Damn. You're right.
I assumed this was common knowledge. But I guess common knowledge is about as rare as common sense.
Damn. You're right.
I assumed this was common knowledge. But I guess common knowledge is about as rare as common sense.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,925
- 2,908
- 136
This is usually when people like her202 and Moosewhatever abandon that line of thinking.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,925
- 2,908
- 136
I think that we can agree that the founders weren't so stupid as to think that technology would never advance beyond what they had in the 18th century. Like Amused said, amend the constitution or gtfo.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,479
- 19,988
- 146
Then you shouldn't have any trouble Amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Because that is your only recourse.
Last edited:
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Both of your quotes refer to the COLLECTIVE bearing of arms.
"The strongest reason for the people [not "each person"] to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves [not "himself"] against tyranny in government."
"Let them [not "each"] take arms."
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Shush, no need to bring any kind of sense to the argument. "Liberals" like the First Amendment, so it should be interpreted as broadly as possible. They don't like the Second, so they'll just ignore it.
LOL. "Liberals."
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
IF I were on the Court and presented a case on cert that asked the question about the right to own guns I'd vote in favor of them... any kind of gun.
Congress does have the right to legislate against them but in my view that is Unconstitutional... The purpose stated so many times in so many venues was the protection from within and without...
One poster indicates the plural... as if there is no individual among them.
Just what is it that folks fear about gun ownership? Are they afraid the burglar will get blown to kingdom come? Or that their wealth will be taken by a gun toting republican?
Government has the Constitutional right to raise an army.... and the premise is that the folks being raised are gun owning militia... ready to do battle... What is the difference twixt a citizen who goes to war under current law or one that goes cuz they're patriotic Americans.. assuming both might be.
IF you want owning a gun or a car so be it... that is YOUR right!
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Thomas Jefferson was big on right to revolution wrote whole papers on it and conditions for it, big on firearm ownership, it's easy to make case even b2 bombers would have been cool with him in particular as a necessary agent, today, for parity sake, for right to revolution. Your prof is an idiot.
Last edited:
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,479
- 19,988
- 146
OMFG you are ignorant. In no way shape or form did they confuse "the people" (individual citizens) with "the government." They had no concept of a "collective."
According to your shit brained logic, many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are "collective." Dumbass.
We have a right to "collective privacy:"
Oh, and a "collective right to assemble and petition the government":
Speaking of that, note how "the people" and "government" are separate? That's because 'the people" are citizens. NOT some idea of a "collective" that didn't even fucking exist until over 100 years later.
Note how "the people" are not the "government?
And also note how the "states are separate as well?
Your communist idea of a "collective" did not even exist at the time. The founding fathers had two concepts: The individual citizen and the government. Period. In ALL writings of the period, "the people" mean the citizens and was always separate from "government."
Last edited:
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,479
- 19,988
- 146
Um, no.
The right to keep and bear arms did NOT apply to "ordinance" (as it was spelled then). Only arms. Do you know what the difference between those two words are?
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,925
- 2,908
- 136
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,479
- 19,988
- 146
This is a reply I wrote a few years ago in the OT forum. I may as well just copy and paste it in every new gun thread...
The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."
In fact, here is my challenge:
Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"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, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them."
-- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."
In fact, here is my challenge:
Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"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, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them."
-- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Last edited:
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,479
- 19,988
- 146
That is NOT liberal in any way shape or form.
It is "progressive." The American left is NOT liberal except on two key hot button issues: gays and abortion. For just about everything else they are authoritarian.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Agreed, but I think the progressives have pretty thoroughly taken over the word liberal for at least a couple decades. If you want to refer to "classical liberals" nowadays you need to specifically do so.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter