James Madison Confesses: "I Was Drunk When I Wrote the Second Amendment"

[CarpeDiem3 0]

James Madison Confesses: "I Was Drunk When I Wrote the Second Amendment"

Seriously? Do you NRA dimwits really think this crazy shit was what I meant when I came up with the Second Amendment? Are you kidding me? Maybe we didn't have your technology in 1787, but clearly we Founders were a hell of a lot smarter than you are. (Well I was smart anyway. Washington wasn't really that bright. Hamilton was no genius. Adams? Don't get me started.)
But never mind that.

Frankly, I wish I'd never even written that boneheaded amendment. What was I thinking? In retrospect, perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to drink all that wine right before the convention. All I wanted to do was go home and sleep it off. In fact, I was so bombed, I made a spelling error in my first draft, when I wrote, "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Just think how much better that would have been -- you wouldn't have a constitutional right to own a gun, but you would have the right to pull up your sleeves. But Tommy Jefferson, who was a little OCD, corrected it.

Now the damn thing has gotten all misconstrued.

For starters, do you really think you need an assault weapon to protect your home against intruders? How often does that happen? You're in bed, you hear a noise (which is probably the cat), you grab your assault weapon out of your closet, you pad downstairs in your comfy slippers, you hear the noise again and then you pump 30 rounds into your drapes. Nice going, Dillinger.

Here's an interesting development. I love this one. You morons allow people to carry concealed weapons. Oh please. So you can do what? Shoot somebody who double-dipped a cracker in the hummus?

And how come, when one of your numerous deranged nutcases decides to shoot twenty people at a mall, nobody in the crowd ever seems to have a concealed weapon except him?

And now you need an Uzi to kill a deer? This is what you call hunting, Davy Crockett? Are you kidding me? You can't eat a deer if it has six-hundred bullet holes in it, unless you don't mind cracking a crown. Nobody really likes venison anyway. It's gamey.

And how many of you lamebrains have accidentally shot yourselves or an innocent bystander or your neighbor's Camry? Or all three at the same time?

Clearly, being loaded is not a good state to be in when you're writing a constitution. In retrospect, I should have been more specific and worded it differently, giving American citizens "...the right to keep and bear harmless shitty weapons like muskets so you can maybe shoot something if it's not moving..."

That's right folks, I was talking about muskets. One lousy bullet per shot. Half the time, the goddamn thing blew up in your face. Or the bullet got stuck in the chamber. Or it just fell out of the barrel. And even if you could fire the damn thing, it almost always missed the target by a mile.

And, do you have any idea how long it took to load? Ten minutes! There was the powder and the flint and the wadding paper and the ramrod and all this other crap. Sometimes, you had to sit down to do it. You could have knitted a nice pair of socks instead. And if it rained or you dropped it in a lake, you were out of business.

Okay, maybe I misjudged future technology. My bad. You folks seem to have a lot of ingenuity for developing weapons, but where's the cure for cancer?

As for the part about forming militias to topple a lousy government? Guess what? You have a lousy government right now -- Congress, Supreme Court -- and I don't see any fireworks. Besides, that's kind of a long shot (no pun intended) isn't it? You've got a Glock. Whoopee. They've got the atomic bomb. Good luck with that.

You want to topple the government? Try voting. I assume you still have that right. What? Not so much in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida?

I know I speak on behalf of all the other signers of the Constitution when I say this to you NRA folks: "If that's a pistol in your pocket, chances are you'll accidentally shoot yourself in the nuts."

Sincerely,
James Madison

[davjohns 1]

Well, that's humorous...if completely opposed to all the clarification in the Federalist Papers...but thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

So you think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

[Andy9o8 2]

Plagiarist.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

So you think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

Nope. But I don't think anyone should have nuclear bombs.

Now, tanks, grenades, machineguns, flame throwers...hell, that's just a party in the making.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

He was also drunk when he wrote the First Amendment. Seriously - did we think that it meant that we could talk about religion or criticize the breadth and scope of government? There wasn't youtube back then to post bigoted anti-Islamic videos that get four Americans killed.

The Fourth Amendment? Back then th value of warrantless wiretaps wasn't recognized.

Nor was the Fifth Amendment. Do the people really think that due process should apply to terrorists? Or that corporations shouldn't be allowed to use government eminent domain to seize private property on its behalf? Due process is a threat to the government.

The Sixth Amendment? Same as the Fifth. A speedy trial means the terrorists win. LEt them rot. THings are different now.

Eighth Amendment? That wasn't meant to allow executions, unless extrajudicial like drones. And while it bans cruel and unusual punishments, we should be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques because they are not penal in nature - just "investigative" in nature. There's no prohibition against "cruel and unusual questioning."

