Did Thomas Jefferson believe the 2nd Amendment defined a collective (positive) right?

[Zorkorist]

How else, today, could we be arguing about the "right to bear arms?"

How else, if not because the Government, and Constitution, that our Founding Fathers created, is powerful enough to attack one of the Bills of Rights.

-John

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Zorkorist (or John), nothing you say has any bearing on this discussion, since you obviously cannot find the "edit" button.

 

[Zorkorist]

You can choose to ignore my posts, any time you wish.

But my posts are on topic, and a good read, if I say so myself.

-John

 

[LunarRay]

Do you happen to remember how Hamilton died?

Yeah....

The Vice President shot him is what the historians say and he was indicted but acquitted in a few states.
I don't think Cheney was a good shot nor do I think Hamilton intended to use his first or second shot at the Vice President.

To answer your question I'd opine that Hamilton died as the result of poor medical treatment notwithstanding the wound entry was in his abdomen above the right hip and broke some ribs and lacerated his liver... and other destruction... clearly a case of absent of malice on the part of the attendants... iow, the paramedic team was no where to be found.

 

[monovillage]

Take the time to read the Anti-Federalist Papers, you see so many people that just quote the Federalist Papers without the other side ever being heard.

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalis.../dp/0451528840

 

[LunarRay]

Take the time to read the Anti-Federalist Papers, you see so many people that just quote the Federalist Papers without the other side ever being heard.

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalis.../dp/0451528840

The Federalist is mainly used to understand the underlying basis for contextual writings in the Constitution... Hamilton, Madison and Jay sorta explained their thinking and Madison being a major Constitutional factor needs being understood beyond the Articles as we read them.

In other words, there is no other side.

 

[IGBT]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"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." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[monovillage]

The Federalist is mainly used to understand the underlying basis for contextual writings in the Constitution... Hamilton, Madison and Jay sorta explained their thinking and Madison being a major Constitutional factor needs being understood beyond the Articles as we read them.

In other words, there is no other side.

You're kidding right ? The Anti-Federalist Papers were written in reply to the opinions published in newspapers, the debate still isn't over, we're talking about many of these issues to this day.

 

[LunarRay]

Reading Jefferson and applying that to the reading of the 2nd we can easily see that the conditions Jefferson lived under have evolved to a much different state of affairs.
Why shouldn't folks have the right to own the latest and greatest 'long gun'... an AK47 for instance. Are we limited to hunting or is the purpose of the 2nd as Jefferson said many times to protect our freedom from within and without.... Why should we limit ourselves to sub standard weapons to defend that freedom against a force with superior weaponry...?
I guess the answer is that we gave that proxy to the established military of the US... and the internal Police folks... They can't do that job if everyone has equal firepower... but neither can we protect ourselves from them if that became necessary... We've evolved to become Marshmallows. The fire pit is over that way...

 

[LunarRay]

You're kidding right ? The Anti-Federalist Papers were written in reply to the opinions published in newspapers, the debate still isn't over, we're talking about many of these issues to this day.

The Constitution is written and was written by some folks at least one of whom is an author of the federalist. The debate over what is meant by what ever as contrast against op ed pieces is the point... It shows the contrast and better defines the meaning of the Constitution... At least that is how I see it.
There is no other side means that when the author writes something the bit about what he may have meant if it is not already clear moves to the contrast between a this and a that... Parole evidence of sorts.

Edit: I would add that Hamilton's Federalist 84 came out against the Bill of Rights... not because he feared a weaker Central Government but, rather, cuz he felt that if explicitly stated it might be read to mean that those were the only rights of the people... Scalia and Roberts and Thomas might find that interesting... Alito too, I think..

 

[Craig234]

Edit: I would add that Hamilton's Federalist 84 came out against the Bill of Rights... not because he feared a weaker Central Government but, rather, cuz he felt that if explicitly stated it might be read to mean that those were the only rights of the people... Scalia and Roberts and Thomas might find that interesting... Alito too, I think..

That's what I meant, in saying how the right pretends the 9th doesn't exist.

There were two sides in the founding fathers: those who wanted the rights in the bill of rights and others protected, but were opposed to a bill of rights for the concern you say, that listing them would lead to ones not listed being not protected; and those who felt there was danger of the rights in the bill of rights not being protected if not listed, but who also wanted others protected.

The constitution was only approved because there was an agreement to add the bill of rights - and that included the 9th and 10th for a reason.

Right-wingers who talk about liberals 'inventing rights' are VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

These right-wingers are the ones who are 're-writing the constitution' to remove the 9th and 10th with their attacks - selectively ignoring them to fit their own agenda.

 

[Nemesis 1]

My professor seems to think so, but I think he's full of shit.

Did Jefferson really believe that individuals shouldn't own firearms?

.

LOL! Your professor is a freaken idiot. As are most all the professors teaching today . Just look at there results . Its self evident. Would Thomas Jefferson believe such a thing . Only if he was a complete fool. GO back in time to those places than ask yourself if Wild america and homesteaders needed weapons for protection? But than again I trust the Indians than, better than my neighbors now.

