[Pitchfork]

Ah, now we're into the classic double speak I often see in this dueling quote game your type loves to play.

You provide a quote, I then note that in context Paine sets out disarmament as an ideal (an ideal I happen to agree with and believe could be achieved) and you claim I screw a very clear quote from its intent!

This is why I won't respond to 'quote' challenges!

1. Quotes are often taken out of context or misrepresented

FYI: regarding your 319 post If you check Federalist 46:
http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html
you will find no passage resembling the quote you attributed to Madison. You need to be more discerning regarding the websites you rip-off for your evidence.

Interestingly--and as an aside--you should look at Federalist 29. You will find a discussion of the training of the militia in which Hamilton argues that while extensive training would be too heavy a burden on the economy...
http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

I'd be all for a system of private arms ownership that would require weapon holders to muster twice a year! Moreover ensuring that the citizens are "properly armed and equipped" would require an accounting of weapons owned! Hamilton was effectivley advocating an arms/citizen registry in this passage. Its amazing how little you read about this Federalist from you gun nuts.

2. The second reason I oppose 'quotes as evidence' is the issue of sampling. Quoters never provide a 'representative' sample (i.e. randomly obtained) always offering a purposive and therefore biased one. I could easily find a sampling of quotes taken from today's newpapers, state and local officials and even the Congress which would make it look like the preponderance of the country's leader were opposed to war in Iraq. That would, of course, prove nothing except my capacity to cull favorable quotes from the internet.


Looking back on this debate it seem ironic to me that so much effort is expended by you gun nuts on the question of WHETHER the federal government can regulate arms when in reality the question is HOW MUCH can the FG regulate.

Regular citizens are not able to bear any arm they desire. Try building or buying a chemical or biological weapon, a surface to air missile, or an attack submarine and you'll find substantial federal resistance (to put it mildly) and your 'God given right' argument will end up on the trash heap where it belongs.

The debate is really about where we draw the line between 'complete disarmament' (Paine's ideal) and 'everything goes' (where you could own a howitzer if you wanted). Clearly neither end of the spectrum is realistically achievable. Guns for hunting will be--and should always be--fully available; cruise missiles never will be (and I would say should never be either).

Currently we ALREADY draw the line at semi-automatic center-fire rifles and handguns (with some extra leeway toward fully auto for those with the requisite license -- i.e. registration. You may even be able to buy a tank if you go through the right background checks). But having drawn a line, why couldn't we just as easily draw the 'registration-needed' line so that it included handguns or semi-automatic rifles or, for that matter, ANY weapon?

Again I have seen no cogent response to this line of reasoning. Asserting one's right to bear arms, or to self-defense, is meaningless when it is clear that a single-shot .22 cal pistol, or a pocket knife may satisfy this 'right' depending on the level of armament of your assailant.

[Pitchfork]

Let me make one more observation about quotes:

Looking at the lists that have been provided you will note that many come from newspaper editorials and floor debates in Congress and in State Houses. The fact that one side was ARGUING the particular position that citizens should be free to bear arms presupposes that there was opposition (however large is an empirical question) which DISAGREED with the statements being made. How can we then make the conceptual leap to say: Given the presence of these ARGUMENTS it is clear that the founding fathers and the whole of the American population supported this interpretation of the Second Ammendment. Clearly if this were the case THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ARGUMENT!!!

The second ammendment was as contested and controvertial a point then as it is today. Of course the controversy typically centered on the need for a 'well regulated' milita instead of, or as a check on, a federal army.

Which brings me back to the original point of my post:
Does the presence of a substantial armed portion of the Iraqi population disprove the notion that an armed citizenry can resist tyranny?
Federalist 49 seems to argue that parity in equipment and training would be required

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms"

Madison argues that Arms alone would be insufficient
"...it is not certain, that with this aid alone [arms] they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

[Jeff Head]

There is no double speak. I clearly indicated that I in fact agreed with the ideal of which Paine spoke. I simply pointed out your attempt to try and either negate, or ignore, Paine's clear assertion, after the end of idealizing, that we DARE NOT LAY ASIDE OUR WEAPONS.

No double speak there, unless you want to try and attribute it to Paine himself. His quote is clearly a charge to stay armed.

IMHO, the biggest reason you will not use quotes as a postion to argue from as respects the founders of this nation, is that you have no basis to do so ... there aren't any. Therefore, you wish, through your own wordsmithing, to negate the clear intent of those same founders and proceed with your own ... a classic method of propogandizing.

... you still have not answered the issues regarding your other assertion, that is that armed citizens are powerless against modern armies. That is an assertion that has been refuted by a number of individuals, many of them very experienced with the very modern armies you speak of ... see my 264

[Travis McGee]

When are you going to answer 307 et al, you gutless fraud?

[Travis McGee]

'complete disarmament' (Paine's ideal)

You are a lying fraud. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

"Paine's ideal" as you put it is in the nature of "if all men were angels". It is meant to lead to his point, that since all men cannot ever be disarmed, good men MUST remain armed. You are twisting his words 180* from his meaning. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

Now, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TACKLE #307, YOU GUTLESS FRAUD?