|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2007 : 08:06:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We no longer live under the constitution!? |
I wouldn't take it that far, but when was the last time someone got a jury trial for a matter whose value was twenty-one dollars? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 14:33:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Original_Intent
If someone can show me a similar book that shows that the Founder's had a collectivist or limiting view on the matter (and their opinion is the only opinion that matters on it as far as interpretation), please let me know.
|
How about the Constitution? It's pretty clear on the subject. (see quotes above) 
|
Quotes above? my few quotes from founding fathers, which would be a view from contruction... or your's from the Supreme Court, which would be interpretation or legislation... |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 14:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Now, we could go on with what the militia is, and just who it is, and why it isn't really what it is but should be..... but.... |
Read the portions of the Constitution itself that refer to militias. It's pretty clear what they had in mind and who would be in control.
Could you imagine compulsory training? That would be pretty funny.....
|
Like the requirement for all school aged children to attend school, public or private, and to be capable of performing to a certain level on standardized tests?
|
We have to go to the founder's on who they meant to be the militia.... and that was nearly everyone..... You also have to look at what it was for, both from the uses by the government, and the uses to maintain a free state.
and wow...... |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 14:39:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
So if this militia stills exists, what need was/is there for Selective Service and the Draft? |
The beginning of the Empire. Congress passed the selective service law in 1917. |
Let me try again: if the militia mentioned in the Constitution still exists, what need is there for Selective Service?
And if that militia no longer exists (thus the need for Selective Service), what force could the Second Amendment possibly have?
|
The militia stil lexists to maintain the free state. The second amendment has not been repealed. Of the government does not want to use the militia, that is the governmnets business. Just because it is not used, dosen't mean it does not exisit.
I say we Grant Letters of Marquis and Reprisal to the fisherman off of Florida to hi-jack some drug-runners..... |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 19:09:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Original_Intent
If someone can show me a similar book that shows that the Founder's had a collectivist or limiting view on the matter (and their opinion is the only opinion that matters on it as far as interpretation), please let me know.
|
How about the Constitution? It's pretty clear on the subject. (see quotes above)
|
Quotes above? my few quotes from founding fathers, which would be a view from contruction... or your's from the Supreme Court, which would be interpretation or legislation...
|
I was referring to the quotes I took directly from the Constitution itself. That's really the last word on the Constitution. :) |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 19:10:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Now, we could go on with what the militia is, and just who it is, and why it isn't really what it is but should be..... but.... |
Read the portions of the Constitution itself that refer to militias. It's pretty clear what they had in mind and who would be in control.
Could you imagine compulsory training? That would be pretty funny.....
|
Like the requirement for all school aged children to attend school, public or private, and to be capable of performing to a certain level on standardized tests?
|
We have to go to the founder's on who they meant to be the militia.... and that was nearly everyone..... You also have to look at what it was for, both from the uses by the government, and the uses to maintain a free state.
and wow......
|
The Constitution doesn't mention the militia in the context of maintaining a free state. It does relegate the militia to State appointed officers and to ultimate control by the President. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 19:12:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
So if this militia stills exists, what need was/is there for Selective Service and the Draft? |
The beginning of the Empire. Congress passed the selective service law in 1917. |
Let me try again: if the militia mentioned in the Constitution still exists, what need is there for Selective Service?
And if that militia no longer exists (thus the need for Selective Service), what force could the Second Amendment possibly have?
|
The militia stil lexists to maintain the free state. The second amendment has not been repealed. Of the government does not want to use the militia, that is the governmnets business. Just because it is not used, dosen't mean it does not exisit.
I say we Grant Letters of Marquis and Reprisal to the fisherman off of Florida to hi-jack some drug-runners.....
|
The 2nd Amendment does not establish a militia. It merely prevents the federal government from dismantling state controlled militias by confiscating the weapons of private citizens who are part of an established state militia. And an established militia appears to be a bit more than just 'every male between age x and y.' |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 19:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The Constitution doesn't mention the militia in the context of maintaining a free state. It does relegate the militia to State appointed officers and to ultimate control by the President.
|
The militia is under the control of the president in the case of a congressional deceleration of war.
My point is made once again: America does not live under the constitution.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 04:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by chaloobi
The Constitution doesn't mention the militia in the context of maintaining a free state. It does relegate the militia to State appointed officers and to ultimate control by the President.
|
The militia is under the control of the president in the case of a congressional deceleration of war.
