Become a victim.....
The police officer added that, "This is a mayor who, as chair of the Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat offenders. Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim/
My three children aren't gun nutts...they would rather read books but they will go to the range in between library visits.....they will never be victims......
When Smuckette turned 18 last January...her first point was that she was an adult...before I could counter her statement she asked: The rifle is now mine? Correct?....to which I said: Yes, it has always been yours, now you can legally own it but...I ain't gunna let you keep it in the trunk of your car. Until you can properly secure it..it stays in the family safe when not being used.
This is why I'm dearly hoping my legislature's "Stand Your Ground" bill gets passed and signed into law.
Smuck, I hearken back to one of my favorite quotes by Abe Lincoln:
The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly.
Disarming the residents of DC and then cutting the police force will go a good distance to prove the point that the 2nd Amendment was really a good idea, local shenanigans notwithstanding.
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.
Why is it that whenever you all start discussing the second ammendment, you skip the first half of the statement:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
You guys just focus on the last half and ignore the first part which delineates the purpose for the second part.
Quote from: Toonces on March 06, 2012, 03:44:19 PM
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
Toonces, the 2nd reads as below, not as you posted above:
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 infringedThe Senate specifically rejected "For the common defense"
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".Some more info:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
Not sure if you got the word, Smuckette was accepted for a NROTC Scholarship at GWU. She's going blue side intell field....
With that being said, what sidearm do you guys use; the 1911 or the M-9?
I'm trying to figureout what Jarhead is going to give her for her High School graduation present in June.
Quote from: Toonces on March 06, 2012, 03:44:19 PM
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.
Why is it that whenever you all start discussing the second ammendment, you skip the first half of the statement:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
You guys just focus on the last half and ignore the first part which delineates the purpose for the second part.
Oh brother... I've argued this point. Prepare for artillery fire, Toonces! ;)
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 06, 2012, 04:15:54 PM
I'm trying to figureout what Jarhead is going to give her for her High School graduation present in June.
I hear he has a nice Springfield rifle that needs a good home.
The first sentence in my post, in bold, is how it is written, correct?
I understand what all the following people said shortly after it was accepted in the form in which it was accepted and published. I suppose that, if during the first Gulf War, as the war kicked off we had all gone into our homes and pulled the M-16 down from mantle above the fireplace, and today we wrote a Bill of Rights to our Constitution to govern our new country that we just formed in 1990 or so, I might feel the same way.
Having said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.
I know I'm not going to change your mind, but really, I wish guns rights folks would stop holding up the second ammendment as the beginning and end of "why" they should be allowed to possess guns. The ammendment, as written, gives us the right to bear arms for a specific purpose. If you're going to throw out what they wrote in order to argue what they "meant", then I'd still argue my argument makes more sense than yours.
So there.
QuoteHaving said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.
Actually, there were fairly paranoid about too large of a standing army. Standing armies were seen as tools of oppression. See the whole thing with Charles I and Charles II of England.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 06:29:04 PM
QuoteHaving said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.
Actually, there were fairly paranoid about too large of a standing army. Standing armies were seen as tools of oppression. See the whole thing with Charles I and Charles II of England.
That is exactly why there was a comma separating the two thoughts; A militia being necessary and as a counter to the militia all citizens have the right to bear arms.
I don't see how you can read it that way...it doesn't say anything to even imply "as a counter to a militia".
Quote from: Toonces on March 06, 2012, 06:16:17 PM
The first sentence in my post, in bold, is how it is written, correct?
Your first sentence is correct, it is what you added that isn't part of the 2nd Amendment:
"for the purpose of forming and maintaining a well regulated militia" The senate specifically by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 06:29:04 PM
QuoteHaving said that, the ammendment says what it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." and, something tells me that those folks you quoted above didn't imagine fighting wars with a permanent military that eats something like 20% of our country's budget annually.
Actually, there were fairly paranoid about too large of a standing army. Standing armies were seen as tools of oppression. See the whole thing with Charles I and Charles II of England.
