The "What-if" Constitution?

[CaddmannQ]

In another thread here, I read the comment made that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, and not a privilege like driving.

Now, heavy taxation was one of our main grievances against the British.

SO.... What if roads or wheels had been controlled and heavily taxed by the British aristocracy?

Would our forefathers have written in the right to drive?

Some are trying to base the interpreting of our Constitution on what we believe our forefathers believed and did . . . and even would have done.

That's the part that makes this an interesting mental exercise. say that. . . .

If Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere had invented the automatic rifle in 1775, and basically defeated the British with it, would our second amendment be the same?

Or would the language we have now have covered that situation just as well?

 

[Water Monkey]

Yes. The amendments were added to recognize natural rights that government is prohibited from infringing on. And if times changed a method to update the document.

Nothing would be different. The goal was to defeat a tyrannical government and establish a government made by the people. Not some divine god king.

 

[Pawpaw]

Our founding fathers were prolific writers, so there is no need to guess about what they had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

They intended that the citizenry have arms at least equal to any army or government tyranny that could be brought against them.

 

[John A.]

When the Bill of Rights was written, the state militia (you know, ordinary citizens who took up arms against the British and others--the minutemen, the Old Navy that consisted of privately owned vessels, etc) gave the power of resistance square onto the will of the citizenry.

The Gov't were not very keen on having a large standing army due to what they had experienced with tyrannical king (and forcing his wishes).

Even today, it is lawful to form and participate in a private armed militia.

While not an armed conflict, in very good example of the citizens banding together for a common cause, is exactly what the founding fathers protected.

See this:http://theconversation.com/cajun-na...rvey-show-vital-role-of-volunteer-boats-83200


So, I'm not hypothesizing here, but the writers of the Constitution and those who founded our Government plainly said to stand up against unlawful orders and decrees.

You are not obligated to follow an unconstitutional law or order.

That is one of the primary reasons the Bill of Rights were written.

It doesn't restrict what citizens can do. It restricts what Gov't can do to its' citizens.

I also encourage everyone to read the Federalist papers. And even the Anti-federalist papers even to get a good idea of how the founding fathers felt. They didn't hide the documents or attempt to obscure it. Their feelings and thoughts have been well publicized.

 

[John A.]

A few other examples of a militia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

While not exactly against the government, another example of armed conflict. This one not far from me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

 

[CaddmannQ]

So nobody answered the one about roads and wheels. I did mean that one as a literal example.

And I'm sure you can think of others besides firearms.

What if television or radio had existed at the time of the revolution. Would our free speech clause be the same?

 

[John A.]

Why wouldn't it pertain to free speech?

Is this not speech? Are we not able to communicate?

 

[Pawpaw]

A few other examples of a militia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

While not exactly against the government, another example of armed conflict. This one not far from me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

They made a movie about the Battle of Athens. It's a good watch, well worth the 1:40 it takes.

 

[Scoop]

When the Bill of Rights was written...
It doesn't restrict what citizens can do. It restricts what Gov't can do to its' citizens.

Thanx, John. I'd like to expand upon that with part of my lecture I've been giving for about 40 years [since my boy was about 10].

It is my practice to refer to the first 10 Amendments as the "Bill of Restrictions" because they define what the government must NOT do.

Amendment I. Congress shall make NO law respecting...

Amendment II. ... the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

Amendment III. NO Soldier shall... be quartered...

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure... shall NOT be violated, and NO Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause...

Amendment V. NO person shall be held to answer for a capital... crime... NOR shall n person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy... NOR shall be compelled... to be a witness against himself, NOR be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; NOR shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment VI. [The Sixth is the only Amendment that does not use any negative. It truly CONFIRMS RIGHTS.] ...the accused SHALL enjoy the right to a speedy trial...

Amendment VII. ...and NO fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in Court of the United States...

Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall NOT be required, NOR excessive fines imposed, NOR cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X. The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

So keep the BILL OF RESTRICTIONS in mind when talking to others.

 

[Bobster]

SO.... What if roads or wheels had been controlled and heavily taxed by the British aristocracy?

Would our forefathers have written in the right to drive?

I think the right to life, liberty and happiness by default includes roads, mainly because they expedite freedom and liberty (to go where you want). A road need not be paved but DOES need to be publicly-owned to fit your definition.

We ARE taxed for public roads and it is a "use" tax based on fuel consumed. I think this is fair and "rewards" fuel efficient vehicles, themselves often very lightweight and "easy" on the roads.

Capitalistically, I DO believe the "owner" of the road has the right to "tax" one for using the road. A "toll" if you will. They make an investment and expect capital on their return.

Socialistically, or would it be Communistically, I believe public roads are owned by all and ALL have to pay taxes to help maintain them. The same would go with many other public services such as police and fire.

I also believe in school choice and sadly, I have to believe in taxes to fund schools. To some old-timer with no kids or grandkids in his local school saying "Why should I have to pay school taxes?" I say "Having properly educated children decreases the crime rate and makes YOUR standard of living better!". Plus, many old-timers also get a senior citizen tax exemption...

 

[CaddmannQ]

I hear all the time people claim that if things had been different "back then", our constitution would be different.

I'm just curious about how many ways people think it could have been different.

For instance, we hear from Snowflake types, "If machine guns had been invented, the right to such arms would never have been so protected by our constitution."

Nonsense of that sort.



I usually tell them that, they did not have machine guns, but the truth is that we were heavily outgunned by the British. if the British government had any particular guns, then the right to own them by American citizens for their own defense would have been protected, and it would have been protected without changing a single word of the Constitution.

But what about other things?

We have people screaming about things like the right to Medical Care & the right to free internet service, and the right to reparations for historical abuses.

Would those be recognized as rights by the people back then had they existed?

Lots of things that we call privileges might have been considered rights, if those things had existed at the time of the Constitution.

 

[Scoop]

...We have people screaming about things like the right to Medical Care & the right to free internet service, and the right to reparations for historical abuses.
Would those be recognized as rights by the people back then had they existed?.

The Constitutional rights protected are those that are recognized as pre-existing, but taking advantage of those rights does not deprive others of theirs.

For instance, you can go beat your gums on the street corner, publish a newsletter, attend church, and go to lunch at the Lions Club; all that without costing your neighbor anything.
You can buy a gun and carry it; that does not cost your neighbor.

But when you want "free" healthcare, the doctor is going to put in time and materials [or MY taxes will pay him!].
"Free" internet? Who pays for cooling those storage farms? Sorry, that ain't a right.

Frankly, in the US, people get a lot more than they deserve under questionable "rights" demands. Keep your damned hands out of other people's pockets.

If you want something, then contract for it. Trade some blood, sweat, art, craft, skill, or knowledge for it. Let's face it. The more of those you have, the better you will eat.
For the most part, life is about trading brains or muscle for food.

Live long and prosper... but keep your hands out of my pocket.

[note: in the above rant, the word "you" is not referring to Cadd. ]

 

[CaddmannQ]

Thank you Scoop.

What about all these snowflakes that think they have the right to "not be afraid." They say they have the right to feel safe, and we need to provide them with that feeling, primarily by turning in all our guns.

 

[Scoop]

Cadd> What about all these snowflakes that think they have the right to "not be afraid."

Here's my advice: Don't be afraid.

 

[Scoop]

Here is my psychiatrist's advice:

vid <-- LINK

 

[Pawpaw]

 

[CaddmannQ]

That was hilarious @Scoop.
I give it three green grins.



I am a fan of Bob Newhart but I had never seen that skit before.