Stolen implies they had ownership granted by....who?
Granted by the Federal Government and the US Constitution which states that treaties are the highest law of the land. It is right there in Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Who granted the ownership to Native Americans?
I believe they fought bloody wars over territory long before any Europeans arrived, and did gruesome things to the losers. Why is what our European ancestors did any worse?
We formed a Constitution in order to enshrine and uphold our rights and not live in a primitive society in which "might makes right"
Do you not believe in the Constitution? Or do you believe we should just set it aside when it is inconvenient or profits are involved?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
nett wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:30 pm
Who granted the ownership to Native Americans?
This is pretty off thread topic, but will just add a quick point. I think Ken is talking about the treaties the US government made with the Native Americans after they defeated them. They created treaties and gave them land, only to take it back away from them.
I do think that was wrong and we should find a way to honor the treaties as best we can. I also think that we live in a totally different world as to the world of those treaties and we can not go back, only forward.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:37 pm
We formed a Constitution in order to enshrine and uphold our rights and not live in a primitive society in which "might makes right"
Do you not believe in the Constitution? Or do you believe we should just set it aside when it is inconvenient or profits are involved?
Like you advocate with the 2nd Amendment?
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:37 pm
We formed a Constitution in order to enshrine and uphold our rights and not live in a primitive society in which "might makes right"
Do you not believe in the Constitution? Or do you believe we should just set it aside when it is inconvenient or profits are involved?
Like you advocate with the 2nd Amendment?
We can and do have long arguments about the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment. It is probably the most poorly and ambiguously written clause in the entire Constitution. But I have never argued for ignoring the Second Amendment. It is a matter of where you draw the line. We all draw it somewhere, even you. Do I have an absolute Second Amendment right to carry an M60 or M240 machine gun into the US Capitol or to the front doorstep of Justice Kavanaugh's home? Or even a football game or school?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:19 pm
Do I have an absolute Second Amendment right to carry an M60 or M240 machine gun into the US Capitol or to the front doorstep of Justice Kavanaugh's home?
Both are in DC, that makes them Federal land. The city of DC makes those laws, as states make the other laws restricting the use of weapons, but that should be done with due process.
There are already armed people in front of Justice Kavanagh's house. You just trust them more than I do.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:19 pm
Do I have an absolute Second Amendment right to carry an M60 or M240 machine gun into the US Capitol or to the front doorstep of Justice Kavanaugh's home?
Both are in DC, that makes them Federal land. The city of DC makes those laws, as states make the other laws restricting the use of weapons, but that should be done with due process.
There are already armed people in front of Justice Kavanagh's house. You just trust them more than I do.
There is no Second Amendment exception for “federal land”. Over half of Oregon is Federal land. My point is that we all accept some state and Federal regulations of firearms under the Second Amendment. No one argues that 18 year olds should be able to take their legally-bought AR-15s to school in case they need them for self defense. Or that people should be able to own stinger missiles or tanks under the Second Amendment. Even though any modern military militia would have those things. The only argument is where we draw the line.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:06 pm
Or that people should be able to own stinger missiles or tanks under the Second Amendment.
Yes, there are.
Sane people are arguing that?
I live under the flightpath of a major international airport. Should I be able to own my own stinger missiles? Should anyone? Do you want to live in a world where people can acquire stinger missiles here in the US?
And yes, you can technically own your own tank. Collectors and museums have them. Lots of old Shermans out there. But the guns have to be decommissioned or removed before you can do that. So it is essentially a well armored vintage bulldozer. You can't own a working Sherman tank with functional machine guns or main gun.
Last edited by Ken on Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:06 pm
Over half of Oregon is Federal land.
It is still in the state and subject to the laws therein This is why they will not be able to do abortions on federal land inside a state that has prohibited it.
Washington DC is unique since there is no state that it resides in.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