Yes, initially the vision was that the states would supply the troops for the army. However, we quickly realized that was too fragmented and inefficient. Gradually a centralized army was accepted, but only after it became clear there was no practical alternative.
It's been a while since I was reading up on the topic. I'd recommend For The Common Defense. It's good stuff.
And Toonces, I'd recommend reading up on all the contemporary writings you can. The Founding Fathers left a lot of letters and articles all over the place to help clarify precisely what they wanted and why.
You're also a little late to the party, but Hillsdale College is offering a free lecture series on the Constitution, and we've not come anywhere close to interpreting the Amendments yet. It might be worth your time if you're interested in learning more.
I think the pre-independence notion of British rights is fascinating. The whole Glorious Revolution and William and Mary is pretty cool stuff. And the chucking of James II was done, in part, for his attempts to get a standing army up and running.
I think, LB, you would like the book The Sinews of Power, by John Brewer. It is deep and dense academia, but has some very cool stuff about English state building in it. Best yet, you can get it on the Kindle!
http://www.amazon.com/Sinews-Power-Money-English-1688-1783/dp/0674809300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331093217&sr=8-1
I may read it again once my draft is done and I finish this book on the Mediterranean.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fedge.ebaumsworld.com%2FmediaFiles%2Fpicture%2F166932%2F82166170.jpg&hash=b8cd346819249157cb1fa1902d8e4ac14a7fee73)
....the answer to extremism on both sides
Quote from: Windigo on March 07, 2012, 12:16:19 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fedge.ebaumsworld.com%2FmediaFiles%2Fpicture%2F166932%2F82166170.jpg&hash=b8cd346819249157cb1fa1902d8e4ac14a7fee73)
....the answer to extremism on both sides
I still feel guilty for throwing snowballs at him...... :'(
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 07, 2012, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: Windigo on March 07, 2012, 12:16:19 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fedge.ebaumsworld.com%2FmediaFiles%2Fpicture%2F166932%2F82166170.jpg&hash=b8cd346819249157cb1fa1902d8e4ac14a7fee73)
....the answer to extremism on both sides
I still feel guilty for throwing snowballs at him...... :'(
Who Windy? He probably deserved it.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 01:50:49 PM
Who Windy? He probably deserved it.
No, Fred, he used to drive in his VW Beetle to the station where he filmed his show every morning. Just so happened to be right next to the smoking area at our high school. We would pelt the car with snowballs and try to escape before the school Prefect would catch us and beat the poop out of us.....
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 07, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 01:50:49 PM
Who Windy? He probably deserved it.
No, Fred, he used to drive in his VW Beetle to the station where he filmed his show every morning. Just so happened to be right next to the smoking area at our high school. We would pelt the car with snowballs and try to escape before the school Prefect would catch us and beat the poop out of us.....
Wish I'd been there.
To help the Prefect. ;)
You are going to Hell. Pelting Mr. Rogers with snowballs... what a degenerate!
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 07, 2012, 02:25:00 PM
You are going to Hell. Pelting Mr. Rogers with snowballs... what a degenerate!
I was was nerdy enough to have been rather sore those boys were breaking the rules.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 02:24:39 PM
Wish I'd been there.
To help the Prefect. ;)
He didn't need help, he was a Chosen Reservoir bubba, we also weren't allowed to wear clip on ties......do the math... 8)
There where many days that the prep school boys left the school with black eyes, bloody noses, and lumps on their heads without getting in a fight.
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 07, 2012, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 02:24:39 PM
Wish I'd been there.
To help the Prefect. ;)
He didn't need help, he was a Chosen Reservoir bubba, we also weren't allowed to wear clip on ties......do the math... 8)
There where many days that the prep school boys left the school with black eyes, bloody noses, and lumps on their heads without getting in a fight.
I didn't mean help him beat you - I was a wimp.
I just mean help him catch you. :p
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 07, 2012, 02:25:00 PM
You are going to Hell. Pelting Mr. Rogers with snowballs... what a degenerate!
