| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in
> other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states?
> Maybe you don't?
Well, there is stuff that is covered by the federal government to make trade
and travel amongst the many states more or less an easy thing -- one of the
true limited purposes of the U.S. federal govt. I have no problems with any
of that. But as to particulars of the laws of other states, no I don't care
-- not unless I plan to live there at some point. But that's how it's
supposed to be anyway -- more local and state laws, less federal usurpation
of state powers.
> If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own
> laws. Still covered by the same constitution, but that doesn't mean they
> have to agree with it.
The Bill of Rights is supposed to represent ideas that are fundamental to
this free society -- the Constitution would never have been ratified without
it. Those basic rights are considered guarantees of current and future
liberty. Every officer in the land swears an oath or avers to uphold the
federal constitution. So yeah, they have to agree. If there are any
exceptions to this oath-taking, which I doubt there are, I have never heard
of them.
> My point being that to consider it "a necessary evil and be done with it"
> discounts the possibility of it ever changing, and that would be pretty
> short-sighted, even for US citizens.
Head-on disagreement here. I think it would be short-sighted for anyone not
bearing arms to think of themselves as being free. It is said that "freemen
bear arms" because it is both a freedom and duty of one that wishes to
remain free.
A "freeman" is one of the 22 statuses of citizenship recognized and
enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Consider this definition from
Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856, 1914 (the only law dictionary accepted by
the U.S. congress as containing definitions of legal terms as the
legislaters use and intend them):
FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases,
not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by,
the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556:
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_f.htm
under "arms" it states the following:
ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or
uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a;
Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t.
2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that 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." In
Kentucky, a statute " to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has
been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a
similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229.
Vide Story, Const. – 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300
Rawle on Const. 125.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_a.htm
It can be said that the degree to which the right attains is in dispute, but
never the right itself.
I also found this interesting, although I have not crossed every references:
ca. 380 to 370 B.C.
Plato's Republic
Plato, in his Republic, argues that ordinary citizens should not be armed
and that the government should have a monopoly on arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ca. 384-322 B.C.
Aristotle's Politics
Aristotle, in his Politics, argues in favor of arming the majority of citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
871-899
The Laws of Alfred
In England, the Laws of Alfred recognize the right of every man to keep and
bear arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1215
Magna Carta
English barons force King John to sign the Magna Carta, which, among other
things, restores the right to keep and bear arms. Previously, King John had
disarmed noblemen and commoners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1651
Hobbes Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes argues, in his Leviathan, that individuals have the right to
protect themselves when governments fail to protect them. Hobbes' writing
will influence the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1662-1688
English Limits on Arms
A series of English laws passed during the reigns of Charles II and James II
severely limit the right to keep and bear arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1686
Locke's Two Treatises on Government
John Locke, in his Two Treatises on Government, argues that individuals
should be allowed arms so that an armed elite cannot exert its will over an
unarmed majority. Locke's writing will influence the framers of the U.S.
Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 25, 1787.
Bill of Rights
The U.S. Congress approves the Bill of Rights, including the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads, "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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1837
Georgia Handgun Ban
A ban on handguns becomes law in Georgia. In court (Nunn v. State), this law
is determined to be a violation of the Second Amendment and is voided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1850s
Disarming Slaves
A number of states pass laws prohibiting slaves from bearing arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1865
Black Codes
In the wake of emancipation of slaves, southern states pass "Black Codes"
that, among other things, prohibit blacks from bearing arms.
And there's more, but I'll spare you. If you want to see it, go to:
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/time.htm
I'm sorry, Ross, but I happen to believe that freemen bear arms and those
that do not are lucky if they can escape fates like being forced into Nazi
gas chambers. We disagree. I don't see you as short-sighted, just perhaps
too idealistic and slightly misguided. I believe in a govt. system that
assumes the worst and hopes for the best in human nature. I hope that
people will not try to rob, rape, or kill me and my loved ones; but if push
comes to shove, I will defend myself with the arms I have the right to keep.
Short-sighted? Tell it to the ghosts of dead jews from the holocaust. More
arms in the hands of the right brave persons and the entire holocaust might
have been averted. When they tell you to go quietly, it is better to kick
and scream.
Mind you, generally I am something of a pacificist. Just not when it comes
to basic principles of freedom. Some things are worth fighting for even if
I would prefer it if I didn't have to fight for them.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, the original Presidential Oath of Office, according to the Constitution, is: I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| Hi everyone, Just an aside: No matter how well-written a .o-t.debate post is, is it really appropriate to go about highlighting it for the front page, given the number of people who studiously avoid and abhor this forum? (Yes, I know that 9/11 was (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) [snip] (...) I think discounting the possibility of change is short-sighted. The world changes. Laws change. Governments change. People change. Maybe this hasn't changed in a long time, but the fact there's a significant opposition to it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states? Maybe you don't? If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own laws. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
