Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
    Well I guess we've moved on a little since the 70s. The 1070s that is. Back then what passed for justice was swift and savage.

    Nowadays justice has to be seen to be observed, in public, even if it isn't always the case.
    That's because there are too many Lawyers -- all of whom are trying to make a living by dragging everything out till there is no money left in anyones wallet -- then, miraculously - all cases are resolved --- funny how that works
    I like Dogs far better than most People

    As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

    BoRG

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
      That's because there are too many Lawyers -- all of whom are trying to make a living by dragging everything out till there is no money left in anyones wallet -- then, miraculously - all cases are resolved --- funny how that works
      Yes, under Edward I it was called looting a country by other means...
      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

      Comment


      • Looting is just fine -- provided I get my cut of the loot
        I like Dogs far better than most People

        As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

        BoRG

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
          Looting is just fine -- provided I get my cut of the loot
          Well yes, and look where you're posting from. I just took the girl and look where I ended up.
          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
            Well yes, and look where you're posting from. I just took the girl and look where I ended up.
            You have my sincere condolences -- ( make sure Mrs. General Staff never sees this post !)
            I like Dogs far better than most People

            As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

            BoRG

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
              You have my sincere condolences -- ( make sure Mrs. General Staff never sees this post !)
              Thanks. I will. Now you know why I have a US Passport and keep it well hidden.
              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

              Comment


              • I finally figured out how to post a photograph on my profile -- wow -- that took a while -- apparently what I was doing wrong was posting a picture with pixels in excess of 300 -- that's a no-no -- I just didn't know how to reduce them -- my granddaughter -- age 14 - knew instantly and talked me threw the problem

                Thank the Lord for little people
                I like Dogs far better than most People

                As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                BoRG

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                  I finally figured out how to post a photograph on my profile -- wow -- that took a while -- apparently what I was doing wrong was posting a picture with pixels in excess of 300 -- that's a no-no -- I just didn't know how to reduce them -- my granddaughter -- age 14 - knew instantly and talked me threw the problem

                  Thank the Lord for little people
                  Yes, and now I know why the site has been periodically down or difficult to access, what with you trying to upload multiple megapixel images of yourself...
                  Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                  (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                  Comment


                  • Of Course !!! What could possible be more important ??
                    I like Dogs far better than most People

                    As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                    BoRG

                    Comment


                    • The right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant to protect the fundamental right of individual self defense. According to the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms is merely the means to a well regulated militia; and, a well regulated militia is merely the means to the security of a free state.

                      Applying James Madison's principle that the means should be commensurate with the end, we should understand the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear to be limited to that which is necessary to achieve a well regulated militia. Therefore, the only people with a right to keep and bear are those are acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia that is at all times submissive to civil authority.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                        The right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant to protect the fundamental right of individual self defense. According to the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms is merely the means to a well regulated militia; and, a well regulated militia is merely the means to the security of a free state.
                        Excuse me for stepping in here, but who defines 'well regulated'? I mean I've seen a few armed mobs who insist they're well regulated.
                        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                          The right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant to protect the fundamental right of individual self defense.
                          Yes it was.

                          Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                          According to the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms is merely the means to a well regulated militia; and, a well regulated militia is merely the means to the security of a free state.
                          According to the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms is a means to preseving a well regulated militia which in turn provides the best security of a free state. It does not foreclose or eliminate other possible reasons for the 2nd. However, and just for giggles, I will presume your predicate assumption.

                          Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                          Applying James Madison's principle that the means should be commensurate with the end, we should understand the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear to be limited to that which is necessary to achieve a well regulated militia.
                          That is not Madison's principle. Your powers of reading and interpreting the english language is, at best suspect. You lost all credibility when you stated that Tucker "praises England for disarming the people." Thus I would not trust your interpretation of what Madison said or believed unless you were to post a link which confirmed your assertion... but thankfully, that is not necessary because I already have read Federalist #40 and know exactly what Madison had to say on the topic and, as per usual your analysis is found wanting.

                          Madison believed that all portions of a provision should be given meaning and effect to the greatest extent possible. It is only when there is a irreconcilable conflict between the desired end and the means provided that you are obliged to observe the desired end, rather than the means. Since you have not established the predicate foundation that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the means and the end, your entire argument is spurious.

                          Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                          Therefore, the only people with a right to keep and bear are those are acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia that is at all times submissive to civil authority.
                          That would offer less protection for the well regulated militia than if the right was vested in the people in general, as I have explained on numerous occassions. Further your transmutation of the "right of the people" into the right of "members of the well regulated militia" in itself violates fundamental rules of statutory construction well known and recognized at common law. Blackstone states:

                          Thus, when the law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit of clergy, we must resort to the same law of England to learn what the benefit of clergy is.
                          Thus, when the Constitution of the US declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, we must resort to the same Constitution of the US to learn what "people" mean. Now, does the right of the people to petition the government only extend to those acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia? Does the right to peaceably assemble only extend to those acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia? Does the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures only extend to those acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia?


                          The mere asking of the question not merely suggests the answer, it demands the answer... and it totally defeats your argument.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Torien View Post
                            How do you get "praises England for disarming the people" out of this:

                            "In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes."
                            Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                            Was Tucker saying that liberty in England, as of 1803, had already been annihilated, or was on the brink of destruction? If so, that statement was silly. Don't you think?
                            What part of which statement do you think is silly?

                            Are you referring to Tucker's statement?
                            My statement?
                            Or the statement you are trying to somehow pin to Tucker/me? (liberty annihilated??)

                            I was asking you to interpret for us how you arrived at your conclusion about Tucker's aim in discussing England.
                            History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napoleon Bonaparte
                            _________
                            BoRG
                            __________
                            "I am Arthur, King of the Britons!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                              Thus, when the law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit of clergy, we must resort to the same law of England to learn what the benefit of clergy is.
                              Yes, this rings a bell. Aside from last orders, I got this quite early on, just before I Left. Last Rights.
                              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                              Comment


                              • The Congressional butt monkeys who wrote the Second Amendment wanted it to be ambiguous. It's obvious they were trying to be deceitful.

                                We could speculate until George Bush grows a brain about what exactly they were trying to do. Fortunately however, we don't have to do that, because there was a rule of legal interpretation in 1789 which covered situations where the lawmakers got all butt monkey and wrote a law with parts that didn't coincide.

                                You would know about the rule of which I speak, if you had read the 1788 work James Madison wrote on "The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X