No, we went to confession...eveything is a okay we also had catechetics and no girls so no BC issues... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Catholic_High_School_(Pittsburgh,_Pennsylvania)
Korean War Vets are absolutely a breed apart. Giants among a group of giants.
Not sure if this is going to work
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=40.446606&lon=-79.945595&z=19&r=0&src=msl
North of the football field you have the main building running east to west on 5th avenue. On the east side of that building was the smoking area. Just east of that; across the driveway and small strip of grass you have WQED's parking lot...that is were Fred used to park his beetle.
Toonces...seems like you are confused about the meaning of the term "well-regulated militia," and the term "the People," as used in the Constitution.
The Second Amendment was enacted to protect the people from the tyranny of an overbearing government PERIOD. The inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The term "well-regulated" meant something completely different two centuries ago. Today, one might define it as "controlled,""limited," or "restricted". Two hundred years ago it meant "having proper kit and provisions" or in the case of objects or machinery, "properly maintained and kept in good repair."
The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787-89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue. Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," in effect, a "general militia" that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 militia Act. Mason and his supporters feared the development of "special militias". Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups--witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist "Blackshirts." In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them, as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time. These two groups were little different than standing armies. The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military's unwillingness to do so)—in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents. Distressingly, we now have a lot of special militias in the USA—the Secret Service, FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, the National Guard and today's "near federalized" status of most state and local police departments--to name but a few.
One could make the argument that the above are all unconstitutional, if the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the 1792 militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears about them were well placed. Even the courts are beginning to revive this long forgotten but crucial "general vs. special" militia distinction. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the "special militia" (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the "general militia" (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of"the people" expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group. So the statist left has its "militia" and the rest of us have ours. No wonder so many of them can't free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the "militia=National Guard" equation. The statist left doesn't want to because it's interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 06, 2012, 04:15:54 PM
With that being said, what sidearm do you guys use; the 1911 or the M-9?
I'm trying to figureout what Jarhead is going to give her for her High School graduation present in June.
I know a guy on the Navy pistol marksmanship team who says they are using 1911s. Lucky bastage.
i guess that makes my gift shopping dilemma somewhat easier.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 04:09:57 PM
Toonces...seems like you are confused about the meaning of the term "well-regulated militia," and the term "the People," as used in the Constitution.
The Second Amendment was enacted to protect the people from the tyranny of an overbearing government PERIOD. The inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The term "well-regulated" meant something completely different two centuries ago. Today, one might define it as "controlled,""limited," or "restricted". Two hundred years ago it meant "having proper kit and provisions" or in the case of objects or machinery, "properly maintained and kept in good repair."
The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787-89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue. Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," in effect, a "general militia" that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 militia Act. Mason and his supporters feared the development of "special militias". Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups--witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist "Blackshirts." In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them, as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time. These two groups were little different than standing armies. The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military's unwillingness to do so)—in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents. Distressingly, we now have a lot of special militias in the USA—the Secret Service, FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, the National Guard and today's "near federalized" status of most state and local police departments--to name but a few.
One could make the argument that the above are all unconstitutional, if the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the 1792 militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears about them were well placed. Even the courts are beginning to revive this long forgotten but crucial "general vs. special" militia distinction. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the "special militia" (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the "general militia" (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of"the people" expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group. So the statist left has its "militia" and the rest of us have ours. No wonder so many of them can't free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the "militia=National Guard" equation. The statist left doesn't want to because it's interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."
Anyone not see this coming? :)
^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic. My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E. I attack autonomically.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 04:28:14 PM
^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic. My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E. I attack autonomically.
I can recommend a mouse that allows you to bind a macro to the keys for simple cutting and pasting of this ;)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 04:09:57 PM
Toonces...seems like you are confused about the meaning of the term "well-regulated militia," and the term "the People," as used in the Constitution.
