Posted on 06/16/2004 8:42:31 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
We've been over all of this on this thread and others. Don't you have any new material? You keep using the same flawed reasoning and misapplication of facts, not to mention some outright LIES, over and over again.
Just admit you would prefer us all to be disarmed and have done with it. No where have you shown that your system would provide "for the common defense" or in any way increase our Liberty or safety. In fact, seeing as how our Rights are violated daily by bans and restrictions, you are in fact ADVOCATING quite openly the perverted legal system that allows those minority liberal groups to get such legislation passed into quasi-legal status.
When confronted with quote after quote from the Constitution, the Founders, and freedom advocates through the ages, you hem, haw, prevaricate, and weasel. All to the detriment of our Rights. What is it with you anyway?
LOL! Stupidity serves you well.
If the Founders hadn't limited the federal government with a Bill of Rights it could do everything you want. So just lie, and lie some more! No matter how stupid nad dishonest it shows you- it's for a good cause!
I urge you to have an intelligent person read a general history on the ratifications of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to you.
It's fascinating what one can misunderstand today.
Here's a delightfully ironic exchange from the Virginia Ratification Convention on the need for a federal Bill of Rights:
Madison: "The Southern States would not have entered into the Union of America without the temporary permission of that trade; and if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us.... in this Constitution, "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due." This clause was expressly inserted, to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. "
Tyler:"This temporary restriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the arguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up was retained by the states; for that, if this restriction had not been inserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power of prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would have had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided. This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of restraining them, by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the other. "
Madison: "As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations. "
Henry: "The gentleman had admitted that Congress could have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction. If so, the power, not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights. He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from assuming any powers but those expressly given. "
Yes, one argument for a Bill of Rights was to protect... slavery!
No. as of 1994:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the state militias disappear after the War of 1812, in that they were found to be inferior to professional federal troops?
I believe you are wrong, but I don't see it's relevance to private gun ownership. The rights of the people, not the state, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Weren't they issued Letters of Marque by the federal government to arm their ships? Kinda hard for the states to counter federal tyranny if they have to wait for permission.
A letter of marque and reprisal was an official warrant or commission from a national government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a party which had committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation, and was usually used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.
Using your logic, States could re-institute Slavery. Your failure to see this fact is not suprising. Be a good little jackboot and crawl away.
The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, 1787
So long.
Typical. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Is that the bill with a 10 cent per assembled round tax, or if you buy the components seperately, 10 cents per bullet, primer, and case? Tyranny never rests! Is it time for their dirt nap yet?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson; Paris, November 13, 1787
The Second Amendment is still the law of the land, "Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding"!
1. Swung him over to our view. That a Right is a Right and NO ONE shall take it from you without you committing a crime first. That our government was set up to PROTECT those Rights, not to parcel out who gets to step all over them.
2. At least gotten him to admit he was a gun grabber and was playing an agenda instead of an actual belief.
Changing your mind is not a bad thing. New data and the correct calculus to come to certain conclusion is one thing. Willfully twisting clear intent and meanings on something so fundamental to our Republic is just plain EVIL.
One fervent idiot was enough.
Yes, but we though you had gone. You are quite "fervent" enough for all of us in your hatred of gun ownership.
Which one of those categories is the "well regulated militia" to which the second amendment refers? And what if I'm under 17 or over 45? Can I still keep and bear arms?
"The rights of the people, not the state, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yep, that's what is says. Of course, it also says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..." Ever wonder why the Founding Fathers threw in that little ditty? Federal courts have interpreted that as the people's right to keep and bear arms as it relates to the forming of a militia (most recently in Silveira v. Lockyer).
"I believe you are wrong, but I don't see it's relevance to private gun ownership."
"The Army Reduction Act of 1815 relegated "the militia to a secondary role in national defense" and this trend continued (p. 178). The ensuing years witnessed growing professionalism in the regular army and continued deterioration of the militia system.
-- C. Edward Skeen. Citizen Soldiers in the War of 1812
Well, its relevance is the "militia" referred to in the second amendment.
You seem to interpret the need for a militia as only necessary to protect against foreign invaders. I believe it also is necessary to protect against tyranny of our own government.
Uh-huh.
If that's the case, then don't expect Congress to invoke Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 which states (in part):
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
From that same section:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ... and to complete your referenced sentence:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In your post #500, you posted state militias no longer exist. Are these the militias this section refers to?
But to fully reply to your statement, I believe that is precisely why private gun ownership is necessarily. The Founding Fathers that wrote Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 also wrote the 2nd Amendment. As they recently overthrew a tyrannical government, do you think they wanted to depend on government as the sole source of weapons?
The "purpose" was listed in the second amendment itself -- "the security of a free State". Also, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 states that Congress may call forth "the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
Personally, I wish the founding fathers would have constructed the second amendment to read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", similar to many state constitutions. Maybe you can tell me why they didn't, and why they chose the words they did?
Guns were not that big a deal back then. Their ownership and use for hunting, personal protection, sport, etc. were taken for granted. I believe their only concern was that the new federal government might be tempted to disarm the populace in a tyrannical move. Hence, the purpose of the second amendment and the wording.
I really don't know. I don't think so. Do the states still appoint officers?
My guess would be that this section might apply to the National Guard, a "well regulated" group that is "organized, armed, and disciplined" by the federal government. As such, the federal government has first dibs, and the President of the United States is their commander, not the Governor.
"As they recently overthrew a tyrannical government, do you think they wanted to depend on government as the sole source of weapons?"
Not at all. I believe they took their weapons for granted. They did, after all, use them for hunting, personal and home defense, sport, etc. They just didn't want them taken away by the newly formed federal government which might turn tyrannical. Thus, the second amendment with the specific reference to a state militia and a free state.
And how, do you suppose, would the security of a free state be threatened in the absence of the 2nd amendment? I mean, the Constitution, as you pointed out, already contained a militia clause. Why was something else required?
Personally, I wish the founding fathers would have constructed the second amendment to read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", similar to many state constitutions. Maybe you can tell me why they didn't, and why they chose the words they did?
It was common practice back then, when writing bills of rights, to include the reasons why the right is being enumerated. For just one of many examples, Article XVI of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights states: "The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Commonwealth." I believe some of the original drafts of the U.S. Bill of Rights contained similar language in other amendments. It may have just been the luck of the draw that the 2nd wound up retaining its explanatory clause.
But if it's true that it was intentional that the 2nd, and the 2nd alone, have an explanatory clause, then the only rational conclusion was that they wanted to emphasize that amendment, not weaken it. It's well known that the Founders by and large detested standing armies. Therefore they wanted instead for the people to have the capacity to fulfill that role themselves. The inclusion of the explanatory clause was quite possibly to emphasize that the protection of arms ownership was not just for "hunting, personal protection, sport, etc.", but also for that which is necessary to keep the state defended.
I know of no other instance where an explanatory clause to a particular enumeration of a right has been alleged to limit that right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.