Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1816 of 5179 (690828)
02-16-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1812 by ICANT
02-16-2013 11:30 AM


Re: Self-defence
It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons.
Please show where this is a right.
Courts over the years have been stacked with liberal judges and yes they have tried to change the Constitution.
Evidence? Antonin Scalia is a liberal?
At the time the second amendment was written the Arms of the people were to be the same as the military so the local militia was equipted just as well as a standing army.
The peoples arms were not to be those of the military. Show this is true or retract. Join a well regulated militia and you can have access to those arms too. Why are you making our argument for us?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1812 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2013 11:30 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1817 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2013 3:05 AM Theodoric has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1817 of 5179 (690861)
02-17-2013 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1816 by Theodoric
02-16-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Self-defence
Hi Theodoric,
Theodoric writes:
Evidence? Antonin Scalia is a liberal?
I don't think Justice Scalia was around during the period from 1900 to 1930 as a judge. That is when presidents were set that he has not overruled.
Theodoric writes:
The peoples arms were not to be those of the military.
From Federalist Paper # 29, Alexander Hamilton's argument to the people of the State of New York for ratification of the Constitution.
quote:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but 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 own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Emphasis added.
Hamilton argued that the weapons of the citizens should be equal to any standing army or very little if any inferior to their weapons.
These arguments are what caused the States to ratify the Constitution.
Here is a little more information for you to digest.
quote:
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,(C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment ( I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789})
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)
"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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." (William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses (London, 1774-1775)
Source
That should be enough for you to see what the arguments was during and after the ratification of the Constitution.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1816 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2013 1:09 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1818 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2013 9:53 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 1821 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2013 5:45 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 1829 by onifre, posted 02-21-2013 1:10 AM ICANT has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1818 of 5179 (691097)
02-20-2013 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1817 by ICANT
02-17-2013 3:05 AM


Re: Self-defence
I don't think Justice Scalia was around during the period from 1900 to 1930 as a judge. That is when presidents were set that he has not overruled.
What second amendment precedents were set between 1900 and 1930? The Supreme Court actually said nothing of significance about the second amendment during that period.
Here are Justice Scalia's own words from DC v Heller.
quote:
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so M-16 rifles and the like may be banned
If you are going to lean on Scalia so heavily, remember that he wrote the entire majority opinion in DC v Heller. If Scalia did not accept the part quote above, he was not required to acknowledge it as it had nothing at all to do with the case in front of him, which was about handguns and not M-16s. In other words it is dicta indicating Scalia's own thoughts on the matter.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1817 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2013 3:05 AM ICANT has not replied

Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 1819 of 5179 (691098)
02-20-2013 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1809 by Taq
02-15-2013 6:23 PM


Re: Self-defence
Taq writes:
Just to be clear, SCOTUS does not have the power to make the laws. They only have the power to determine if the laws violate constitutional rights after the laws have been enacted by the federal, state, or local government.
That was an incorrect way to word what I was attempting to say there. Lol.
What I intended is that the Constitution sets forth that it is the job of the SCOTUS to determine if a law is constitutional. As the courts have ruled that bans on certain types of weapons are constitutional then according to the rules set forth in the constitution, bans on some types of weapons are perfectly okay to have and do not breach the second amendment. By denying that this is the case, ICANT is stating that he strongly believes in favor of one part of what the constitution says, but when it comes to who is to determine the constitutionality of laws he blatantly refuses to listen to the constitution.
ICANT, if you want to use the Constitution to defend your position, stop quote mining the work of the Founding Fathers and realize that the entire document is important, not simply the one line that allows you to get your way. Banning specific weapons is constitutional as per the SCOTUS (who is granted the power to determine this by the Constitution) and Congress is allowed to enact laws that do so.
Article III Section 2
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
Source
BTW-I am not one of the people in favor of a ban on assault rifles. I am simply someone who wants to see deaths (homicide, accidental and suicide) from firearms decrease and I find that regulations, registration, and proper training/licensing would be the best route that we could take toward that end.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1809 by Taq, posted 02-15-2013 6:23 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1820 of 5179 (691141)
02-20-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1812 by ICANT
02-16-2013 11:30 AM


Re: Self-defence
It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons.
Where is that language in the 2nd amendment?
Courts over the years have been stacked with liberal judges and yes they have tried to change the Constitution. But the fact remains the Constitution still stands and they have not changed the original meaning.
It is the Constitution that gives courts the power to interpret the Constitution. It is the courts that decide what the Constitution says, not you. For a long time now the courts have stated quite clearly that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right, and that regulation of arms is constitutional.
You can't throw out the court decisions and still claim to be upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is not a buffet where you get to pick and chose what you will accept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1812 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2013 11:30 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1823 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2013 9:02 PM Taq has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1821 of 5179 (691145)
02-20-2013 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1817 by ICANT
02-17-2013 3:05 AM


Re: Self-defence
From Federalist Paper # 29, Alexander Hamilton's argument to the people of the State of New York for ratification of the Constitution.
You know that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the very existence of a Bill of Rights, yes? So his ideas about liberty, right or wrong, can hardly serve as an interpretation of the Bill of Rights which was produced by someone else (James Madison) contrary to Hamilton's view that there shouldn't even be a Bill of Rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1817 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2013 3:05 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1822 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2013 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1822 of 5179 (691152)
02-20-2013 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1821 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2013 5:45 PM


Re: Self-defence
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
You know that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the very existence of a Bill of Rights, yes?
Are you saying Hamilton did not argue in the Federalist Paper #29 the following:
quote:
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but 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 own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Emphasis added.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1821 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2013 5:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1826 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2013 10:41 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1823 of 5179 (691153)
02-20-2013 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1820 by Taq
02-20-2013 3:54 PM