The Second Amendment was enacted to protect the people from the tyranny of an overbearing government PERIOD. The inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The term "well-regulated" meant something completely different two centuries ago. Today, one might define it as "controlled,""limited," or "restricted". Two hundred years ago it meant "having proper kit and provisions" or in the case of objects or machinery, "properly maintained and kept in good repair."
The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787-89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue. Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," in effect, a "general militia" that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 militia Act. Mason and his supporters feared the development of "special militias". Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups--witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist "Blackshirts." In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them, as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time. These two groups were little different than standing armies. The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military's unwillingness to do so)—in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents. Distressingly, we now have a lot of special militias in the USA—the Secret Service, FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, the National Guard and today's "near federalized" status of most state and local police departments--to name but a few.
One could make the argument that the above are all unconstitutional, if the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the 1792 militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears about them were well placed. Even the courts are beginning to revive this long forgotten but crucial "general vs. special" militia distinction. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the "special militia" (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the "general militia" (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of"the people" expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group. So the statist left has its "militia" and the rest of us have ours. No wonder so many of them can't free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the "militia=National Guard" equation. The statist left doesn't want to because it's interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."
That seemed like a good post that fell apart at the end.
Surely you can see the value to a nation of [size=78%] [/size][size=78%]"crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."[/size]
Yes, it is possible for a country to abuse these for ulterior motives. It is far more likely that such tendencies can be kept in check by reporters and citizens. Countries without strong police forces descend into anarchy. Look at Mexico or Colombia. How can a lawyer argue against law and order? An example of a state with very high levels of law and order is Singapore. They are doing quite well.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 05:48:37 PM
Surely you can see the value to a nation of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."Yes, it is possible for a country to abuse these for ulterior motives. It is far more likely that such tendencies can be kept in check by reporters and citizens. Countries without strong police forces descend into anarchy. Look at Mexico or Colombia. How can a lawyer argue against law and order? An example of a state with very high levels of law and order is Singapore. They are doing quite well.
There is an obvious difference between policing and national security conducted within the confines of the Constitution and policing and national security conducted tyrannically through corruption. Mexico and columbia have large police and military organizations, but they are tyrannical and corrupt, and as such, are ineffective and detrimental to the rights of the citizens of those countries. Your example actually proves my point, not counters it, as was your intent.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 05:54:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 05:48:37 PM
Surely you can see the value to a nation of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security."Yes, it is possible for a country to abuse these for ulterior motives. It is far more likely that such tendencies can be kept in check by reporters and citizens. Countries without strong police forces descend into anarchy. Look at Mexico or Colombia. How can a lawyer argue against law and order? An example of a state with very high levels of law and order is Singapore. They are doing quite well.
There is an obvious difference between policing and national security conducted within the confines of the Constitution and policing and national security conducted tyrannically through corruption. Mexico and columbia have large police and military organizations, but they are tyrannical and corrupt, and as such, are ineffective and detrimental to the rights of the citizens of those countries. Your example actually proves my point, not counters it, as was your intent.
No, Mexico and Colombia have very small government. People basically are free to do whatever with very little tax. That sounds good but it has to work. In their cases it does not work. The corruption of officials is a different issue. There is an international listing of countries by corruption. 3 with the lowest IRRC, Autralia, Canada, Japan. That is cultural. People in official positions do the job. In corrupt countries officials are places by crime syndicates. Either way it is not countered by people carrying guns on their hips.
People carrying guns can work in a culture that is reasonably law abiding. Then the guns are pulled for self defence. A country without the law abiding culture with guns on hips is Afghanistan. Hardly a model of how carrying guns spreads contentment.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 04:30:06 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 04:28:14 PM
^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic. My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E. I attack autonomically.
I can recommend a mouse that allows you to bind a macro to the keys for simple cutting and pasting of this ;)
I think most of our debates have become like that story about jokes in the future. They are told so often that we simply refer to them by number. So I might say, "#1453" and everyone laughs because they know it.