My point is made once again: America does not live under the constitution.
|
Specifically:
The Congress shall have power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
|
And...
| The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; |
So when the militia has been called up by the Federal government to do whatever - execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions - it's commanded by the President. Otherwise it reverts to officers appointed by the State from which the militia originates. Ironically one of the three stated functions of the militia is to put down a rebellion against the Union, which is arguably opposite the "armed citizen as check against oppression" role many have been waxing nostalgic about in this thread.
Also, I'm not sure how any of that makes your point....?
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/07/2007 04:54:34 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 19:39:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by chaloobi
The Constitution doesn't mention the militia in the context of maintaining a free state. It does relegate the militia to State appointed officers and to ultimate control by the President.
|
The militia is under the control of the president in the case of a congressional deceleration of war.
My point is made once again: America does not live under the constitution.
|
Specifically:
The Congress shall have power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
|
And...
| The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; |
So when the militia has been called up by the Federal government to do whatever - execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions - it's commanded by the President. Otherwise it reverts to officers appointed by the State from which the militia originates. Ironically one of the three stated functions of the militia is to put down a rebellion against the Union, which is arguably opposite the "armed citizen as check against oppression" role many have been waxing nostalgic about in this thread.
Also, I'm not sure how any of that makes your point....?
|
Read your first quote from the constitution and reflect on the past 60 years. It is apparent that my point is well founded in recent history.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:15:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The militia is under the control of the president in the case of a congressional deceleration of war. |
And then:| Read your first quote from the constitution and reflect on the past 60 years. It is apparent that my point is well founded in recent history. |
It's obvious you're referring to the fact that Congress hasn't declared war, but so what? I don't recall the President calling up the militia in the last 60 years, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:24:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The militia is under the control of the president in the case of a congressional deceleration of war. |
And then:| Read your first quote from the constitution and reflect on the past 60 years. It is apparent that my point is well founded in recent history. |
It's obvious you're referring to the fact that Congress hasn't declared war, but so what? I don't recall the President calling up the militia in the last 60 years, either.
|
How many wars has America participated in the last 60 years?
How many wars has congress declared in the last 60 years?
The difference in the numbers that answer these questions prove my point.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 22:59:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
How many wars has America participated in the last 60 years?
How many wars has congress declared in the last 60 years?
The difference in the numbers that answer these questions prove my point. |
In the context of this discussion, your point is proven only if declaring a war required calling up the militia, and it does not.
If you'd like to change the context to nothing more than who has the power to declare war - without any regard to who controls, maintains or is in the militia - go right ahead. But it'll be seen as moving the goalposts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 23:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
How many wars has America participated in the last 60 years?
How many wars has congress declared in the last 60 years?
The difference in the numbers that answer these questions prove my point. |
In the context of this discussion, your point is proven only if declaring a war required calling up the militia, and it does not.
If you'd like to change the context to nothing more than who has the power to declare war - without any regard to who controls, maintains or is in the militia - go right ahead. But it'll be seen as moving the goalposts.
|
I saw that it was established on page two of this talk that the amendment was defunct. I moved on to the greater point that the constitution is also defunct.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 14:43:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
So if this militia stills exists, what need was/is there for Selective Service and the Draft? |
The beginning of the Empire. Congress passed the selective service law in 1917. |
Let me try again: if the militia mentioned in the Constitution still exists, what need is there for Selective Service?
And if that militia no longer exists (thus the need for Selective Service), what force could the Second Amendment possibly have?
|
The militia stil lexists to maintain the free state. The second amendment has not been repealed. Of the government does not want to use the militia, that is the governmnets business. Just because it is not used, dosen't mean it does not exisit.
I say we Grant Letters of Marquis and Reprisal to the fisherman off of Florida to hi-jack some drug-runners.....
|
The 2nd Amendment does not establish a militia. It merely prevents the federal government from dismantling state controlled militias by confiscating the weapons of private citizens who are part of an established state militia. And an established militia appears to be a bit more than just 'every male between age x and y.'
|
While the Constitution is indeed the final word on the constitution, it is what the founder's meant that count's. (or should). They are very, very specific on the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
Read that book I linked. It should be the only word in interpretation. The Supreme Court can screw itself for the changes it has made through it's (pathetic at times) interpretations. If they do not want us to own any knid of personal weapon that you would not find on a member of the armed forces, then they need to pass an amendment to that fact. |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Second Amendment
