Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:20:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1115 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
It hasn’t been amply settled. You are not a well regulated militia by any
standard of those words. It’s a point you consitently avoid--you and others
cut right to the “the rights of the people to own guns shall not be
infringed”
|
Did you even read that cite again? Read the whole 3 message thread please:
**From Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia: POSSE COMITATUS.
These Latin words signify the power of the county.
Or yet again in other words: the power of the people.
**At some point those raising objections need to realize that the phrase “the
people” (i.e. freemen) is NOT actually equated with the term “a well
regulated militia” (i.e. posse comitatus) -- the suggestion is that since
the militia, or a posse comitatus, by its nature draws its numbers from the
people every freeman is supposed to keep arms handy to this purpose: to
serve in the miltia or to form a posse. If you used words like militia and
posse comitatus everyday as did the founders you wouldn’t have any doubts as
to the precise meaning of these words. That’s why guys like George Mason
made statements like: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials.”
|
And we discussed this before--and you added addendums to the idea of “whole
people” to not include those that are too young, old, infirm, or mentally
unstable. Did you also stop to consider that, in context of the day and age,
that “whole people” didn’t include black people? See, isn’t it fun when dealing
with context as written for the audience of the time. Selective understanding
is what I’d call it.
I have no problem stating that the word ‘militia’ in the first part is not equal
to the word ‘people’ in the second part.
| |
**“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms...” -- Thom. Jefferson
|
Freeman, sure. You have the right to own a gun. No issues.
| |
**In the final analysis, and I hate to say/admit this, but the Supreme Court
is not probably the best source of information as to what the 2nd
Amendment means because they are an interested party -- certainly, they
want it to mean whatever keeps the govt. in a position of power. As was
feared by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “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.” Edit:
note the use of the two words “militia” and “army” -- what’s the
difference? The people versus a standing professional army!
|
I would have no problem in stating that the SC isn’t a great source of
info--they appointed Dubya. It is a partisan organization, and tends to sway to
the direction of which party has the most representatives. That’s just
something I’ve noticed and won’t adhere to if proven otherwise. But I
digress...
When gov’ts “invade the rights and liberties of” the people. Let’s look at that
for a bit. Over the course of the society known as America, rights and
liberties have been granted and expanded over a wide and diversive range. When
the topic of gun ownership comes up, however, “you’re taking away all our rights
and liberties!” Well, no, the people spoke thru the years and, for the most bit
(at least until PATRIOT), rights and liberties were expanded. It’s a lie to say
that taking away guns automatically takes away rights and liberties. you don’t
have the right to own, well now that I’m thinking about it, a vial contianing
small pox. Yet I don’t see you ardently fighting for that right.
You in your very example are putting the cart before the horse. The gov’t isn’t
trying to take away rights and freedoms. On the contrary, because you have a
thoughtful and responsible electorate, your elected officials pass legislation
that only broadens your freedoms and liberties. Well, maybe not. Why was
slavery outlawed. Why did your country go to war over it? There were laws on
the books concerning slavery--it was all lawful and such, and the freedoms of
the owners was pretty good? Why go to war? Why fight for it at all? Well,
because there were people who weren’t enjoying the very freedoms and liberties
that your country cherishes.
Just as there is now. People live in fear of the gun. Gang violence, random
shootings, 4 year olds (keep bringing that up)--thousands of violent deaths each
and every year.
| |
**” ... 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.
|
During the day when this was written, permanent armies were a no-no. Love
putting things in the context for which they were written. No permanent armies
so if, say, for example, off the top of my head, your president wants to go to
war with someone, he’d have to call up the militia--made up of able bodied
“people” who happen to have guns in their homes and, wait for it, supply arms to
those able bodied people who didn’t have guns--and properly outfit this militia
to do what needed to be done.
Today things happen just a little differently--your armed forces supplied the
physical armaments, and, here’s the good bit, the training and discipline of
using same.
So if you’re willing to scrap your entire permanantly armed services divisions,
then I would have no problem conceeding this point. Your citizens then have the
right to keep arms in their houses for they could be called up at a moments
notice to protect the freedoms and liberties of their fellow citizens.
Furthermore, as stated, the army cannot be more formidable than the citizens
they are sworn to protect. Psst--the armed forces has nukes, so there goes that
idea--either nukes get into the hands of Joe Sixpack, or those warheads have to
be scrapped according to Hamilton. And Hamilton himself alludes to the
discipline (training, care, etc) and use of arms of those that excercise this
particular right--you’re suppose to be *as trained* (or just slightly inferior)
as your military personnel. Which brings us right back to the well regulated
bit, now doesn’t it? When a 4 year old shoots people, that, at least to me,
shows neither discipline nor proper training, nor any reasonable sense of
regulation thereof.
Your interpretation is selective understanding at its finest. Maybe you and
John should get together--he can discuss his selective interpretation of the
Bible whilst you discuss yours with regards to the constitution.
| |
**If the federal govt. could ideally “regulate” our gun rights into oblivion,
what is the context of Hamilton’s statement? How would it be possible
for the people, the militia, to be “little if at all inferior” to a
standing army without guns? Doesn’t it have to be admitted that for the
anti-gun contingent to be right, dozens of statements made more than two
hundreds years ago would ALL have to be incorrect! The very words that
allowed for the ratification of
the Constitution in the several states would have to be false!
|
No, you have shown your selective understanding of the topic--“little if at all
inferior to them in discipline and use of arms” does not equate into ownership
of guns, it states that the people should have the “little if at all inferior”
discipline (training) and use (handling) of arms compared with, well, the
military.
Take the same training as your armed services, and be subject to the same
‘regulations’ as they are, and I would, again, have no problem. As it stands,
Hamilton’s views here support “regulation”--training and proper use.
| |
Asked and answered, Kooties. Deal.
-- Hop-Frog
|
Further asked and answered. Right back at ya.
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
|
|
|
|