We should do that here.
Global Warming Point #422!
Gun Rights Opposition #809!
My Opinion of Your Sister's Morals #697!
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 06:19:29 PM
No, Mexico and Colombia have very small government.
OK...I confess. I have no idea what you are talking about. We're talking about tyrannical government through the use of armed coercion, ie. law enforcement, police, military. you come back with Mexico and Colombia have a small government where people are free to do "pretty much" whatever they want? Yeah, I'm lost.
If you want to discuss something relevant to the conversation, like the size of armed para-military and military organizations, then you'll find that Mexico is ranked in the top 30 largest military forces in the world...I'll add that Mexico uses it military in a domestic capacity to combat civil crime. Meanwhile, Columbia has the largest armed force in Latin America and as of 2007 spent 6.1% of its GDP on the military, one of the highest in the WORLD.
So you're statement regarding "small government" in Mexico and Colombia is completely irrelevant and at odds with irrefutable fact where military and national police organizations are concerned.
Additionally, I don't see how you can argue that "corruption is a separate issue." We are armed, as Americans, so that we can protect our selves from corrupt government so that our nation does not degenerate as it has in Mexico and Colombia.
Do you still want to have this argument?
JH,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you are stating that "well-regulated" was intended to mean (in 21st century speak):
"properly provisioned and equipped"
and further, that the purpose of arming the population was to act as a check against a tyrannical government, such that I could re-paraphrase the 2nd ammendment to:
"Because a properly provisioned and equipped militia is required for the safety of a free state, the right of all individuals to bear arms shall not be infringed as a balance to that militia."
Hmmm. That's interesting.
Ok, I'll buy that argument. They should have made that more clear when they wrote it- it seems another sentence or two really could have gone a long way towards making things more straight-forward.
"the right to bear arms" is awfully broad. How do you feel about the rights of states to put restrictions on this right- eg. concealed carry, automatic weapons, age limits, etc.?
I suspect if we go back and read what they wrote, it will be abundantly clear that they meant it exactly so.
As to Kev's point (Bigglesworth's point), no one here is arguing for a lack of law and order. No one here is calling for the abolition of law enforcement agencies.
Rather, JH is discussing Constitutional law, and how those agencies fit into it.
And there are very legal means to go about authorizing their creation if indeed they aren't properly authorized under the law (the Amendment process).
The point is, the US government, in all of its bloated splendor, doesn't fit into the legal boundaries as defined by the rule of law.
That's all fixable, but for some reason we've moved away from that process because it was inconveniently difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment. (and rightfully so)
It took us about a hundred years to get to this point. If we start working now, it will take us many decades to return to the proper boundaries, create and pass the appropriate legal structures to get things working as they properly should.
At the risk of putting words in JH's mouth, I think that's where he's coming from.
Quote from: Toonces on March 07, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
JH,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you are stating that "well-regulated" was intended to mean (in 21st century speak):
"properly provisioned and equipped"
and further, that the purpose of arming the population was to act as a check against a tyrannical government, such that I could re-paraphrase the 2nd ammendment to:
"Because a properly provisioned and equipped militia is required for the safety of a free state, the right of all individuals to bear arms shall not be infringed as a balance to that militia."
Close, but more like this...
Quote
A properly provisioned and equipped populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Quote from: Toonces on March 07, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
Ok, I'll buy that argument. They should have made that more clear when they wrote it- it seems another sentence or two really could have gone a long way towards making things more straight-forward.
It was clear and straight forward to them when they wrote it. Language has evolved over time and the meaning of "well regulated" and "militia" as used by the States to ratify the Amendment has changed over the centuries.
Quote from: Toonces on March 07, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
How do you feel about the rights of states to put restrictions on this right- eg. concealed carry, automatic weapons, age limits, etc.?