 

[Double Trouble]

Listen carefully. Oh, forget it, you won't, but I'll post it for others.

The constitution cannot and shoult not - whatever nutjob Scalia selectively says when it suits his agenda - 'be applied exactly as was intended when it was written'.

His 'position' - not really a position, but one he argues when he wants - has been exposed with mockery before as ridiculous.

That is NOT saying it means nothing, and you just say 'well, our opinion has changed, so we'll 'interpret' the consitution to mean what we prefer'.

That's a phony straw man - and ironically used by people who defend doing just that when they want, like saying corporations are persons with all kinds of new 'rights'.

Rather, it's saying that some things by their very nature to continue to UPHOLD the intent of the constitution need updating; some things are VAGUE.

When something in the constitution is vague, there is no 'sticking to what the constitution says' - there's only deciding the issue one way or another.

Now, people might SAY their preference is the 'strict' one and attack the other as 'revisionist'. They also may be lying.

The fact is, for example, the constitution addresses a complex issue with a word like "unreasonable". You are protected from "unreasonable" searches.

Now, what does that mean? In an era of high technology surveillance tools and electronic information like e-mail, where the courts have to take every single specific example of 'searches' that is brought to trial and rule what the constitution says about whether it's 'constitutional' or 'unconstitutional', and the *entire constitutional guidance* they have to use to make the ruling is the word "unreasonable", how are they supposed to draw all these exactly lines 'as the constitution says'?

The fact is, the guidance IS NOT THERE. And trying to frame the issue as 'people who follow the constitution and people who ignore it' is itself a lie.

It's a more complicated issue, and while there are cases of legal history of how other rulings were decided, and laws, and expert opinions, there's still one word - "unreasonable".

Deal with it.

Yes, there's a danger that this sort of thing can lead to the contitution meaning 'anything', and thereby being undermined, and we have to guard against that.

But the very people who most take liberties are on the right, and they wrap themselves in the cloak of attacks that they're the ones protecting its 'strict meaning'.

When you take the spirit of the consitution - the rights it delineates, based on society at the time - and you are faced with the question of something like "does the state have the right to prohibit you from getting birth control pills" - the 'conservative' argued they have that right - 'there's no right to birth control pills in the constitution', and 'all other' rights are with the states and the people. End of story, so sorry.

Liberals on the other hand, looked at the constitution's rights, and said that while the founding fathers may not have mentioned birth control pills, the rights they DID specify identified a pattern that was a protection for rights that had a common thread of a 'protection of privacy' - which the Supreme Court Justice called a "penumbra" or privacy rights, that include the new issue of the right for a couple and their doctor to decide whether to use otherwise safe birth control pills.

Read the argument explaining the support for their saying this right is guaranteed within the constitution while not being specified - while not saying 'any right can be invented'.



Something opponents do is violate the constitution by pretending the 9th amendment does not exist.

They just don't want it to exist, and so they argue like it doesn't. When it says that the enumeration of specific rights DOES NOT mean that other, unspefied rights are not protected - they argue the opposite. If the right isn't SPECIFIED,then it can't possibly be one of those the founding fathers INSISTED be protected - it has to be 'judicial activism' violating the consitution, not following the consitution that DEMANDS unspecified rights are still protected.

There's little convincing these people of anything, because they argue from a factually wrong (ignoring amendments) and ideological position, immune to facts and rational points.

The usual wall-O-drivel ... progressives wonderful, corporations bad, evil right wingers blah blah blah. We get it

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[K1052]

The Vice President shot him is what the historians say and he was indicted but acquitted in a few states.
I don't think Cheney was a good shot nor do I think Hamilton intended to use his first or second shot at the Vice President.

To answer your question I'd opine that Hamilton died as the result of poor medical treatment notwithstanding the wound entry was in his abdomen above the right hip and broke some ribs and lacerated his liver... and other destruction... clearly a case of absent of malice on the part of the attendants... iow, the paramedic team was no where to be found.

Specifically in a duel that he agreed to, with private firearms.

Burr was an opportunistic piece of crap who Hamilton had dogged for years and even tipped the presidential election to Jefferson against him. Even though Burr won the duel he lost the contest.

 

[K1052]

Edit: I would add that Hamilton's Federalist 84 came out against the Bill of Rights... not because he feared a weaker Central Government but, rather, cuz he felt that if explicitly stated it might be read to mean that those were the only rights of the people... Scalia and Roberts and Thomas might find that interesting... Alito too, I think..

Madison was originally of the same opinion. It was too optimistic on both their parts.

 

[Corn]

It's cause I'm white, huh?

Especially if you are white.

 

[soulcougher73]

The "Living Constitution", regardless what you or anyone else says, Craig, is simply an avenue for politicians to do things they should not be allowed to do.

Intent doesn't matter. Who is doing the deed doesn't matter. The Constitution was written as it was written for a reason. It's not open for interpretation. If you want to change what it says, ammend it. Otherwise, it should be followed to the T.

Oh, what the hell am I thinking? You'll probably just interpret my "living words" to mean that I hate women and children and only care about money and myself.

