|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
There is an interesting discussion of the second amendment at the Atheist Experience blog here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/12/12/answering-justice-scalia/ It starts out on a different topic, but addresses the 2nd starting at post #26. I think the point is fairly made that the intent of the founders was that the militias - however, and by whomever, organized - were comprised of an independently armed citizenry. Their purpose was not to act at the behest of the government, but to be available to overthrow it it if monarchic or despotic tendencies arose. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Faith
This is a more complete response than was posted prematurely in Message 143:
Message 104: Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE. "Well regulated" implies you don't arm people with a history of violence or mental disorder, and they need some organization and training, ... And the constitution clearly states that the regulation, organization and training are functions for the states, not mobs of self-appointed people.
... The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind. Curiously, it does not matter what the founders "had in mind", as if that could honestly be perceived at this date: what matters is what the constitution and subsequent laws say. We trust the Constitution to state the consensus of what the founders had in mind, including the ability of the constitution to be amended. The state run National Guards today are the state run militias. They are currently doing the duties laid out in the constitution for the militias.
Did you read any of the quotes in my post, or that article at the end? I generally ignore the second hand opinions of people who try to revise things to suit their personal agendas, and rely instead on the original documents when forming my opinions ... in this case the constitution. For instance you can go to an on-line version of the current constitution (with amendments) at: http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution and you can search the text for "militia" ... with these results:
quote: This does not mean that people bearing arms are the Militia or that they will be accepted into a properly formed and designated militia according to the constitution. This does mean that the various self-styled "militias" that have formed in various states, but which are not operated or controlled by those states, are NOT militias as envisaged in the constitution (and thus by the founding fathers), and are more likely to have been regarded in much the same way as John Brown, as an insurrection (should they attempt any armed action), with the duty of the properly formed militias to "suppress Insurrections". The duties set for the Militia in the constitution are presently being performed by the National Guard, and there is no other body that does this, ergo the National Guard is de facto the Militia as envisaged by the founders. That is what the constitution tells me, in very simple words. Then, just for more completion of information, I look up the duties of the National Guard: National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia
quote: Note the reference to "National Guard militia members" and that the "traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" — the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903". This too, is easy to understand language: the state militias have become the National Guard, pure and simple, with additional duties to suit modern needs that were not envisaged\conceived\considered by the founding fathers (eg -- terrorism, etc)
Of course it's very hard to tell what matters to people here. Do they care what the Amendment says at all? I ... Or is the Constitution just an antiquated meaningless document that we should throw out? Which is it. Some even say both, so irrational are people on this topic. The constitution is a living document, imho, that has the flexibility to adapt to new times and issues, hence the inclusion of the process to amend it. The constitution also leaves the final voice on interpretation to the Supreme Court, which is why gun control issues get to that level in the process of making new laws. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added linkby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
My argument is that ... My replies were to Dr. A. Your argument doesn't matter.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The PEOPLE were to be the militia and the militia was to be available to defend the country. That's why the phrase about conscientious objectors was included. Okay so far.
quote: That's one historian's opinion. An opinion which conflicts with the text of the constitution. For example: Article 1, Section 8, Subsection (16)
quote: Pretty clear and explicit. The power to organized a Militia, appoint officer's, and train the militia is reserved to the states. The states exert this power through State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias or State Defense Forces. There is no provision in the constitution for you to organize your own militia.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3847 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Hi Kofh2u, The chart you offered above is 20 years out of date and doesn't support your assertions anyway. Youth crime rates began a dramatic decline in the early 1990's. I told you this once before. The decline was due to the rise in Abortions starting in 1972, after Roe Vs Wade. This cut the Single Mother trend in half, so we saw a correlation with a drop in violent crime. Nevertheless, the present 1.5 million illegitimate babies born every year since 1970 is equal to the 1.2 million abortions now fighting crime for America. As William Bennet said on Radio, at risk of getting fired," to kill the remaining 1.5 million bastards, as they were once called, is NOT an acceptable solution." But between U and me, the Liberals and Obama are using Planned UNparenthood to do just that..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My replies were to Dr. A. Your argument doesn't matter. Even those replies which refer to me in the first person and Dr. Adequate in the third person? Nope.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I apologize for speaking less than literally. I accept your apology for saying things that you knew weren't true.