Ninth Amendment? It's become as useless as I hoped it would.

Tenth Amendment? People out there think that the states should have rights? We can't allow states to do their own thing - they might get it wrong. I simply had no idea how fucked up states would be - there are states out there that want to allow marijuana? The federal government can't have right-wing loony places like Oregon doing crazy shit like deciding what's a crime and what isn't in their jurisdiction. It could interfere with interstate commerce.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

So you think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

Private citizens should own nothing that cannot be carried in their B-2 bombers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

So you think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

Private citizens should own nothing that cannot be carried in their B-2 bombers.

I vehemently disagree. There are plenty of things that will not fit in the B-2 that I want. A C-5 Galaxy, however, can carry a tank just fine.

I can't believe you want to restrict my rights like that!

And while I agree on the other nine, I think the concept of interstate commerce and the SCOTUS have gutted number 10. Of course, it was one of my favorites...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

Quote

thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

So you think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

No. Only I should own them.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

thanks for clarifying that he meant for everyone to have the same weaponry as the military.

So you think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

That has been a big problem around here, but the court backed up the HOA who was banning them.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think the concept of interstate commerce and the SCOTUS have gutted number 10.

Oh, absolutely. The Tenth Amendment is just something pointed out by people who want to be like dead white men.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

Now, tanks, grenades, machineguns, flame throwers...hell, that's just a party in the making.

Yeah, Hamas and Israel are having quite the party right now. Thanks to the widespread ownership of things like grenades, machineguns and missiles.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

Now, tanks, grenades, machineguns, flame throwers...hell, that's just a party in the making.

Yeah, Hamas and Israel are having quite the party right now. Thanks to the widespread ownership of things like grenades, machineguns and missiles.

If used responsibly, these items only kill the bad people.

[billvon 3,076]

>If used responsibly, these items only kill the bad people.

True. Unfortunately, some of those responsible users define "westerners" as "bad people" - and the weapon has no problem with that definition.

[quade 4]

CREDIT THE REAL AUTHOR!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/james-madison-second-amendment_b_1749771.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy
(As best as I can tell.)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rick 67]

Quote

CREDIT THE REAL AUTHOR!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/james-madison-second-amendment_b_1749771.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy
(As best as I can tell.)

---------------------------------------------------------------
OMG Carpe is john Blumenthal

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[Channman 2]

Quote

>If used responsibly, these items only kill the bad people.

True. Unfortunately, some of those responsible users define "westerners" as "bad people" - and the weapon has no problem with that definition.

Well, damn...those bastards

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Now, tanks, grenades, machineguns, flame throwers...hell, that's just a party in the making.

Yeah, Hamas and Israel are having quite the party right now. Thanks to the widespread ownership of things like grenades, machineguns and missiles.

Yeah. The party is two-sided. Think of the possibilities is one side was not armed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[blueblur 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now, tanks, grenades, machineguns, flame throwers...hell, that's just a party in the making.

Yeah, Hamas and Israel are having quite the party right now. Thanks to the widespread ownership of things like grenades, machineguns and missiles.

Yeah. The party is two-sided. Think of the possibilities is one side was not armed.

Not to mention the "widespread ownership" comprises the military of Israel and Hamas. Not like your next door neighbor is shooting rockets...

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now, tanks, grenades, machineguns, flame throwers...hell, that's just a party in the making.

Yeah, Hamas and Israel are having quite the party right now. Thanks to the widespread ownership of things like grenades, machineguns and missiles.

Yeah. The party is two-sided. Think of the possibilities is one side was not armed.

Not to mention the "widespread ownership" comprises the military of Israel and Hamas. Not like your next door neighbor is shooting rockets...

Actually, Hamas has to fire rockets at Israel because everyone in Israel is armed. Entering Israel for the purposes of mischief just isn't going to go well for the miscreant. In that case, the well armed militia is a huge part of the guarantee that they will continue to exist.

In the case of the US, you had a bunch of guys who just fought for eight years against a government they considered oppressive. Their writings indicate they wanted future generations to be able to modify the government; by force of arms if necessary. Clearly, they wanted the citizenry to have the arms necessary to overthrow the government and start over. It was the ultimate 'check' or 'balance'. They had just used it. They wanted to ensure it could be used again if needed. They also gave some perfectly valid arguments about the right of the individual to self-preservation that are still effective today.

Rage all you want. Weapons are tools. They give the holder an advantage over someone who does not hold them. Democracy demands that ultimate power reside with the 'people'. Like it or not, brute force is the ultimate power.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.