Subject:
|
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:28:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1727 times
|
| |
|
|
*if* I were a critical thinker (which I'm so obviously not)...
Oh, before I start, thanks Richard for actually taking the respond with
proof, instead of just "you're wrong..." with no backup.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome
> > going round and round and round with you...<snip>...and it doesn't score you
> > any points with the regulars, you may want to stop.
I wanna score points with the regulars? Anywhere outside o.t-d, sure, but
here, I want to score points for the truth, thanks.
>
> Yeah, really!
>
> What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework
> (i.e ANY reading at all).
Yeah, my general laziness shows thru yet again--my bad.
>
> I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear
Lets have it one more time...
"
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.
"
Well regulated militia is clear
Necessary to the security of a free state is clear
Right of the people is clear
Bear arms is clear
Shall not be infringed is clear.
This whole thing pretty much is clear to me, yet I come away with a
different conclusion than you.
> , although
> at this precise moment in time it may be wished that the framers had used
> more precise and absolutely unequivocal language.
I believe it is precise--it's one line that uses *specific* words--but I
take the sentence as a *whole*, whilst some others use the sentence like a
church picnic--"Oh, I like what you have here, but there--well, not so much...".
> For those that doubt the
> meaning as intended by the framers of the Constitution I provide the
> following *beginners* list of points that has been checked against multiple
> sources -- argue against the meaning of the 2nd Amendment if you are so
> inclined, but let's stop arguing over the meaning of it regardless of what
> current authorities may claim to the contrary [N.B. an attempt has been made
> to cite URLs that would be deemed as carrying authority because of where
> they are hosted, but you can find all of these quotes in your local library
> too!]:
>
> 00. The framers regularly used the terms army and militia, but not
> interchangably! There is ample proof of this.
Agree--army does not equal militia.
ar·my Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies
- A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
often Army The entire military land forces of a country.
- A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters,
two or more corps, and auxiliary forces.
- A large group of people organized for a specific cause: the construction
army that built the Panama Canal.
- A multitude; a host: An army of waiters served at the banquet. See
Synonyms at multitude.
I will make a point of order here that the word "army" is any branch of the
"armed services" is my interpretation for this discussion.
mi·li·tia Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
- An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
- A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call
for service in an emergency.
- The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military
service.
But wait, before we go off into "See! We're right! Any citizen have the
right to bear arms"...
reg·u·late Pronunciation Key (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
- To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
- To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
- To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
- To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
>
> 01. "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]."
> wrote Thomas Jefferson in his proposed Virginia Constitution of 1776. It's
> interesting to note that he also proposed this: "There shall be no standing
> army but in time of actual war." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffcons.htm
So we take the first part and say "Look, we cannot be 'debarred' from the
use of arms..." but the standing army bit--well, we want our army as well,
so we'll *ignore* that bit.
It was written in 1776. It wasn't a smorgasbord--you weren't allowed to
pick and choose what you like and throw away the bits that you didn't. It's
a cohesive whole. "We can throw away these lines and these ideas here, here
and here, but My Goodnes!! I gotta keep my gun!"
>
> 02. "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
> ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
> -- "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard
> Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
Don't miss the bit where it says 'properly formed' and 'capable of bearing
arms' It doesn't say they *have* to bear arms, just that they are capable
of doing so.
> 03. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
> few public officials."
> George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the
> Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm
>
> [N.B. And for the one *genius*: no the "whole people" doesn't include
> children, slaves, prisoners, or your dog -- one has to have status to have
> the rights of citizenship: namely, the status of freeman. The Constitution
> notes some 22 different statuses for persons, obviously many of them are not
> on par with the status of freeman. Get over it.]
Agreed--gotten over.
I wasn't going to go there this time, for that's slippery slope, a tactic I
usually use, but now that we have some honest to goodness discourse, I don't
have to revert to such extreme measures to get my point out there.
One has to have the status of being part of a 'well regulated militia' on
top of being a citizen, or a freeman.
free·man Pronunciation Key (frmn)
n.
A person not in slavery or serfdom.
One who possesses the rights or privileges of a citizen.
>
> 04. "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. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
1789 had the US Armed Forces, did they?--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines! I
would hazard a guess that if someone were to try to "invade the rights and
liberties of the people [of the USA]" today, they would have to get thru
those military groups before they hit the citizenry of your country. But I
could be wrong.
> 05. " ... 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 use of arms, who stand ready to
> defend their rights ..." -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 29.
> Please note the suggestion that the people are armed and are able to stand
> against the government's own army if necessary. The Federalist, for those
> that do not know, was a series of essays that helped cvonvince people to
> support the ratification of the Constitution.
> http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/federalist/feder29.html
The armed services has, well, stuff that the 'large body of the citizens'
does not' I would hazard a guess (again) that the citizens are slightly
overmatched, yet alone inferior to the army in the discipline and use of
arms. So yet another Federalist statute that can be ignored, but we *must*
keep the ones we like.
