|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2007 : 04:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
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 The second amendment has not been repealed.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.
|
They are also very, very specific on the purpose for which an individual has that right. And they are very very specific on what a militia is and what level of government controls it. I personally don't believe an amendment banning gun ownership is necessary. There is no constitutionally protected right for gun ownership outside of membership in a state regulated militia. Perhaps an amendment protecting ownership of fire arms by citizens would be a better idea. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/11/2007 04:43:31 |
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2007 : 14:51:41 [Permalink]
|
Ehhh... wrong. There is no constitutionaly mandated power to the government to limit the firearms I own. THe Constitution is not the "government is not allowed to do this" but the "government can do this". Nowhere in the constitution is the power to do much of what the Bill of Rights says they cannot due. Hamilton warned us about these amendments, and the future governments would read into the constitution some power they did not have because of them. An "in" basically.
Hamilton, Adams (both), Lee, Henry, Mason, Madisson, Jefferson, etc.... believed and wrote about it from an individual viewpoint, and from a viewpoint of protection from the Federal Government. Please show me some evidence that this is not the intention. Please do not give me your interpretation on what the militia is. THe Constitution llows for organizing and calling forth, but does not define it. The founders' did this.
No amnedment protecting ownership is needed. The government, in theory, has absolutly no power in the matter. The only amendment that would be neccessary is one that would refuse the individual states the power to regulate. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2007 : 17:50:58 [Permalink]
|
In reality the constitution has been defunct since the American civil war. Part by part it has been corrupted with the ultimate power; that of war, being relinquish by the people (congress) to the king in the 1950's.
There is nothing new under the sun. These cycles are predicted by the past.
|
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 - 09/12/2007 : 05:19:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Ehhh... wrong. There is no constitutionaly mandated power to the government to limit the firearms I own. THe Constitution is not the "government is not allowed to do this" but the "government can do this". Nowhere in the constitution is the power to do much of what the Bill of Rights says they cannot due. Hamilton warned us about these amendments, and the future governments would read into the constitution some power they did not have because of them. An "in" basically. |
Round and round we go. What I actually said was that you have no Constitutional protection to possess a fire arm outside of the context of a state regulated militia. Therefore your city, county or state can ban your firearem and that if you want to ammend the constitution perhaps adding said protection would be a good addition.
| Hamilton, Adams (both), Lee, Henry, Mason, Madisson, Jefferson, etc.... believed and wrote about it from an individual viewpoint, and from a viewpoint of protection from the Federal Government. Please show me some evidence that this is not the intention. Please do not give me your interpretation on what the militia is. THe Constitution llows for organizing and calling forth, but does not define it. The founders' did this. |
Again, what they wrote outside the Constitution is irrelevant. The Constitution is very clear on the context in which your right to own a fire arm is protected. It is also very clear what a militia is - I've quoted it twice in prior posts and the text is available at Wikipedia if you'd like to read it yourself. Outside that context, of being a member of a state regulated militia, you have no protection to own a fire arm. No, the Constitution doesn't limit your right to own a fire arm, but it doesn't protect that right from being legislated away.
No amnedment protecting ownership is needed. The government, in theory, has absolutly no power in the matter. The only amendment that would be neccessary is one that would refuse the individual states the power to regulate.
|
It's the city, county and state level that, in theory, can do whatever they want vis a vis your fire arm ownership rights. In reality, the Federal government could probably legislate said right away too were it not for the absurd misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment now in favor. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2007 : 07:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi, until you find somewhere in the constitution that shows the federal government was the right to regulate arms, you have no case based on this part of the constitution:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
|
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 - 09/12/2007 : 07:49:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Chaloobi, until you find somewhere in the constitution that shows the federal government was the right to regulate arms, you have no case based on this part of the constitution:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
|
I've repeated several times now that I am not claiming the Federal government necessarily has the right to regulate ownership of fire arms. I think they might try it anyway, though they'd probably be challenged by the ACLU, etc....
The 10th Amendment, per your quote, refers to "...reserved to the States, or the people." In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically say the right to bear arms for anyone and everyone is protected, then it's not, and the State government can restrict it. And if the State Constitution does not prohibit County or City governments from restricting fire arms, then they can restrict them as well. Do you disagree? And if so, on what basis??? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/12/2007 07:51:02 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2007 : 18:28:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The 10th Amendment, per your quote, refers to "...reserved to the States, or the people." In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically say the right to bear arms for anyone and everyone is protected, then it's not, and the State government can restrict it. And if the State Constitution does not prohibit County or City governments from restricting fire arms, then they can restrict them as well. Do you disagree? And if so, on what basis???
|
The States do not have the right to disarm the population because the federal government does have the right in the constitution to call up the militia.
|
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 - 09/13/2007 : 04:31:51 [Permalink]
|
| Um, I don't follow your logic. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2007 : 08:08:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Um, I don't follow your logic.
|
OK- The federal government has the right to call up the militia from the states, which is all able men.
The states can not disarm the militia (able bodied men) as this would a be an indirect violations of the contract.
Think of it like this:
You and I contracted that I would provide you with house painters; under the thought that house painters brought their own brushes as is commonly understood, and I removed all the brushes from my house painters. Would I be in violation of our contract? |
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 - 09/13/2007 : 11:23:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by chaloobi
Um, I don't follow your logic.
|
OK- The federal government has the right to call up the militia from the states, which is all able men.
