2nd Amendment "Fraud"

[Boreas]

In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour in 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger said of the 2nd Amendment that it "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

In a speech the following year he said that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." Its purpose, Burger believed, was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."

So, you see, this idea is far from new.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/archive/76368/second-amendment-gun-rights#

John

[Zeke]

Good work.

[icenine]

well regulated militia=national guard?

to be fair the founding fathers could not imagine that 250 years later the average life span of the male would be longer than the active lifespan of the penis, thus not realizing the irrational desire for men to compensate by purchasing civilian versions of the also unforseen automatic musket.....

you think ************************ would be enough

oppps
now i have done it lol

[icenine]

************************ is not allowed? how about ************************?

[icenine]

ok they could not predict erectile dysfunction and the medicines that would come along to prevent it lol
especially Ben Franklin I do not think he had that problem lol

[mpholland]

I think I am going to enjoy this thread...unfortunately I am off to work at the moment. While the story in itself is enough, I am sure there will be plenty more discussion fodder by the time I get home.

[Boreas]

I think I am going to enjoy this thread...unfortunately I am off to work at the moment. While the story in itself is enough, I am sure there will be plenty more discussion fodder by the time I get home.

It's certainly off to a god start. :confused:

John

[Boreas]

This is what the Constitution has to say about the nature and purpose of the Militia.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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;"

This is Article 1, Clauses 15 and 16 of the US Constitution. It was written before the 2nd Amendment so, the Militia and its "regulation" as described here must describe the Militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

John

[bhunter]

In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour in 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger said of the 2nd Amendment that it "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

In a speech the following year he said that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." Its purpose, Burger believed, was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."

So, you see, this idea is far from new.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/archive/76368/second-amendment-gun-rights#

John

Earl Warren thought much the same; however, that's not the current view of the SC. I'd also argue that the founders also wouldn't think that the states themselves could possibly lose so much power viz-a-viz the federal government. Moreover, how do you interpret "militia" back in the late 18th? It certainly was nothing like our largely federally controlled National Guard of today.

PS. Sanford Levine's 1989 article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" is a good read on the issue. BTW, It does support the anti-gun side.

[Boreas]

Earl Warren thought much the same; however, that's not the current view of the SC. I'd also argue that the founders also wouldn't think that the states themselves could possibly lose so much power viz-a-viz the federal government. Moreover, how do you interpret "militia" back in the late 18th? It certainly was nothing like our largely federally controlled National Guard of today.

Um, yeah, it kinda was. See my previous post.

Also see the Militia Acts of 1792.

And don't get me started on this current batch of justices!

John

[bhunter]

This is what the Constitution has to say about the nature and purpose of the Militia.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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;"

This is Article 1, Clauses 15 and 16 of the US Constitution. It was written before the 2nd Amendment so, the Militia and its "regulation" as described here must describe the Militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

John

I forget the exact circumstances, but were not the Bill of Rights somewhat hastily added because without them too much power would be granted to the federal government?

[Boreas]

I forget the exact circumstances, but were not the Bill of Rights somewhat hastily added because without them too much power would be granted to the federal government?

How would that change the meaning of Militia in, and its centrality to, the 2nd Amendment?

And, no, I wouldn't call the process hasty. It was very protracted with a lot of back and forth between the central government and the states.

John

[icenine]

Everyone forgets that the form of government we have is a federal one.....as in confederate in a generic sense of the word. It was designed so that not one branch can dominate another with a series of checks and balances. It works both ways. It protects us from tyranny from state government as well in the form of protecting minority rights.
So it is not just an argument about overarching federal govenrment witht the Bill of Rights.

[Boreas]

Everyone forgets that the form of government we have is a federal one.....as in confederate in a generic sense of the word. It was designed so that not one branch can dominate another with a series of checks and balances. It works both ways. It protects us from tyranny from state government as well in the form of protecting minority rights.
So it is not just an argument about overarching federal govenrment witht the Bill of Rights.

Actually federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) and confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation) are two different forms of government.

The primary difference, as I recall, is the degree of power ceded to the central government. A federation, which is what we are, has the stronger central authority. A confederation, which is what we were pre-1789, is too weak, allowing the constituent states too much free reign to go their own way, out of step with the central government and the other states. Our stab at confederation was a disaster.

John

[Boreas]

First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.

************************

Now do you understand why the NRA types claim that the first part of the 2nd Amendment - the very first part - doesn't mean anything? If they admitted that the right to bear arms was, as it most certainly is, tied to service in a federally controlled militia, their entire argument would collapse.

John

[bhunter]

First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.

************************

Now do you understand why the NRA types claim that the first part of the 2nd Amendment - the very first part - doesn't mean anything? If they admitted that the right to bear arms was, as it most certainly is, tied to service in a federally controlled militia, their entire argument would collapse.

