The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag

You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?

Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?

Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.

Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.

Sans automation, I would guess life was wonderful being a slave to a conquering tribe.

Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?

 

[Chuz Life]

I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.

That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?

 

[Rigby5]

I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.

That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?

Exactly.
The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.

 

[Chuz Life]

I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.

That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?

Exactly.
The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.

I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is illegal."

I am intrigued by your argument.

However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."

It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.

I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.

I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.

We are not that far apart.

 

[Rigby5]

I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.

That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?

Exactly.
The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.

I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is illegal."

I am intrigued by your argument.

However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."

It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.

I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.

I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.

We are not that far apart.

Sure government can enact laws with the consent of the people, but that is referring mostly to laws that are advantageous, not restrictive.
For example, government can use tax money to buy the Louisiana Purchase, as long as the people agree.
But that is not an infringement upon anyone's individual rights.
And no matter how many people may agree or want something, if it illegally infringes upon the rights of any one single individual, then government has no authority to do it. (That does not mean government can't arrest or imprison, because that is not an infringement, but a necessity in order to defend the rights of others.)
For example, the majority can not pass a referendum legalizing slavery, authorizing rape as punishment, etc., because the majority does not have that authority. Individuals only have the authority do defend their own rights, so can only delegate the same to government.

But more important is that the Constitution had to delineate jurisdiction, between the federal government and anything else. And clearly the point of the 2nd amendment was to totally preclude any federal weapons jurisdiction at all. So while one could argue in favor of some local or state weapons regulation, clearly there can not legally be any federal weapons regulations.

To recap, the ONLY source of any authority at all in a democratic republic, is the defense of inherent individual rights. There can be no other source. So any law that is restrictive to anyone, but not necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others, then it is wrong and without legal authorization. People forget that legislators are not at all a source of any authority at all. They merely borrow the authority we delegate to them, so they can defend us. They can not exceed that, even if the majority wants it.

 

[Chuz Life]

I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.

That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?

Exactly.
The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.

I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is illegal."

I am intrigued by your argument.

However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."

It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.

I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.

I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.

We are not that far apart.

Sure government can enact laws with the consent of the people, but that is referring mostly to laws that are advantageous, not restrictive.

Explain "mostly" please.

 

[2aguy]

And eating each other......for dinner.....

Not true. There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave. Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes. The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.

As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution..... And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....

Nope. Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?

But it fairly common to find in Europe.
Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
{...
In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.

Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
...
Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.

According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.

Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.

Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.

And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...

Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?

As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."





Pinker based his view on books such as War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.





Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."

Total nonsense.
First of all, before you have sedentary societies with agriculture, surplus, and currency, it is essentially impossible to have professional warriors, and it did not happen. They were too busy hunting and gathering. Nor would any significant degree of warfare make any sense, because there would be nothing to gain, and the risk were way too high due to lack of medical care technology.
We still have lots of examples of primitive cultures, and we know from experience that warfare is rare and mostly symbolic.
Those claiming otherwise are full of hot air.

Wrong......the archeologists have been covering up the violence..... actual archeological finds show that they were violent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?

Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?

Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....

In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them. The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.

The Comanche were yet another story;

{Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}

Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;

or,

the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.

 

[Rigby5]

I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.

That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?

Exactly.
The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.

I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is illegal."

I am intrigued by your argument.

However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."

It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.

I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.

I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.

We are not that far apart.

Sure government can enact laws with the consent of the people, but that is referring mostly to laws that are advantageous, not restrictive.

Explain "mostly" please.

The reason I intentionally included the word "mostly" is that while government should generally reflect the will of the people in a democratic republic, the inherent rights of any one single individual has to remain superior to just the desires of everyone else. The desires of the majority can not ever over ride the rights of any one single individual. And example of this being done wrong in the past was slavery of minorities, but currently I still find eminent domain used to condemn and confiscate property as not being really legal. It is not that I want stubborn individuals to be able to hold up urban renewal or important transportation projects, but that there is no legal basis for it, in a democratic republic. How can the majority delegate to government, something they do not as individuals have any inherent right to do? Numbers do not matter. The majority has no more inherent rights than the minority. So the majority can win when it is an extra privilege, like social programs, infrastructure improvements, etc., but not when it comes to individual rights, like the 2nd amendment. It is not up for majority vote. The rights of any one single individual must superseded the desires of the many.

 

[Rigby5]

Not true. There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave. Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes. The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.

As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution..... And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....

Nope. Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?

But it fairly common to find in Europe.
Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
{...
In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.

Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
...
Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.

According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.

Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.

Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.

And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...

Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?

As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."





Pinker based his view on books such as War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.





Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."

Total nonsense.
First of all, before you have sedentary societies with agriculture, surplus, and currency, it is essentially impossible to have professional warriors, and it did not happen. They were too busy hunting and gathering. Nor would any significant degree of warfare make any sense, because there would be nothing to gain, and the risk were way too high due to lack of medical care technology.
We still have lots of examples of primitive cultures, and we know from experience that warfare is rare and mostly symbolic.
Those claiming otherwise are full of hot air.

Wrong......the archeologists have been covering up the violence..... actual archeological finds show that they were violent.