Re: Self-defence
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
It is the Constitution that gives courts the power to interpret the Constitution.
I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution.
I did get the idea they were supposed to make sure the laws passed by the Congress was in line with what was written in the Constitution.
Taq writes:
You can't throw out the court decisions and still claim to be upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is not a buffet where you get to pick and chose what you will accept.
Why can't I disagree with the Court? They get up in the morning and put their clothes on, which I do also.
You don't get to pick and choose either.
The Constitution is the law of the land until changed by the States.
There was those in the early 1800's that wanted to limit the weapons the citizens could own and there have been those from that time to this that wants to disarm the citizens. Judges today go along with decision of Judges that was made long ago. But just because some Judge thought something was right does not make it right.
Obama has put forth a mandatory buy back. That means confiscation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1820 by Taq, posted 02-20-2013 3:54 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1824 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2013 10:06 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 1825 by AZPaul3, posted 02-20-2013 10:35 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 1828 by onifre, posted 02-21-2013 1:00 AM ICANT has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1824 of 5179 (691155)
02-20-2013 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1823 by ICANT
02-20-2013 9:02 PM


Re: Self-defence
I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution.
And with that you would be going against 220+ years of US history and jurisprudence. Tell me how that works for you.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1823 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2013 9:02 PM ICANT has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1825 of 5179 (691157)
02-20-2013 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1823 by ICANT
02-20-2013 9:02 PM


Re: Self-defence
... nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution.
I did get the idea they were supposed to make sure the laws passed by the Congress was in line with what was written in the Constitution.
And how does the court keep the congress in line with the constitution if the court does not interpret the letter, spirit and intent of the document? The document may not say "thou shalt interpret" in so many words but the wording and intent of Article III leaves no doubt where this power was to reside.
Why can't I disagree with the Court?
You are free to disagree with the court's rulings all you want.
But the law, which is what the court's rulings are, does not care if you agree or disagree. No one is above the law. If you violate the law there will be consequences.
But just because some Judge thought something was right does not make it right.
These are human institutions within a human society. Nothing will be perfect in every case. Someone, somewhere, has to be the final arbiter in fact and in law. There must be a final resolution to all adversarial issues. In the USA the constitution gives that right solely and exclusively to the Supreme Court. It may not be a perfect solution, but it sure seems a whole lot better than we have seen in a whole bunch of other systems.
Edited by AZPaul3, : stuff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1823 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2013 9:02 PM ICANT has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1826 of 5179 (691158)
02-20-2013 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1822 by ICANT
02-20-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Self-defence
And those writings have nothing to do with US law or the Constitution. They were propaganda pieces written to support the ratification of the Constitution. Yes they are important writings of some of the founders, but they are by no means accepted as a final authority.
You want to us Alexander Hamilton as support for your views. What about when he disagrees with you? Do you just ignore that?
quote:
Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional, and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress.
Finally what does what you quote from Hamilton have to do with what Dr. Adequate had to say about Hamilton not supporting a Bill of Rights.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1822 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2013 8:48 PM ICANT has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1827 of 5179 (691165)
02-20-2013 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1810 by ICANT
02-15-2013 7:39 PM


Pointless debate...
My mind and eyes are failing me. Could you give me the Section and the line that statement is on.
The Supreme Court is the final authority on whether a law is or is not constitutional. In order to make that final determination, which we all seem to agree is described by the constitution, the Supreme Court must interpret the constitution. How could it be otherwise? The Supreme Court decides what kind of circumstances create an unreasonable search, and what kinds limits on purchasing and owning firearms constitute an infringement the right to bear arms.
Not ICANT, not Alexander Hamilton or any dead founding dude. The majority vote of the non-recused Supreme Court Justices is the sole authority to make the final decision of constitutionality.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1810 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2013 7:39 PM ICANT has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 1828 of 5179 (691166)
02-21-2013 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1823 by ICANT
02-20-2013 9:02 PM


Re: Self-defence
I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution.
It baffles me that you, a citizen of the US, know less about how the US works than the people taking a test to become citizens of the US.
You should take a few classes on how your country and it's government works, I believe they call it High School? This is ridiculous to read from you, an American. Wow! You seriously don't know how any of this works.
The Constitution is the law of the land until changed by the States.
Which "states"...? All the states? Or just one states?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1823 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2013 9:02 PM ICANT has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1829 of 5179 (691167)
02-21-2013 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1817 by ICANT
02-17-2013 3:05 AM


Re: Self-defence
Hamilton argued that the weapons of the citizens should be equal to any standing army or very little if any inferior to their weapons.
What Hamilton said in those papers - (and really, who cares what he said, it's 2013 - we, as a nation, can make our own decisions on how we want the country to run) - made sense when the standing army had muskets.
However...
Are you saying you should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, and high powered military weapons to defend yourself against an attack from the US military? Oh, and you should be allowed to own nuclear warheads too and missiles?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1817 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2013 3:05 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1839 by Percy, posted 02-21-2013 8:56 AM onifre has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 1830 of 5179 (691168)
02-21-2013 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1812 by ICANT
02-16-2013 11:30 AM


Re: Self-defence
ICANT writes:
It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons.
Obviously, this must be the truth for everyone so I'm sure that you would have no problem with either Iran or N. Korea having nuclear weapons as they obviously have the right to face their enemies, (namely the US), with equal weapons as well.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1812 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2013 11:30 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1831 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 3:38 AM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024