>
> 06. "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
> Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the
> governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison in
> Federalist Number 46 http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/federalist/feder46.html
It was a turbulent time to be sure. Many nations going thru revolutions,
civil wars, just bad stuff. Yeah, history is replete with wars and strife.
The advantage of being armed *was* an advantage at the time. Sure. No
denying it. I know, from my own Canadian History, that Sir John A had to do
something to unify the fledging country known as Canada, because in 1867,
south of our border, was the largest free standing army that the world had
ever seen, and if those Yanks had set their sights to the north after they
cleaned up their little issue to the south... well... *shudder*... Is this
an advantage today? Is this, what would otherwise be thought of as
"archaic", but since it has to do with 'bearing arms', my goodness man!--We
can't strike that one!
> 07. "The signification attributed to the term, Militia, appear from the
> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
> States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough
> that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert
> for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when called for
> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of a kind in common use at the time." --US Supreme Court, US
> v Miller 1939
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
Yeah, I won't get bogged down in the inherent sexist remark that is, but
lets look at it diffeently--"physically capable of acting in concert for a
common defense" This requires *training*. This requires *regulation*.
This requires at least some sort of knowledge as to how to *defend*
something in conjunction with other *defenders*.
So no defence training--no gun, which fits into my overall interpretation of
a "well regulated militia", and not those that think that "any citizen
(freeman limitations included) can own a gun"
And the part "...and of a kind in common use at the time..." The "services"
had the same weapons as the militia--both were common to all. Now the
services have F14's. To be sure, F14's are not common, but I also don't
think the average grunt on the lines is walking around with the same guns
you can find down at the gunshop. So again, either this decision is
archaic, or the 'freemen' should drive around in hummers with a
whatever-gattling gun tied to the crossbar.
>
> It's pretty clear to me that the framers of the Constitution meant for every
> able man to bear arms -- a fact they had to assert again and again to argue
> against the Anti-Federalists notion that a standing army controlled by the
> central govt. would replace the militia. From a modern perspective some of
> the arguing gets somewhat distasteful -- take Virginia as an example: in
> Virginia white freemen feared a slave insurrection and it was for this
> reason that they ABSOLUTELY had to be assured that their right to keep and
> bear arms would be respected. It should be remembered that each man's
> reasons for wanting to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for himself
> doesn't diminish the right as preserved for all. At a later time, the right
> to keep and bear arms was a right exercised by many freed slaves as the
> distinguishing feature of their change of status from slave to freeman.
And it's clear to me that you have selective reading. I have *no* problem
with a militia, to offer those of you who require that particular security
blanket. It says so in the 2nd, it says so throughout your points here.
It's the 'well regulated' part that you fail to read.
I don't *hate* guns. My family loves SCUBA diving. In a wreck in Kingston,
my uncle found this old rifle that, well, it's been a long time and I can't
remember all of it, but it's old, from that little problem you had with the
British. Anyway, it is there, on display, in his basement, and I think it's
one of the neatest things that any member of my family has ever found whilst
SCUBA diving.
My dad found a pistol handle and that's pretty neat, as well.
You have learn to separate the Stuff from the stuff. Guns are not bad. The
people who religiously adhere to wanting their guns and interpreting the
laws so they can have them are not bad. There's nothing bad here, it comes
down to a matter of what is right, Just and good for the nation. And, imho,
your read is just not good enough for society today.
> It's an interesting idea to try to confuse the real debate with BS like this
> -- I mean, interesting from the standpoint of rhetorical technique. The
> assertion that we do not know the clear, historical meaning of the 2nd
> Amendment has no real legitimacy;
It has definite legitimacy, or this debate wouldn't be going on for the last
century. The people in both camps say the other is interpreting it wrong,
and they cite their proofs, and they become more entrenched into their own
dogma, until we get to, "the other side doesn't "know the clear, historical
meaning of the 2nd" and that hthe other side "has no real legitimacy..." "
> but it has sadly become a political
> football. We de facto have the right and freedom to bear arms, the presence
> of gun shops in every city is proof of this fact; the desire to control,
> regulate, diminish, or destroy this freedom -- to alter the current state of
> things -- is the crux of the ongoing debate. But nothing changes the real
> meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure you have the *right* to buy a gun, just as you have thr right to buy a
honkin' huge SUV that will destroy our environment that much quicker. It
comes with a *free* capitalistic society, not the 2nd ammendment. Both
those purchases are allowed, but, when you use *social Justice* and look at
the ramifications of you owning either of these two items, it doens't work
out in the final analysis that the good is far outweighed by the bad.
> Freemen bear arms.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Freemen are slaves to *no one*, not even a gun.
free·man Pronunciation Key (frmn)
n.
- A person not in slavery or serfdom.
- One who possesses the rights or privileges of a citizen.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