John

One thinks that it is a given that every able body man would be armed back in the eighteenth. There is still a difference between the meaning of militia then and its meaning today IMHO. One also wonders what reaction the founders would have had if good old George attempted to take away their firearms.

[bhunter]

Actually federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) and confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation) are two different forms of government.

The primary difference, as I recall, is the degree of power ceded to the central government. A federation, which is what we are, has the stronger central authority. A confederation, which is what we were pre-1789, is too weak, allowing the constituent states too much free reign to go their own way, out of step with the central government and the other states. Our stab at confederation was a disaster.

John

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

[Boreas]

One thinks that it is a given that every able body man would be armed back in the eighteenth. There is still a difference between the meaning of militia then and its meaning today IMHO. One also wonders what reaction the founders would have had if good old George attempted to take away their firearms.

Well, today it means a collection of survivalists and gun nuts, a la the Michigan Militia! ;)

Really, I hear this all the time but nobody has ever actually shown me this "different" definition. I mean it's not like there were no dictionaries then.

Also, it really doesn't matter what the nuances of definitions, then and now, are. We have, from 1789, Article 1 of the Constitution and then the Militia Acts of 1792 which, academic definitions aside, show how the framers and the Congress defined it, what functions it was to fulfill and under whose control it was to operate. That's all we need to know.

John

[Boreas]

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

Pragmatism tempering idealism.

John

[Boreas]

There is one very easy way to end all this debate. If the majority of Americans agree with Justice Burger then all we have to do is demand our representatives draft a repeal or clarification to the 2nd amendment and then it can go out to the states for ratification. No fuss no muss. Easy as Pie.

If there truly is a consensus among Americans then this is a no brainier. If not well.. go pound sand.

Naive.

John

[BlueStreak]

There is one very easy way to end all this debate. If the majority of Americans agree with Justice Burger then all we have to do is demand our representatives draft a repeal or clarification to the 2nd amendment and then it can go out to the states for ratification. No fuss no muss. Easy as Pie.

If there truly is a consensus among Americans then this is a no brainier. If not well.. go pound sand.

None of that is necessary, repeal, clarification, amendment, ratification----none of it. The words are already there and they are resoundingly clear....well to those who aren't drowning in denial, anyhow. Your refusal to accept them doesn't make you right. It just makes you closed minded and intransigent. Some people would say you're an "ass". But, that would upset your delicate psychological constitution, so I won't go there.

Cordially,
Dave

[mpholland]

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

[Boreas]

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

You don't actually think this current bunch of Republicans are conservatives, do you? And nobody's sanctifying Burger.

What's going on here? Are you unable to counter his argument or the others in this thread? Are you reduced to ad hominem jibes directed at the liberals on the board?

I'm pretty sure that's it but I welcome you to try to change my mind.

John

[BlueStreak]

to at least 1/2 the country it is not so clear.. so if the vast majority believe it says what they think then clarifying it would shut them all up right? We can get onto debating abortion or something.

Because they don't want to be.

"Huh, what? I can't hear you........!":rolleyes:

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

Yeah, so. Post one JFK quote about "excessive taxation" and watch Conservatives become instant Kennedy fans.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Regards,
Dave

[mpholland]

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

[icenine]

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

Locke idea's is only valid in political science survey courses and philosophy. You cannot apply them to our nation today...this is the real world, and in the late 18th century his ideas had to be adapted to the real world at the time.

See how well John Locke's ideas are working out in Egypt.....

out government is not tyrannical

boy I am sounding conservative....

[icenine]

There is one very easy way to end all this debate. If the majority of Americans agree with Justice Burger then all we have to do is demand our representatives draft a repeal or clarification to the 2nd amendment and then it can go out to the states for ratification. No fuss no muss. Easy as Pie.

If there truly is a consensus among Americans then this is a no brainier. If not well.. go pound sand.

Of course it would not be successful...your argument is evidence that we are correct in pointing out that private gun ownership is not at risk. We are only talking regulation of semi automatic assault weapons and magazine size.

[mpholland]

I suppose if I am to be enticed to counter, I could quote Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley from his Principles of constitutional law circa 1898.

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision, undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose, but this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

It is really kind of futile to try and settle the argument. As I have stated before, the commentary on the Constitution and Bill of Rights is filled with enough arguments on both sides to back up any twist you want to come up with.

Marc

[Boreas]

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

Then what is your objective and your desire and how did your most recent post serve those ends?

Nobody is "unnecessary" and nobody is forgetting anything about the Bill of Rights. It seems, however, that some people with a case to be made regarding the 2nd Amendment believe it's the only thing that matters or, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the final third of it is all that matters.

