am I wrong about guns?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Like I said, the Constitution was written in a time when all firearms were single shot weapons and slave revolts needed to be quelled by militias.

[sirs]

And the "press", back in the day, used quills.  That's a moronic response to what the Bill of Rights was specifically designed to do

[kimba1]

I though aclu has nothing to do with defending the bill of rights but about people and how those rights effects Them. as if the bill of rights compels or deprive people of things then aclu will take action against the bill of rights also. At the moment aclu should be going against trump protesters for denying peoples rights .

[sirs]

IIRC the ACLU was established to defend the Bill of Rights, in particular the 1st amendment

[kimba1]

i`ve always had the impression it`s was about peoples rights more than the document.

ex. alot of the civil rights are not covered by our constitutions but if we were follow the letter of the law those rights would not be here. I think it something to do with goldwater

[sirs]

People's rights IS the document.  Literally, interchangable

[kimba1]

im just putting it out thier that maybe it`s not and hence the conflict with the organization.

[sirs]

With all due respect Kimba, it is.  Whatever other "rights" people or the ACLU think they have is trumped by the Bill of Rights & Constitution.

[Plane]

Like I said, the Constitution was written in a time when all firearms were single shot weapons and slave revolts needed to be quelled by militias.

When it was written there was nearly as much military power in the hands of the public as there was in the governments control and this was considered a good thing.

   George Washington barely stopped a clause from being included that would have capped the size of the Army at a certain number, a number too small presumably to oppress the people. George Washington made the point that there was not going to be a constitutional limit on the size of invasion forces and got this clause laughed out.
   But no one even suggested a limit on private ownership of weapons, they had just thrown that faction back to England.

    We are pretty lucky to have the well behaved military we do , our Constitution writers did not know how few mutinies and coups there were going to be .

      I wonder if having an armed population has helped us avoid having a coup every two or three decades?  There are nations that do , and they are not a different sort of human there.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The difference was that the Protestant culture of England is one that evolves, rather than has revolutions.
American Independence was not so much a revolution as it was a transfer of power from the distant Parliament and King to an alliance of bourgeois New England traders and Southern planters.

[Plane]

The difference was that the Protestant culture of England is one that evolves, rather than has revolutions.
American Independence was not so much a revolution as it was a transfer of power from the distant Parliament and King to an alliance of bourgeois New England traders and Southern planters.

Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?

  I would even add that they felt responsible to do a good job on the constitution and made it good in the first place with a lot of effort, but best of all they made it possible to change its wording without revolution.

[Plane]

I though aclu has nothing to do with defending the bill of rights but about people and how those rights effects Them. as if the bill of rights compels or deprive people of things then aclu will take action against the bill of rights also. At the moment aclu should be going against trump protesters for denying peoples rights .

   I agree, but this would not be easy for the ACLU because the people protesting Trump are not government directed.(as far as we know)

    Perhaps the ACLU could do some good work stopping the IRS and FBI from being used by the government to impede the rights of citizens, this is where I thing the ACLU is falling down on its job.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?

Pretty sure that folks who owned slaves did not hate ALL tyranny,
Many of them seemed okay with BEING tyrannical.

They did not trust the people to directly elect senators or the president.

So, COULD add that, but I won't because it just isn't true.

[sirs]

Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?

Pretty sure that folks who owned slaves did not hate ALL tyranny,
Many of them seemed okay with BEING tyrannical.

Which is why we have a Constitution, especially a 2nd amendment.....to prevent precisely such a scenario, from ever duplicating itself here, ever again

[Plane]

Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?

Pretty sure that folks who owned slaves did not hate ALL tyranny,
Many of them seemed okay with BEING tyrannical.

They did not trust the people to directly elect senators or the president.

So, COULD add that, but I won't because it just isn't true.

   There was a lot of wrangling over this at that time , and compromises were made that were later regretted.

      But the slave owners attitude was hypocritical enough that they did not love to be enslaved , so they too were contrary to government tyranny and were agreeable to measures that might prevent it.