Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:37:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1148 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Then it's odd that the NRA, the most vociferous and organized proponents
> of so-called gun rights, has never brought a case successfully before the
> Supreme Court, despite numerous opportunities to try.
I have posted about the Ashwander Doctrine before -- read it and connect the
dots, pretty please. http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15052
For the record, I am not exactly a card-carrying NRA kinda guy...I barely
care what they do.
> Within the bounds of the Constitution, the Federal
> Government is empowered to restrict rights in a number of ways; taxation is,
> thanks to the 16th amendment, Constitutional by definition.
No, taxation is Constitutional because of Art. I, Sect. 2 and Sect. 8
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers..."
Note the phrase "direct taxes," now try and decide what wages are supposed
to be...
BTW, the 16th Amendment has no force in law. See my post here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14865
> Really? Then why doesn't the Constitution say "The right of the citizen
> to bear arms shall not be infringed?" Wouldn't that be a much better
> enumeration of the amendment than an ephemeral "we infer that the founding
> fathers meant such-and-such" sort of a claim?
This is the semantic game played with the term "militia." Accepting your
recommended wording, wouldn't we then just argue about the meaning of the
term "citizen"? A dictionary definition will suffice for the word "militia":
mi·li·tia (m?-lish??) noun
Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
Laws, BTW, are supposed to be written so that they can be understood.
Commonly understood definitions often suffice.
> An individual is not a militia, and a well regulated militia, in the modern
> interpretation, is The National Guard.
No, it's not. I note your use of the phrase "modern interpretation."
> > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
> > suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
How do you know they didn't mean the ordinary types of citizens that fought
the revolutionary war?
Sect. 8 also says this:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Explain that to me. Where does it say we are supposed to have a standing
army, navy, marines, etc? How is it that we have a standing army, navy,
etc. when those things are supposed to be limited by the appropriations
clause? Seems to me that they wanted to limit such powers, that's why they
needed a militia of ordinary people. BTW, if we have a milita, why do we
need an army, navy, etc?
None of this changes the fact the we DE FACTO have the right and duty to
keep and bear and arms. None of this changes the fact that even if the
second amendment doesn't protect the right, the 9th and 10th amendment
obviously do. How do I know this? Because we DE FACTO have the right and
duty to keep and bear arms.
That looks like circular reasoning, but it's not. You insist that the right
to keep and bear arms doesn't exist and is not enumerated. I am telling you
that the right to arms is SO fundamental that it goes without enumerating it
(even though I think it was, in fact, enumerated) -- a fact so obvious that
any adult american, non-felon can easily obtain a gun. Again, true since
day one of our lovely little democratic republic.
> I don't understand how you can invoke on one hand the need to stop government >from doing anything not spelled out explicitly, yet on the other hand >say "well, it's all up to the people, anyway."
Actually, appealing to the people to protect our rights is foolish on it's
face, esp. nowadays, and I have said so -- but theoretically, the people are
the final check in the system. Such an appeal is in the way of an appeal to
the common law -- the legal concepts and rights we possess by tradition.
Again, see Kent, see Blackstone.
You think you know about your rights, but you don't -- you think you know
how to preserve freedom, but you don't. Frankly, you don't seem to
understand much of what makes the world tick politically, economically, or
socially; and I am not convinced that you even want to. Be happy, you have
the rule of the majority without having to worry about the rule of law or
individual rights. And I don't mean this in a bad way, Dave!. Really, I
don't. Just don't come to me and assert that my many years of reading the
law don't stack up to your understanding of the law (not when I can see on
the face of your arguments that you don't have much learning in that area).
Now, at the same time I don't claim to be some sort of legal know-it-all --
just that I know enough to want to keep my guns, and that I think you are
very wrong if you think otherwise.
YMMV...but before it does, read this:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14831
BTW, while you are reading the Constitution, explain this to me from Art. I,
sect. 10:
"No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts;"
or this, from Art. 1, Sect. 8 states:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value
thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
Last time I looked, I have no gold or silver in my pockets. Federal Reserve
Notes are deemed legal tender. The Federal govt. does not coin gold or
silver as they are obligated to do under the Constitution.
The Federal Reserve, though seemingly regulated by the federal govt. and
executive appt.s, is still just a private corporation -- I have never seen a
refutal of that simple fact. The other simple fact is that under the
Constitution the Federal govt. is burdened with the task of regulating the
monetary system -- not passing it off to a private entity for their private
profit.
I mention it not because I wish to change the subject, but to show how
widespread the corruption is -- and usually without anyone having noticed it
AT ALL! Did you notice it? Shouldn't something be done about it? I have
no faith that anything will be done about it.
I am tired of the ignorance and hypocrisy of modern america. I'd rather
live somewhere where everyone at least acknowledges the corruption of the
system rather than somehow try to justify every stupid thing the system
does. The idea of the U.S. is a good one. But it requires a tireless and
educated citizenry, which is no longer viable in an age of increasing
specialization in almost everything -- few could be expected to know
everything that would be expected of them. I doubt the U.S. will last in
its intended, or current form, very much longer.
I know this because we are arguing about whether or not a FUNDAMENTAL right
even exists, or is in fact protected. Imagine how many bigger issues fair
in our system...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> (...) I am SO glad someone FINALLY brought this up! The Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment were beget by President Wilson. Mr. Wilson was heavily influenced by a friend of the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Wouldn't it be nice if Americans woke up before they have to learn the hard way. Well Thomas Jefferson at least knew that we would one day reach the point where the Declaration of Independance would need to be re-issued. It is nice to know (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Then it's odd that the NRA, the most vociferous and organized proponents of so-called gun rights, has never brought a case successfully before the Supreme Court, despite numerous opportunities to try. You are of course correct regarding the (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