No, the archaeologists suggesting violence are guessing. They find nicks on bones and assume cannibalism, when there have been documented cases when the nicks were actually caused from a great fall onto sharp stones. We know the archaeologists are wrong because the primitive cultures still exist now and can be studied, and because there simply is no incentive for that level of violence, before agriculture, production surpluses, currency, and commercial warrior professionals.
It really is not very complicated, because all people who have studied primates have been clear that humans are the single most cooperative and least intra-species violent there has ever been, except for maybe bees or ant colonies. There is absolutely nothing at all to be gained by intra-species human violence, so it can not be selected for naturally. There are a few exceptions, like where there is rapid desertification the Fertile Crescent, or resource depletion like Easter Island, but those are in the vast minority.
And what incentive would anthropologist or archaeologists have for "covering up"? The opposite is true, in that they would be rewarded and sell more books if they tried to justify our current society with primitive similarities. Bu they can't do it in general, because we currently are significantly worse then the historic norm. Nobody wants to hear that, but is most definitely is true. We are not better, but much worse.

 

[Rigby5]

[
Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?

Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?

Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....

In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them. The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.

The Comanche were yet another story;

{Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}

Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History

 

[Rigby5]

[
Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?

Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?

Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....

In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them. The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.

The Comanche were yet another story;

{Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}

Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History

Wrong. That is totally made up. We know almost nothing about the Mayans, and they disappeared before anyone could write anything about them, and those who did later write about them were the biased Christian Conquistador missionaries, who have no credibility at all.
You just watched the movie, "Apocalypto" and believed it was true. But it was totally and completely made up, and made no sense at all. I enjoyed the movie, but there was nothing based on knowledge in it.

Again, what possible slavery could primitive hunter/gatherers use? The answer is none. The slaves would not only be sitting around all the time, but would actually waste additional effort to prevent them from escaping and needing to be fed. Any hunter/gather society would be far better off without slaves, so would not bother. When mates are ritually kidnapped from other tribes, that is not slavery, since they were adopted into the new tribe, as relative equals eventually. Kidnapping mates is good evolution because it reduced inbreeding.

Any tale of the Comanche would be pointless, because they had been totally displaced by the European invasion, and they then were a totally artificial reaction to extreme external stress. Native American cultures were totally altered by contact with Europeans, so are not useful to study AFTER contact. The Comanche were known as the Lords of the Southwest Great Plains, but the reality is that no one lived on the Great Plains originally, because the weather was too drastic. It was only after Europeans brought horses and had displaced natives from better places, that anyone lived on the Great Plains. In fact, some of the Great Plains tribes, like the Mandans, likely were created from lost European settlements.

 

[Rigby5]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;

or,

the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.

Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial. If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;

or,

the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.

Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial. If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.

Only well regulated militia is expressly declared necessary to the security of our free States.

We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

[Rigby5]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;

or,

the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.

Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial. If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.

Only well regulated militia is expressly declared necessary to the security of our free States.

We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

We agree on alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
But the word "regulate" in the Constitution, almost always means to enhance and make more efficient.
Such as the articles about regulating interstate commerce.
The goal obviously is not to prevent, reduce, or even count interstate commerce, but to ensure it is not interfered with in any way, by any one or more states.
The word "regulate" at the time referred to the efficient operation of something, like a "well regulated clock".
That does not mean the clock is inhibited from moving, but that it is kept "regular" and free from obstruction.
In the case of the militia, clearly the wording means well experiences, as the only way the country could defend itself was with a well functioning militia with consistent firearm skills. You can't have any sort of militia at all if you impose gun control.
And the motivation really does not matter, because the bottom line still says that there is to be absolutely no federal weapons regulations at all, in any way. It simply was all given to local and state jurisdiction, totally precluding any and all federal jurisdiction.

 

[Lesh]

Again...there are two mentions of the militia in the Constitution.

The 2A where it describes the necessity of allowing arms for that purpose in a "well regulated militia"...the Article 1 Section 8 where it describes that well regulated militia....complete with training and rank and roll calls

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;

or,

the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.

Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial. If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.

Only well regulated militia is expressly declared necessary to the security of our free States.

We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

We agree on alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
But the word "regulate" in the Constitution, almost always means to enhance and make more efficient.
Such as the articles about regulating interstate commerce.
The goal obviously is not to prevent, reduce, or even count interstate commerce, but to ensure it is not interfered with in any way, by any one or more states.
The word "regulate" at the time referred to the efficient operation of something, like a "well regulated clock".
That does not mean the clock is inhibited from moving, but that it is kept "regular" and free from obstruction.
In the case of the militia, clearly the wording means well experiences, as the only way the country could defend itself was with a well functioning militia with consistent firearm skills. You can't have any sort of militia at all if you impose gun control.
And the motivation really does not matter, because the bottom line still says that there is to be absolutely no federal weapons regulations at all, in any way. It simply was all given to local and state jurisdiction, totally precluding any and all federal jurisdiction.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for upholding our Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

 

[westwall]

AGAIN. WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order. Learn some ENGLISH!

Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers. Fallacy is all y'all have.

And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.

anybody can Talk. Men have arguments.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

 

[Rigby5]

Again...there are two mentions of the militia in the Constitution.

The 2A where it describes the necessity of allowing arms for that purpose in a "well regulated militia"...the Article 1 Section 8 where it describes that well regulated militia....complete with training and rank and roll calls

Who cares what is mentioned about militias in the Constitution?
There were absolutely no police back then, there were no significant federal troops, and they had no way to get where any local trouble may be, etc.
So essentially everything was done by some local militia or another.
There were dozens of militias in each state, and there was no federal militia, although the feds were given the authority call up and pay local militias in emergencies.
So you would not expect there to be much mention of militias in the constitution, since that was just to explicitly state what was federal jurisdiction. Since militias were not federal jurisdiction, the federal constitution would be the wrong place to detail them. That would be more for state constitutions, and that is where you will find all the details on militias.