I'm a life member of the NRA and a strong supporter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a means of self-defense, and as a means of checking the inexorable march of overbearing tyrannical government. Does this mean that I believe there should be NO regulations on ownership of weapons? No. I take no issue with reasonable limitations on minimum age requirements, restrictions on certain classes of criminals, ie. felons, murderers, wife beaters, drug users, etc. I don't even mind reasonable licensing requirements, but these should be no more onerous than requirements for drivers. As far as the type of firepower one can own, I have difficulty accepting one's right to own weapons of mass destruction because these go beyond the purpose for which the Second Amendment was enacted.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 06:19:29 PM
No, Mexico and Colombia have very small government.
OK...I confess. I have no idea what you are talking about. We're talking about tyrannical government through the use of armed coercion, ie. law enforcement, police, military. you come back with Mexico and Colombia have a small government where people are free to do "pretty much" whatever they want? Yeah, I'm lost.
If you want to discuss something relevant to the conversation, like the size of armed para-military and military organizations, then you'll find that Mexico is ranked in the top 30 largest military forces in the world...I'll add that Mexico uses it military in a domestic capacity to combat civil crime. Meanwhile, Columbia has the largest armed force in Latin America and as of 2007 spent 6.1% of its GDP on the military, one of the highest in the WORLD.
So you're statement regarding "small government" in Mexico and Colombia is completely irrelevant and at odds with irrefutable fact where military and national police organizations are concerned.
Additionally, I don't see how you can argue that "corruption is a separate issue." We are armed, as Americans, so that we can protect our selves from corrupt government so that our nation does not degenerate as it has in Mexico and Colombia.
Do you still want to have this argument?
Sure, that is interensting stats you brought up. When I was referring to small government i did so based on a past search I did on budgets by population. In this case your stats on military size are better. I will consider your good point in this post.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 08:43:17 PM
Sure, that is interensting stats you brought up. When I was referring to small government i did so based on a past search I did on budgets by population. In this case your stats on military size are better. I will consider your good point in this post.
Fair enough. Thanks. :)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 07, 2012, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 04:30:06 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 04:28:14 PM
^When you have the same argument over and over and over again, it just sort of becomes automatic. My approach to 2nd Amendment intellectual combat has been refined like L.I.N.E. I attack autonomically.
I can recommend a mouse that allows you to bind a macro to the keys for simple cutting and pasting of this ;)
I think most of our debates have become like that story about jokes in the future. They are told so often that we simply refer to them by number. So I might say, "#1453" and everyone laughs because they know it.
We should do that here.
Global Warming Point #422!
Gun Rights Opposition #809!
My Opinion of Your Sister's Morals #697!
We can have a point 1-10 by user! Your #422 can be Windy #1.
Windy's titties will be his #2.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 08:42:02 PM
I'm a life member of the NRA and a strong supporter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a means of self-defense, and as a means of checking the inexorable march of overbearing tyrannical government. Does this mean that I believe there should be NO regulations on ownership of weapons? No. I take no issue with reasonable limitations on minimum age requirements, restrictions on certain classes of criminals, ie. felons, murderers, wife beaters, drug users, etc. I don't even mind reasonable licensing requirements, but these should be no more onerous than requirements for drivers. As far as the type of firepower one can own, I have difficulty accepting one's right to own weapons of mass destruction because these go beyond the purpose for which the Second Amendment was enacted.
Is it realistic that citizens with their gun cabinet can counter tyranny from a modern government? The case that comes to mind is Putin's return to the President of Russia. The people know it was a corrupt election. There is really nothing they can do about it. Historically an army was comprised of citizens with carried arms so it was relevant to assume a similar level of armament from organized citizens would be a counter. Now, to use the Warhammer lingo, we have a cult of the machine in state militaries. It would be hopeless to try an armed revolution by citizens of Russia. I think it is a historical nostalgia to believe a personal gun cabinet is a counter to a modern government. The real key to preventing oppression is in having a thoughtful, honest public sector that will refuse any order to oppress the people.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 09:24:23 PM
Is it realistic that citizens with their gun cabinet can counter tyranny from a modern government?