There are other documents that outline our rights and responsibilities as well as the rights and responsibilities of government. Some of those have been mentioned in this thread. Taken together, they paint a clear picture of the framers' intent regarding the possession of arms by the populace. The 2nd Amendment doesn't negate Article 1 and it doesn't nullify later legislation like the Militia Acts.

Next, nobody here is arguing that you don't have the right to own firearms. That right, however, has ALWAYS been a qualified right. There have always been individuals who for one reason or another could own none and there were types of weapons that were outside the bounds of what was permitted in private hands.

When the Bill of Rights was written ownership of a field gun wasn't allowed. Then, when machine guns were invented, they became off limits to civilians except under very narrowly defined circumstances. So we see that, as time moves on and new weapons appear, the qualified right to bear arms needs to be tweaked. I think it's clear that a tweak regarding assault weapons and high capacity magazines is in order - overdue, in fact.

John

[Boreas]

I suppose if I am to be enticed to counter, I could quote Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley from his Principles of constitutional law circa 1898.

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision, undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose, but this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

It is really kind of futile to try and settle the argument. As I have stated before, the commentary on the Constitution and Bill of Rights is filled with enough arguments on both sides to back up any twist you want to come up with.

Marc

Marc, commentary is pretty meaningless. Cooley's opinion is commentary. Hell, this thread is in a sense commentary. Commentary is at least half failed argument and ex post facto rationalization. Should our words here be used as a justification for a certain interpretation of the Constitution?

The only thing that really matters is what ended up enshrined in the Constitution and codified into the law of the nation. The nature and purpose of the Militia is clearly delineated in both the Constitution and governing statutes. It is of paramount significant that the right to bear arms is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution or in US law except as it applies to the militia.

And how can Cooley say that no regulation of that right is either indicated or allowed? The very word is in the 2nd Amendment.

John

[mpholland]

I am not sure what makes you think that I am against some regulation of guns either. I have mentioned in more than one post that there is no reason guns should have no regulation. We regulate free speech so that it can't bring harm to others. We regulate freedom of the press so that it can't falsely hurt others. We regulate gatherings and protests through timing and permitting. I don't have a problem with regulation, I just don't think it is any of the governments business what legal guns I have so I am against registering the guns I currently own. Yes, I have already stated that is a bit paranoid, but I am OK with that.

Marc

[mpholland]

Marc, commentary is pretty meaningless. Hell, this thread is in a sense commentary. Commentary is at least half failed argument and ex post facto rationalization. Should our words here be used as a justification for a certain interpretation of the Constitution?

The only thing that really matters is what ended up enshrined in the Constitution and codified into the law of the nation. The nature and purpose of the Militia is clearly delineated in both the Constitution and governing statutes. It is of paramount significant that the right to bear arms is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution or in US law except as it applies to the militia.

John

Which is also open to interpretation, otherwise we would have no need for the Supreme Court. I just happen to believe more along the lines of Cooley.

[finnbow]

This is what the Constitution has to say about the nature and purpose of the Militia.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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;"

This is Article 1, Clauses 15 and 16 of the US Constitution. It was written before the 2nd Amendment so, the Militia and its "regulation" as described here must describe the Militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

John

And moreover, the idea of the a militia was to reduce the need, expense, and threat to liberty of having a large standing army, a concept that the Right now embraces.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch05.htm

[BlueStreak]

It is really kind of futile to try and settle the argument. As I have stated before, the commentary on the Constitution and Bill of Rights is filled with enough arguments on both sides to back up any twist you want to come up with.

Marc

True. But, that's what makes it so much fun, Marc.;)

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

Which is also open to interpretation, otherwise we would have no need for the Supreme Court. I just happen to believe more along the lines of Cooley.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court no power to determine the constitutionality of US law. This is a right which the Supreme Court arrogated unto itself in Marbury v. Madison. Under the Constitution they're just the "court of last resort" in the US.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

John

[bobabode]

Naive.

John

and petulant or is Shorty just being petty? I dunno, I'm just stupid old Bob.

[BlueStreak]

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

Same here, although I do love to get into a fight every now and then. Something about the heat of battle and blood on my sword...................:)

I stay here, because I have learned a lot----from everyone. Even those who wimped out and crawled away. Even the idiots......if for no other reason than this; I am better at dealing with idiots now.:p

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Don't be so hard on bobabode , he can't help if his brain is tiny.

Really? That's all you have? Why am I not surprised...you are such a sad little troll. :rolleyes:

[d-ray657]

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

You're only unnecessary part of the time.:rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

[icenine]

And moreover, the idea of the a militia was to reduce the need, expense, and threat to liberty of having a large standing army, a concept that the Right now embraces.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch05.htm

And the British had been quartering troops in the homes of the colonists...something that was still fresh in people's minds then

[BlueStreak]

Don't be so hard on bobabode , he can't help if his brain is tiny.

