image of a cowboy siting on his horse with a Thompson has stuck with me for a long time.

If you think this nation was started by the Constitution, then you need to read the Declaration of Independence. It contains the list of complaints against the King which caused the colonies to separate from Great Britain. You will not find religious freedom listed.

You should note that the Declaration established each of the colonies, not the United States of America, as an independent entity. The title “United States of America” was not established until the Articles of Confederation were adopted.

You should also realize that the amendments to the Constitution known today as the Bill of Rights were not produced with the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution but that each was added in order to get different States to ratify the Constitution. Perhaps you know that the First Amendment we have today was actually the third one of the original twelve proposed. If you propose that the order in which the amendments were put forward has any significance, then the one dealing with establishment of religion and certain freedoms must seem somewhat less important than the number of representatives and the how much Senators get paid.

I didn’t say it was started with the Constitution. I said it was started with the desire for religious freedom and the evidence of that is in the 1st Amendment. Please read carefully and stop twisting people’s words.

1 Like

A little-known historical fact about the Constitution is that it is founded on Indian Law.

Exemplar of Liberty:

Native America
and
the Evolution of Democracy

By

Donald A. Grinde, Jr.
Rupert Costo Professor of American Indian History
University of California at Riverside

A NEW CHAPTER
Images of native America in the
writings of Franklin, Jefferson,
and Paine

At this time, Adams became interested in formulating “constitutions for single colonies” and a “great model for Union for the whole.” A few months later in April of 1776, Adams published his Thoughts on Government , which was intended as a handbook for the implementing of new American state and national constitutions as independence unfolded. Later, Adams would write in his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States (1787) of the “precise” separation of powers that were present in American Indian nations on the eve of the creation of the United States Constitution.

As with the earlier Thoughts on Government, the Defence was meant to be used as a handbook at the Constitutional Convention. American Revolutionaries like John Adams sought to retain their sacred “property rights” as Englishmen which they felt the British Crown was usurping through its taxation policies. Often, their rationales have been interpreted as “conservative” in order to thwart some of the objectives of more radical colonial politicians.[6]

In this environment with colonial Americans’ passion for liberty about to break into revolution, Thomas Jefferson addressed the world as a political seer:

This whole chapter in the history of man is new. . . . Before the establishment of the American states, nothing was known to history but man of the old world, crowded within limits either small or overcharged and steeped in the vices which that situation generates. [7]

> Anyone who believes the United States was molded primarily in Europe’s image should listen to Benjamin Franklin, who so much embodied the spirit of America in Europe that he came to be called a “savage as philosopher.”[8]

Whoever has traveled through the various parts of Europe, and observed how small is the proportion of the people in affluence or easy circumstances there, compared with those in poverty and misery; the few rich and haughty landlords, the multitude of poor, abject, rack-rented, tythe-paying tenants, and half-paid and half-starved laborers; and view here [in America] the happy mediocrity that so generally prevails throughout these States, where the cultivator works for himself, and supports his family in decent plenty, will, methinks, see the evident and great difference in our favor.[9]

The assertion of an independent identity for America, and Americans, sometimes became almost messianic. Thomas Paine enthused: “We see with other eyes; we hear with other ears; we think with other thoughts, than those we formerly used.”[10]

I am sure you join me in the detestation of the corruption of the English government that no man of earth is more incapable than yourself of seeing that copied among us, willingly. I have been among those who have feared the design to introduce it here, and that has been a strong reason with me for wishing there was an ocean of fire between that island and us. [12]

https://ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/index.html#ToC

The Native American Government That Inspired the US Constitution

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 to debate what form of government the United States should have, there were no contemporary democracies in Europe from which they could draw inspiration. The most democratic forms of government that any of the convention members had personally encountered were those of Native American nations. Of particular interest was the Iroquois Confederacy, which historians have argued wielded a significant influence on the U.S. Constitution.

Finally, someone with a grasp on the truth. Thank you for posting this. Our ancestors took so much from the native peoples and gave so little. I’m glad mine were not here then. My family’s troubles resulting from the Civil War and again from the Depression were bad, but I think they don’t compare to those visited on the native peoples.

We don’t teach in the schools just what a radical experiment our form of government was (and still is), especially when compared to the then current kingdoms elsewhere in the world. We also don’t teach just how messy it was (and still is) to establish and sustain a rule of law. I doubt that one person in a hundred in this country knows that the title “United States of America” didn’t formally exist when the Declaration of Independence was signed by the founders.

And, of course, we don’t teach that the people in the colonies were mostly British citizens and many did not want independence. I think it would be interesting to know how many people left or were forced out of their homes, some having been here for decades or even generations, and fled to Britain or to Canada in order to keep their British citizenship. It could not have been a happy time for them.

history is written by the winners.

I would add in most cases. One of the other cases is the secession war.

I assume you refer to, as many in the South call it, “The War of Northern Aggression”.

Yes, just like Putin is blaming his War with Ukraine on the US Western Aggression.

1 Like