SmarterthanYou
rebel
and a republic was created to ensure that fucktard cowards didn't panic when the 1% happens. THAT is being adult about it, not kneejerking nilly willy to infringe on the rights of the rest of us.
The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.
- Thread starter Rob Larrikin
- Start date
and a republic was created to ensure that fucktard cowards didn't panic when the 1% happens. THAT is being adult about it, not kneejerking nilly willy to infringe on the rights of the rest of us.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
It’s all we have. If you wish to explain their meaning, you put it in modern terms, but that doesn’t mean you change their words.
As long as you understand what it meant, yes. In your case you’ve convinced yourself it is about Homer Simpson and his MP7. It never was about that.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Nobody wants to ban guns - so you are arguing with a giant Straw Man. He might want to ban guns - not me. There are many kinds of guns that won't be affected. Only the crowd killers should be banned from Homer Simpson's clutches. He has no right to be going around with an MP7. You know it, I know it and Homer's wife knows it.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
You're making an analogy, and it sounds like a good one. I just can't figure out which one it is. I'm perfectly happy with the original writing which was:
[FONT="]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is the interpretation modern Americans make of it, which is incorrect. The Founders were not talking about individuals and their vital, much needed muskets. Like brooms they were a necessity in every house. No, they were talking about an Armed, well regulated Militia for each State - as it was a right of the people.[/FONT]
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
To repeat, you're arguing with a Straw Man. You should read the OP and see what the issue is here.
Fucktard still refuses to respond to this post.
No, the meaning is crystal clear which is why you can't provide any other right "of the people," which is not an individual right.
The Constitution was written in the context of preventing the government from becoming tyrannical just like the monarchy they had just gained their independence from.
I read the OP, the first comma is irrelevant, because that is not what was ratified by the individual states. The 2nd comma is what was important:
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms,"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Furthermore; neither version says the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," in both versions that right is specifically reserved to "the people," as is the case of all of the inalienable rights found within the amendments, all of which are individual rights. Without an armed populace how is a militia made up of that populace supposed to form? It can't, which is why your argument is laughable.
No, it was understood that centralized governments have a tendency to slip into despotism just as in England prior to the glorious revolution when the Catholic King James the 2nd attempted to disarm the Protestants:
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment . D.C. v Heller
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Or just as how King George the 3rd began gun confiscations against the colonies between 1774 and 1775:
The American Revolution against British Gun Control
By David B. Kopel*
Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.
This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.
Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: "That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles." A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
The 2nd amendment didn't create a new right it was merely a restoration and guarantee of an ancient existing right.
No they're not you're a liar who has no idea what they're talking about, those are not unattributed quotes the primary sources for those quotes are listed and readily available:
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-mason-speech/
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
https://thefederalistpapers.org/fou...om-a-federal-farmer-number-18-january-25-1788
Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents...ers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s27.html
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html
No, the meaning is crystal clear which is why you can't provide any other right "of the people," which is not an individual right.
The Constitution was written in the context of preventing the government from becoming tyrannical just like the monarchy they had just gained their independence from.
I read the OP, the first comma is irrelevant, because that is not what was ratified by the individual states. The 2nd comma is what was important:
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms,"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Furthermore; neither version says the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," in both versions that right is specifically reserved to "the people," as is the case of all of the inalienable rights found within the amendments, all of which are individual rights. Without an armed populace how is a militia made up of that populace supposed to form? It can't, which is why your argument is laughable.
No, it was understood that centralized governments have a tendency to slip into despotism just as in England prior to the glorious revolution when the Catholic King James the 2nd attempted to disarm the Protestants:
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment . D.C. v Heller
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Or just as how King George the 3rd began gun confiscations against the colonies between 1774 and 1775:
The American Revolution against British Gun Control
By David B. Kopel*
Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.
This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.
Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: "That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles." A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
The 2nd amendment didn't create a new right it was merely a restoration and guarantee of an ancient existing right.
No they're not you're a liar who has no idea what they're talking about, those are not unattributed quotes the primary sources for those quotes are listed and readily available:
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-mason-speech/
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
https://thefederalistpapers.org/fou...om-a-federal-farmer-number-18-january-25-1788
Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents...ers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s27.html
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Why are you still posting via the internet??
Break out that quill pen, a bottle of ink, some parchment paper, and start drafting that letter.
Then submit it, by a guy on horseback.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
fail, again. the meaning and intent stays the same. otherwise you end up with almost no consistency in law. major fail.
it most certainly was. the founders wanted to ensure that THE PEOPLE would be stronger than any standing army. i'm sorry that terrifies you so much.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are still wrong. doubly so by you referring to everyone who believes differently than you as homer. but whatever, you will never win this argument in the real world because we have the guns and will use them.
This is an appeal to extreme logical fallacy. List another right of "the people" listed in the amendments which is not an individual right, I'll wait.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Agreed, but it must be the Founders' meaning, not yours. The Founders wrote it and you need to stick with what they meant instead of inserting your own meaning into it.
Wrong. The Founders wanted to ensure that the people would have a State Militia, that would give them added security. I’m sorry that confuses you so much.
It's right up there with sovereign citizen bs.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Uppercase lettering makes a difference, and commas make a difference. To explain how, here is the original wording, followed by the wording that was edited:
It went from:
A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To:
A well regulated militia being necefsary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In the screwed up ratified version you now have two sections instead of four, thanks to the removal of two commas. That alone would give rise to an army of Homers intent on getting their AR15s and MP7s to play war games in the suburbs. As for the removal of capitals, it lowers the significance of the Militia, State and Arms, all of which were the main tenants of the Article the fourth to begin with.
Purdy soon the hillbillies were out in force, jumping for joy. “Yippee! Dawgone it, we kin have any fuggin gun we like. Yahoo! C’mon brothers, let’s go arm up and have a hoedown! Yee-hah!”
The first one is irrelevant, because that is not what was ratified by the individual states, the second version is the only version ratified. The 2nd comma is what was important:
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms,"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Furthermore; neither version says the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," in both versions that right is specifically reserved to "the people," as is the case of all of the inalienable rights found within the amendments, all of which are individual rights. Without an armed populace how is a militia made up of that populace supposed to form? It can't, which is why your argument is laughable.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and the founders meaning was to ensure everybody, we the people, had sufficient arms and ammunition.
one last time, for your educationally impaired brain pan......
the constitution prohibits the states from maintaining their own troops, so how do you get that the founders wanted to ensure the people have a STATE militia???? they didn't. because it's about the people. go learn the constitutional history. you'll come back better informed.
Neither do cartoon characters.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Not quite. It was to ensure the people of each State had the security a well regulated, Armed Militia would provide. According to your wacky re-writing, in which they want “everybody armed” you would arm prisoners, mass murderers, insane people, demented people, senile people, suicidally depressed teenagers, toddlers, babies and 100 year old great, great grandmothers with Alzheimer's. Heh– I guess that’s a gun nut’s idea of Nirvana, but it sure as hell wasn’t the Founders’.
Says the guy who wants insane mass murderers to have MP7s.
From ‘The Founders Constitution’:
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
“Article VI. No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_3s1.html
LOL. Says an egg who can’t write properly and wouldn’t recognize what the Founders meant if they spanked him with the constitution all year.