Really? That's all you have? Why am I not surprised...you are such a sad little troll. :rolleyes:

BOYS!

LOL......

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

And the British had been quartering troops in the homes of the colonists...something that was still fresh in people's minds then

The heavy emphasis on property rights, stems from this. Imagine foreign soldiers throwing you and your family out and moving into your home. Or worse, they make you stay and force you to feed them, do their laundry and empty their chamber pots........F**K THAT!:mad:

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

... We can get onto debating abortion or something.

Or get really nasty - tubes vs solid state :eek:

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

I recall being taught that the argument against the Bill of Rights was, they'd be considered the ONLY rights. Why does the word presentiment spring to mind? They did understand government gathers power unto itself.

According to the militia acts posted here we should all have automatic assault rifles at home as a matter of course.

Pete

[icenine]

Pete no matter how bad it gets no one is going to fight their own government here.
You have to remember no Federal government no Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Now you know even the most rabid tri-cornered hat with the tightest long tailed coat is not going to take up arms against his own Social Security check. lol

[Boreas]

Pete no matter how bad it gets no one is going to fight their own government here.
You have to remember no Federal government no Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Now you know even the most rabid tri-cornered hat with the tightest long tailed coat is not going to take up arms against his own Social Security check. lol

Actually, I can think of maybe three people on PC who just might.

John

[icenine]

Oh they can rely upon their rugged individualism lol....I think they may end up selling hollow points at the flea market so they can buy some spam...

[piece-itpete]

The present doesn't last forever....

Pete

[icenine]

The present doesn't last forever....

Pete

hmm yes it does if you think about it

"The past is not dead. It is not even past."
William Faulkner

[bobabode]

The present doesn't last forever....

Pete

You are mistaken my pendulous friend, there will always be strife and disagreement but there's always Hope & Change, ya know?:)

[Boreas]

The present doesn't last forever....

Pete

hmm yes it does if you think about it

And the future never comes.

John

[finnbow]

The future's uncertain and the end is always near.

[BlueStreak]

Or get really nasty - tubes vs solid state :eek:



I recall being taught that the argument against the Bill of Rights was, they'd be considered the ONLY rights. Why does the word presentiment spring to mind? They did understand government gathers power unto itself.

According to the militia acts posted here we should all have automatic assault rifles at home as a matter of course.

Pete

And, they would still be no more useful than a security blanket. It's not 1793 anymore.

Regards,
Dave

[bhunter]

Locke idea's is only valid in political science survey courses and philosophy. You cannot apply them to our nation today...this is the real world, and in the late 18th century his ideas had to be adapted to the real world at the time.

See how well John Locke's ideas are working out in Egypt.....

out government is not tyrannical

boy I am sounding conservative....

And that would be to centralize power for the benefit of what were then elites. My rather simple point is that freedom and restraint can not be brought about by command and have any chance of surviving long term. BTW, this feels like the liberal idealist argument prevalent in the 1960s? Interestingly, now that those idealists have the reins of power, they're just as power grubbing as the right wrt command and control of their fellow citizens.

Locke is much more complex that the oft quoted social contract theory snippets favored by both the left and the right IMHO. In fact, I feel that "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" ought be studied before the "Two Treatises." All of this revolves around the nature of the self, free will, and choice theory. I suppose in Political Economy, we'd try to design a system that maximizes choice and free will while minimizing any hindrance caused by government since the government is at best only an adjunct to the individuals.

[icenine]

Bro the 60s were 50 years ago so any liberals old enough then to have been influential are dead or close to it. Obama, you and I were products mostly of the 80s....so I do not see any sort of 60s countercultural bent to the current Democratic majority or Obama himself.

i know you do not like government but for some reason I feel you are close to it in your working life since you said you saw a drone close to your office (or former office)...hmmmm
maybe your a government man like me....
remember our government allows individuals to flourish in a nice regulated society

[bhunter]

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court no power to determine the constitutionality of US law. This is a right which the Supreme Court arrogated unto itself in Marbury v. Madison. Under the Constitution they're just the "court of last resort" in the US.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

John

And a most beautiful case it is. Long live John Marshall! A classical fork maneuvre. The left sure did like the Warren Court and its activist rulings. Christ, I even miss some of those justices and their opinions.

[bhunter]

The future's uncertain and the end is always near.

Luck's a chance and trouble's sure.

[Boreas]

And a most beautiful case it is. Long live John Marshall! A classical fork maneuvre. The left sure did like the Warren Court and its activist rulings. Christ, I even miss some of those justices and their opinions.

The fact that you like things this way changes nothing. The truth remains that, ever since Marbury, the Supreme Court has been operating beyond its constitutional mandate.

John