Laws that actually try to reduce gun ownership seem to work elsewhere. This statement is too broad for me to interpret, but this sounds like you're talking about Tangle's claim. But Tangle's abandoned that claim because it's impossible to support. Other countries have had success only in preserving a low rate of ownership. There aren't any countries at all that have been able to peacefully transition from high ownership to low via the legal process. Now, it's true that American gun ownership is in decline, most likely in response to the general drop in crimes of all kinds. Getting lead out of paint turns out to have been the most successful anti-crime campaign in American history. It's not yet clear that it's possible to pass a law that reduces gun ownership except by confiscation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
As William Bennet said on Radio, at risk of getting fired," to kill the remaining 1.5 million bastards, as they were once called, is NOT an acceptable solution." But between U and me, the Liberals and Obama are using Planned UNparenthood to do just that Reminder to self. Think twice before you call somebody a wing-nut again. Once you've rated a right winger a 10, it may be impossible to grade true paranoia.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Many countries have legislated strongly against guns. The USA can too. The US has, as I've shown. Again, I'm asking you to show me even a single country that has gone from over 80 guns per 100 people to as low as 15 peacefully, by passing gun control laws. Show me even one, or we'll consider your claim refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3847 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Quite frankly, Dr. Adequate's point is nothing more than common sense. Not surprisingly, you reject the point.
LOLCommon sense would dictate that wise citizens better arm themselves against the growing population of Barbarians within, as the inner cities and the population of kids raised by unwed mothers grows and gets even more demanding. And, as these barbarians within the gates threaten the still healthy citizens within, they siphon off the tax money needed for a military to stand off the growing greedily patriarchs who see the weakness of a decadent America.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I accept your apology for saying things that you knew weren't true. You simply cannot resist calling someone a liar, can you?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry Faith, but it seems you are wrong on this.
See Message 197 for a more complete version of the post you replied to (Message 143), which includes information about the National Guard formation from the militias, in compliance\conformance\accordance with the constitution.
including a long well documented article about the English history that the Second Amendment built on, and about the thinking of the Constitutional framers as they wrote the amendment. Somebodies second hand opinion rather than the actual constitution statements or the statements of laws regarding the National Guard. I'll believe the actual documents over anyones opinion any day.
We can misread the documents today because we put current meanings into phrasings that they didn't intend. They were building on a history of which we are today largely ignorant. So can your purported experts.
The "militia" DID comprise "the WHOLE body of the people." Curiously, I'm rather certain that our founding fathers did not think women, children, elderly, infirm and insane people would be required to be part of the militias. Quite obviously this is a completely false and made up fabrication:
quote: There is no statement anywhere in the constitution that calls for the wholesale calling up of every individual citizen, rather the militia is referred to as a separate group\body of people where various individuals can rather obviously be excluded because of issues of involving organization, training and discipline, just for starters.
It's unfortunate they didn't leave that specific wording in the final draft but it has to be because they assumed it and not because it didn't reflect their thinking. ... OR, amusingly, it is NOT included because that is NOT what they thought. Wanting it to be there does not make it so. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added linkby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Well regulated militia implies a militia set up by law. No, it means "organized", orderly. Theodoric, your interpretation makes no sense. The US already has a military for domestic defense, because that power is granted to the Executive in Article 2, Clause 1. It makes no sense for the framers to have gone back and added a redundant Amendment stipulating something that would be obvious - that the nation's military should be armed. Of course it would be, that's inherent in the idea of military. So clearly the Second Amendment can't be referring to the government's armed forces. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms - that there's an individual right not to have the government disarm the people - because of the people's interest in assembling to oppose, by force, the enemies of a free state if need be.
If we want to live by the actually meaning of the founders than the right to bear arms means single shot muzzleloaders. That's not even historically accurate, and that's hardly the interpretation you expect to apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Or do you believe that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the TV news simply because there was no such thing as TV in 1776? The intent of the Second Amendment was that the populace shall not be disarmed by the government. It's not a protection of the right to hunt or the right to self-defense; it's a defense of the right to pose a credible resistance to armies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You simply cannot resist calling someone a liar, can you? It's true that when people lie right to my face, I've had to become fairly creative about how I call them on it. As always, however, people can avoid the accusation of being dishonest by being honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
I provided a lot of evidence back in Message 57 about what they meant,
You provided no evidence Patrick Henry was not part of writing the constitution.The George Mason quote does nothing to support your assertions. In actuality his writings are counter to your arguments. Samuel Adams was not part of the writing of the Constitution. His comments here do not support your assertions. Your Alexander Hamilton Quote is actually a combination of two quotes from different Federalist Papers. Also these quotes do not support your assertion. As for Mr Vandercroy what does anything he have to say mean anything. What makes him an authority? You have provided no evidence to support your assertions.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024