Yes.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 09:24:23 PM
The case that comes to mind is Putin's return to the President of Russia. The people know it was a corrupt election. There is really nothing they can do about it.
There is nothing they can do about it because they are unarmed sheep.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 09:24:23 PM
It would be hopeless to try an armed revolution by citizens of Russia. I think it is a historical nostalgia to believe a personal gun cabinet is a counter to a modern government.
So you're suggesting we just give up, call it a day and surrender our rights afforded by the Constitution? No thanks. And by the way, you haven't seen my personal gun cabinet, have you?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 07, 2012, 09:24:23 PM
The real key to preventing oppression is in having a thoughtful, honest public sector that will refuse any order to oppress the people.
What kind of weed are you smoking and where can I get some?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
And by the way, you haven't seen my personal gun cabinet, have you?
Speaking of which, did you get the lease on that underground parking "cabinet" on 7th Street?
8)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 08:42:02 PM
I'm a life member of the NRA
For some reason I thought you weren't a big fan of the NRA, as their position was largely to protect hunting rifles and shotguns.
I guess I'm mistaken.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2012, 10:46:27 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 07, 2012, 08:42:02 PM
I'm a life member of the NRA
For some reason I thought you weren't a big fan of the NRA, as their position was largely to protect hunting rifles and shotguns.
I guess I'm mistaken.
No, you're right. I have criticized the NRA in the past, but as a voting member, I can influence who gets on the board. Despite their habit of compromise, they are our strongest, best hope.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this without going high and right. I actually never considered that the meaning of of the words in the ammendment had changed from their meaning in the 1700's.
If we continued to dig into this, I'm sure we could argue tremendously about gun control, but I will concede that the ammendment does give the individual the right to bear arms after all.
So, sometimes these discussions are worthwhile... :)
Toonces, there is a slow dawning of appreciation that there are many places where what we have now is extra-Constitutional. All well-intended, all justified via some legal gymnastics, but none of it compliant with what is written.
One need look no further than the Commerce Clause to discover how badly abused the interpretation of that section is. Virtually all of the current deficit and overregulation can be traced to have been justified through the Commerce Clause.
That isn't to say we don't need many of the regulations and services provided by existing institutions, but it is to say that we have arrived at them unchecked by the law as intended and written.
It's all fixable with the documents we have, but it is good and right for us to examine the Constitution, consider it, and compare it to the world we live in. It is, after all, the law of the land.
QuoteThe point is, the US government, in all of its bloated splendor, doesn't fit into the legal boundaries as defined by the rule of law.
What'cho talkin' bout Willis? This makes no sense to me. Of course the government fits into the legal boundaries as defined by rule of law... Are you saying we have things imposed by fiat? I don't follow.
QuoteToonces, there is a slow dawning of appreciation that there are many places where what we have now is extra-Constitutional. All well-intended, all justified via some legal gymnastics, but none of it compliant with what is written.
The Constitution was never intended to be the end of government. It provides the structural basis (i.e. what branches and how they interact) and the limits of the
federal government's power. I don't get the notion that we can't have institutions, particularly sub-sections of our branches of government, that were not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. The founders didn't even follow that model.
QuoteIt is, after all, the law of the land.
Not to be pedantic, but the Constitution is not the actual "law" of the land. It is the basis of law. It is the yardstick for what makes a proper law. But not the actual law. You cannot run a society solely by what is in the Constitution. It is the difference between delineation of rights and the codification of statutes based on those rights.
If you want more on this, I have about 300 pages of a medieval example of which you can read... ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 08, 2012, 12:51:21 PM
What'cho talkin' bout Willis? This makes no sense to me. Of course the government fits into the legal boundaries as defined by rule of law... Are you saying we have things imposed by fiat? I don't follow.
The Constitution was never intended to be the end of government. It provides the structural basis (i.e. what branches and how they interact) and the limits of the federal government's power. I don't get the notion that we can't have institutions, particularly sub-sections of our branches of government, that were not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. The founders didn't even follow that model.
