Posted on 12/12/2007 2:03:04 PM PST by neverdem
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.
Now, I’m going to grab an original 1787 newspaper in my personal library. I didn’t purchase it because of Coxe...but it sure would be nice to find an original publication by him. If there is one, I will quote it here in full.
The difficulties which present themselves are on one side almost sufficient to dismay the most sanguine, whilst on the other side the most timid are compelled to encounter them by the mortal diseases of the existing constitution. These diseases need not be pointed out to you who so well understand them. Suffice it to say that they are at present marked by symptoms which are truly alarming, which have tainted the faith of the most orthodox republicans, and which challenge from the votaries of liberty every concession in favor of stable Government not infringing fundamental principles, as the only security against an opposite extreme of our present situation. I think myself that it will be expedient in the first place to lay the foundation of the new system in such a ratification by the people themselves of the several States as will render it clearly paramount to their Legislative authorities. 2dly. Over & above the positive power of regulating trade and sundry other matters in which uniformity is proper, to arm the federal head with a negative in all cases whatsoever on the local Legislatures. Without this defensive power experience and reflection have satisfied me that however ample the federal powers may be made, or however Clearly their boundaries may be delineated, on paper, they will be easily and continually baffled by the Legislative sovereignties of the States. The effects of this provision would be not only to guard the national rights and interests against invasion, but also to restrain the States from thwarting and molesting each other, and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by papermoney and other unrighteous measures which favor the interest of the majority. - James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24 November 6, 1786-February 29, 1788
"Do you persist in these word games because you hate God or because we have the right to keep and bear arms?"
And the troll responded:
He not only didn't speak to the question, he posted illogical responses. Does anyone know what he is suffering from?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Thanks for the ping!
Liberalism. Just a guess...
About 1/3 of the way down he discusses 1) To bear and 2) To keep.
You claim to offer up definitions of words as they were defined and understood circa 1791.
To support your claim, I request that you provide the definitions of the words from a verifiable dictionary entry or another such authoritative linguistic source. I don't want a long discussion, or someone else's opinion, I want a dictionary definition. After all, you assert that "words mean things", and you further make claims as to what those words meant circa 1791. So, let's see some proof.
But the poster claimed the right to keep and bear arms was an inalienable right -- like the right to life, liberty, or property. An inalienable right may only be taken away with individual due process (ie., a court of law).
If a foreign visitor had an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, the only way to deny him that right would be in a court of law -- and that decision would only apply to him.
But we deny ALL foreign visitors the right to keep and bear arms via legislation, not a court order. It cannot, therefore, be an inalienable right.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Perhaps. But I see no such need.
You asked for my source to show that this was not some "proof by assertion". That I wasn't "making it up". Well, I gave that to you. Now you say that's not definitive enough? Not exactly what you were looking for?
Too bad. I can't please everyone. Certainly if you can disprove my source or if you can find something contrary to my assertion, I'd love to see it.
That would, however, require YOU to actually do some research, rather than sending me to do it.
Do you agree that every living thing has the right to remain living, to defend itself, even though it may not have the ability to enforce that right? Some forms of plant life attempt this via various means, including mechanical and chemical. May forms of animal life will fight to the death when cornered, or use chemical warfare. A single ant may be unable to stop one from stepping on it and killing it, but several thousand fire ants may change the equation. We can go on, but I hope you get my point.
Continuing from there, as a human being skilled at the use of tools to solve problems, it seems obvious to me that I have the right to keep and bear whatever tool I may find necessary or expedient in protecting (in this case) my right to life. If I choose a firearm, it is in no way a concern of anyone else, unless or until I use my weapon to violate the rights of another.
The fact that some court or king or group of people have, in recent or distant history, conspired to try to infringe on or deny entirely a person's inalienable right does not make that right less so. It only proves that there are people out there willing to take rights away from folks who may not be willing to die defending them, or whom are willing to give their rights up in exchange for something else. The fact that due process is not followed in all cases should not be held up as anything but an embarrassment.
I requested (twice) a cite from a recognized, authoritative source, such as a dictionary. I even explained what I meant by that in case you had trouble understanding.
Instead, you offer someone else's opinion and claim that should be good enough.
As the one who makes the assertion, it is up to you to back up your claim, not me to disprove it. I see that you cannot.
This, or course, calls into question all the other assertions that you have and will continue to make. Looks to me like you just make stuff up out of whole cloth when it suits your purpose.
Kinda funny, really.
Yes. Though I do not believe the inalienable right to defend oneself includes the use of a gun.
"Continuing from there, as a human being skilled at the use of tools to solve problems, it seems obvious to me that I have the right to keep and bear whatever tool I may find necessary or expedient in protecting (in this case) my right to life. If I choose a firearm, it is in no way a concern of anyone else, unless or until I use my weapon to violate the rights of another."
You have a natural right to use whatever weapon you can get your hands on. But you have no God-given inalienable right to a full auto M4.
"The fact that due process is not followed in all cases should not be held up as anything but an embarrassment."
Perhaps you can point out an instance where it was required but not followed. You've lost me.
Thanks for the ping.
Yeah, I’m sure the Founders didn’t understand the need for a man to own a gun - the country was wilderness, wild animals everywhere, and people lived hours and days from hospitals and police stations... They’d never see the need for a man to protect his family.../s
ping
Why isn't it? It's probably good enough for everyone else on this forum.
Besides, you were simply wanting an assurance that I wasn't making it up. I gave you that assurance with the link.
"it is up to you to back up your claim"
I did! What's wrong with my cite? I stand by it unless you can tell me why it shouldn't be used.
Otherwise, this crap can go on all night -- I give you a link, you say no good, I give you another, you say no good, I give you another ...
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.