Actually it is both. It can be ammended as it should be often and it can be open to interpretation. As Craig pointed out. What is "reasonable"? That word alone leaves everything up to interpretation depending on the times. The founding fathers had no idea what the world would be like today so they could not specify email, wiretaps etc because those things didnt even exist. The constitution in a lot of ways reads like the bible. Its vague and not very specific in its wording. Which is a problem in my eyes.

 

[MotF Bane]

The usual wall-O-drivel ... progressives wonderful, corporations bad, evil right wingers blah blah blah. We get it

I think the walls have gotten longer and the thoughts crazier since the election.

 

[her209]

The original intent of the founders was that everyone was entitled to own 18th century firearms.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You can choose to ignore my posts, any time you wish.

But my posts are on topic, and a good read, if I say so myself.

-John

I appreciate them!

Let me add:

If the Constitution is not open to interpretation than its pretty clear we all have the right to own muskets and swords.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The original intent of the founders was that everyone was entitled to own 18th century firearms.

Damn it, why did you do that!

 

[Amused]

Listen carefully. Oh, forget it, you won't, but I'll post it for others.

The constitution cannot and shoult not - whatever nutjob Scalia selectively says when it suits his agenda - 'be applied exactly as was intended when it was written'.

His 'position' - not really a position, but one he argues when he wants - has been exposed with mockery before as ridiculous.

That is NOT saying it means nothing, and you just say 'well, our opinion has changed, so we'll 'interpret' the consitution to mean what we prefer'.

That's a phony straw man - and ironically used by people who defend doing just that when they want, like saying corporations are persons with all kinds of new 'rights'.

Rather, it's saying that some things by their very nature to continue to UPHOLD the intent of the constitution need updating; some things are VAGUE.

When something in the constitution is vague, there is no 'sticking to what the constitution says' - there's only deciding the issue one way or another.

Now, people might SAY their preference is the 'strict' one and attack the other as 'revisionist'. They also may be lying.

The fact is, for example, the constitution addresses a complex issue with a word like "unreasonable". You are protected from "unreasonable" searches.

Now, what does that mean? In an era of high technology surveillance tools and electronic information like e-mail, where the courts have to take every single specific example of 'searches' that is brought to trial and rule what the constitution says about whether it's 'constitutional' or 'unconstitutional', and the *entire constitutional guidance* they have to use to make the ruling is the word "unreasonable", how are they supposed to draw all these exactly lines 'as the constitution says'?

The fact is, the guidance IS NOT THERE. And trying to frame the issue as 'people who follow the constitution and people who ignore it' is itself a lie.

It's a more complicated issue, and while there are cases of legal history of how other rulings were decided, and laws, and expert opinions, there's still one word - "unreasonable".

Deal with it.

Yes, there's a danger that this sort of thing can lead to the contitution meaning 'anything', and thereby being undermined, and we have to guard against that.

But the very people who most take liberties are on the right, and they wrap themselves in the cloak of attacks that they're the ones protecting its 'strict meaning'.

When you take the spirit of the consitution - the rights it delineates, based on society at the time - and you are faced with the question of something like "does the state have the right to prohibit you from getting birth control pills" - the 'conservative' argued they have that right - 'there's no right to birth control pills in the constitution', and 'all other' rights are with the states and the people. End of story, so sorry.

Liberals on the other hand, looked at the constitution's rights, and said that while the founding fathers may not have mentioned birth control pills, the rights they DID specify identified a pattern that was a protection for rights that had a common thread of a 'protection of privacy' - which the Supreme Court Justice called a "penumbra" or privacy rights, that include the new issue of the right for a couple and their doctor to decide whether to use otherwise safe birth control pills.

Read the argument explaining the support for their saying this right is guaranteed within the constitution while not being specified - while not saying 'any right can be invented'.



Something opponents do is violate the constitution by pretending the 9th amendment does not exist.

They just don't want it to exist, and so they argue like it doesn't. When it says that the enumeration of specific rights DOES NOT mean that other, unspefied rights are not protected - they argue the opposite. If the right isn't SPECIFIED,then it can't possibly be one of those the founding fathers INSISTED be protected - it has to be 'judicial activism' violating the consitution, not following the consitution that DEMANDS unspecified rights are still protected.

There's little convincing these people of anything, because they argue from a factually wrong (ignoring amendments) and ideological position, immune to facts and rational points.

Boy, it's funny that you mention strawmen, then throw up a whole slew of your own, plus a whole entire wall of irrelevant text.

Plainly put: Stevens and his side of the court as much as ADMITTED that the original intent of the 2nd was that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. But choose to decide the way they did because they didn't think it safe anymore. In other words, they IGNORED the original intent and tried to interpret it their own way. Period. Wall of text not needed.

There is a process to Amend the Constitution which makes judicial reinterpretation not only unnecessary, but illegal.

 

[nick1985]

The original intent of the founders was that everyone was entitled to own 18th century firearms.

And free speech didnt apply to cell phones or the internet

 

[JEDIYoda]

Do you people realize that you just did the research and practically wrote Anarchist first kindergarten thesis??