The states can not disarm the militia (able bodied men) as this would a be an indirect violations of the contract.
Think of it like this:
You and I contracted that I would provide you with house painters; under the thought that house painters brought their own brushes as is commonly understood, and I removed all the brushes from my house painters. Would I be in violation of our contract?
|
This logic only works if A. you accept that the militia still exists in a 'Well Regulated' form (which it clearly does not)and B. that said militia indeed does merely consist of all able bodied men and no other formal association, like a signup sheet or, god help us, drill training. It's hard to reconcile the idea of a Well Regulated Militia with the idea that it consists of "all able bodied men", regardless of said men's personal preference, in the context of today's reality. This is about reality, right? 
Some pages back I posted several links to historical documents describing what the early American militia was actually like - reality again - and it describes towns forming a milita as soon as their charter was accepted (for defense against aggression from the local native Americans). If the definition of a militia was as simple as 'all able bodied men are in the militia' then what exactly does 'forming' the militia mean? 'Forming' implies there wasn't a militia prior to the act and if the definition really is only 'all able-bodied men' then why does a militia need to be 'formed?' Since it's everyone, shouldn't it's existance be assumed? And if there is more involved with creating a 'well regulated militia' than just having armed able bodied males in the population then, again, there's no basis in the 2nd Amendment for carte blanche fire-arm ownership protection. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/14/2007 06:34:44 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 13:56:12 [Permalink]
|
| [quote]Hamilton, Adams (both), Lee, Henry, Mason, Madisson, Jefferson, etc.... believed and wrote about it from an individual viewpoint, and from a viewpoint of protection from the Federal Government. Please show me some evidence that this is not the intention. Please do not give me your interpretation on what the militia is. THe Constitution llows for organizing and calling forth, but does not define it. The founders' did this. |
Again, what they wrote outside the Constitution is irrelevant. The Constitution is very clear on the context in which your right to own a fire arm is protected. It is also very clear what a militia is - I've quoted it twice in prior posts and the text is available at Wikipedia if you'd like to read it yourself. Outside that context, of being a member of a state regulated militia, you have no protection to own a fire arm. No, the Constitution doesn't limit your right to own a fire arm, but it doesn't protect that right from being legislated away.
There opinion should carry the most weight. It is all in the intention. If we go strictly by the constitution then:
You have no right to these electronic communications. It is not a "press", it is not speech.
If the local army reserve decides to pitch tents in your yard, you have no recourse, they are not in your house.
You have no right to privacy in electronic communication. It is not "hidden". It is not of your person, it is not paper, it is not in your home. Don't even try to define it as an effect. It is a digital electronic signal, which carries no protection by the words of the constitution.
If we want to say the definition has changed, that is fine. However, just becuase a definition changes does not change the meaning of the constitution. The way the constitution changes is in the constitution itself. |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 10:27:51 [Permalink]
|
| The 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure a state could maintain its own armed militia. It was not intended to protect the rights of individuals to own fire arms outside that context. The only change from then to today is that states don't maintain militias anymore. That's why the 2nd Amendment is more or less obsolete. The other examples you listed may or may not be significant, may or may not be analgouse to fire arms, may or may not be reasonable, but they are not what we are talking about. If you'd like to discuss them, you should probably start a thread on that topic. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 19:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure a state could maintain its own armed militia. It was not intended to protect the rights of individuals to own fire arms outside that context. The only change from then to today is that states don't maintain militias anymore. That's why the 2nd Amendment is more or less obsolete. The other examples you listed may or may not be significant, may or may not be analgouse to fire arms, may or may not be reasonable, but they are not what we are talking about. If you'd like to discuss them, you should probably start a thread on that topic.
|
It is all the same arguement, and by definitions a stronger argument protecting firearms then privacy in electronic communication.
It is all in what the intention was. Intention was to be the biggest factor in decisions on quuestions of constitutionality. The founders defined militia in their writings over, and over, and over again as the people individually. And one of the strongest reasons was to maintain a state free of tyranny imposed by the government. That is still relevent. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 05:03:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Originally posted by chaloobi
The 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure a state could maintain its own armed militia. It was not intended to protect the rights of individuals to own fire arms outside that context. The only change from then to today is that states don't maintain militias anymore. That's why the 2nd Amendment is more or less obsolete. The other examples you listed may or may not be significant, may or may not be analgouse to fire arms, may or may not be reasonable, but they are not what we are talking about. If you'd like to discuss them, you should probably start a thread on that topic.
|
It is all the same arguement, and by definitions a stronger argument protecting firearms then privacy in electronic communication.
It is all in what the intention was. Intention was to be the biggest factor in decisions on quuestions of constitutionality. The founders defined militia in their writings over, and over, and over again as the people individually. And one of the strongest reasons was to maintain a state free of tyranny imposed by the government. That is still relevent.
|
By all indications, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the individual States could easily raise a militia to fight against the Federal standing army if they were so inclined - a guarantee to Federalism. It sort of laid the ground work for the Civil War in hind sight, but I'm sure the thought at the time was it would never come to that. The fact that the States had their militias would keep the Federal government from throwing its power around too heavy handedly and with a virtual gun at each other's heads, everyone would live together more or less peacefully, negotiating their differences rather than resorting to oppression and violence. Eerily like the Cold War when you think of it like that. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Second Amendment