From Wikipedia, but it seems to be a fair assessment.
QuoteThe Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators[who?] have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[1] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has depended on the Supreme Court's reading. During the John Marshall era the Commerce Clause was empowered and gained jurisdiction over several aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the William Rehnquist court era the Commerce Clause was restricted, thereby allowing states more control over business conducted within its borders.
(emphasis mine)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Don't take my word for it - read the document yourself. It isn't long or terribly difficult.
Come back and tell us where in it is the provision by which research on blueberries is authorized. Or light bulb efficiency.
Look, I'm not arguing that we don't need air quality standards. We do. And food safety. And I can even be persuaded that it would be more efficient to have these housed at the Federal level rather than duplicated by 50 states.
But as written, those things aren't in there. The process to amend the document is in there to allow for these developments. You can make a good case, and I'd agree, that we ought to have those things. But read it and tell me where they exist. And don't forget to read the 9th and 10th Amendment while you're at it.
I'm still not following. Congress has the power to make laws and power over the budget. The President signs laws into effect. The judiciary judges based on those laws.
Given that, the government has the power to make and execute law outside of what is listed in the Constitution. But those laws can't abrogate the rights listed in the Constitution.
I don't get where you are going, the Constitution is not series of statutes. Perhaps I'm confused at what you are trying to argue. We run the Federal government ONLY with the Constitution? Wasn't designed to be like that and neither Thomas Jefferson nor John Adams ran their presidencies like that (and they should know about the Constitution). You think the States should make all the laws? I think I am misreading you.
I am simply saying that a $16 trillion dollar deficit cannot easily blossom if we respect the enumerated powers:
QuoteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Actually I see a lot of ways for that deficit to hit that number. Remember, the majority of our spending for the last century has not been to researching blueberries or light bulbs, it has been going to these things (plus an unlisted Air Force... oops, should we abolish that... ;)):
QuoteTo declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just it is what it is. I should probably work the Letter of Marque and Reprisal clause from the Constitution into my dissertations somehow... speaking of.
I'm all for expanding the enumerated powers. No one in their right mind believes we should only have a standing military for two years.
But as we go forward, the more we allow for wiggle room via judicial interpretation, the more you run the risk that the nation will be bankrupt in ~200 years because we departed from the principles that were supposed to limit the size and scope of government.
You won't hear me arguing we don't need clean air, clean water, or healthy food. But somehow in our quest to ensure that we got to this point, which I think all of us can agree is Too Far.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 08, 2012, 01:45:40 PM
I'm all for expanding the enumerated powers. No one in their right mind believes we should only have a standing military for two years.
But as we go forward, the more we allow for wiggle room via judicial interpretation, the more you run the risk that the nation will be bankrupt in ~200 years because we departed from the principles that were supposed to limit the size and scope of government.
You won't hear me arguing we don't need clean air, clean water, or healthy food. But somehow in our quest to ensure that we got to this point, which I think all of us can agree is Too Far.
You could save a whole bunch of money on social security if grandma and grandpa could live with the grandkids and the parents..... just saying.
Quote from: Windigo on March 08, 2012, 01:47:55 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 08, 2012, 01:45:40 PM
I'm all for expanding the enumerated powers. No one in their right mind believes we should only have a standing military for two years.
But as we go forward, the more we allow for wiggle room via judicial interpretation, the more you run the risk that the nation will be bankrupt in ~200 years because we departed from the principles that were supposed to limit the size and scope of government.
You won't hear me arguing we don't need clean air, clean water, or healthy food. But somehow in our quest to ensure that we got to this point, which I think all of us can agree is Too Far.
You could save a whole bunch of money on social security if grandma and grandpa could live with the grandkids and the parents..... just saying.
Yup. The Founders actually intended for a minimal welfare expenditure as part of the the government. Extending that to universal health care coverage and fostering generations of welfare families, however, is beyond the scope of what was envisioned.