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 Miss You View Post
    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."
    I'm no lawyer, but I will take a look. Thanks for the reference.
    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 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."

      You still did not answer Torien's question. I will rephrase it:

      Please explain how you arrived at your remarkable conclusion that Tucker was praising the English for disarming the population of England.

      As for the rule of which you speak, it can be found in Federalist #40 which can be viewed here:

      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed40.asp

      An excerpt:

      There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

      Suppose, then, that the expressions defining the authority of the convention were irreconcilably at variance with each other; that a NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT could not possibly, in the judgment of the convention, be affected by ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION; which part of the definition ought to have been embraced, and which rejected? Which was the more important, which the less important part? Which the end; which the means?
      Your supposed rule only applies if there is an irreconciable conflict. To do otherwise would violate Madison's first rule which is that each part be given meaning.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
        Please explain how you arrived at your remarkable conclusion that Tucker was praising the English for disarming the population of England.
        Not the English. The Norman Aristocracy. You have to look at it in a whole new light.
        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

        Comment


        • Why do I think that if we had a time machine and could bring Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers back to life to explain that they meant the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, Miss You would still argue...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
            Why do I think that if we had a time machine and could bring Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers back to life to explain that they meant the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, Miss You would still argue...
            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.

            Seems obvious to me, historically speaking. They meant that it's OK for everyone to keep a weapon under their bed, in case someone comes to take their women, children, weapons or any other possessions.

            If you could bring the FF lads back, they'd look around, probably be amazed at what their product had produced, then seriously re-engineer the whole package.

            Unfortunately that's not possible, so we have to shift for ourselves. Rather like they had to.
            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

            Comment


            • The right to bear arms

              If we lose the right to bear arms which I dont think will happen.We cease to be a free society.It just gives the Criminals and Politicians more power over a free people.The United States is different from any country in the world,we are free.Except that our leaders try to erode our freedoms each time.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by madmike View Post
                If we lose the right to bear arms which I dont think will happen.We cease to be a free society.It just gives the Criminals and Politicians more power over a free people.The United States is different from any country in the world,we are free.Except that our leaders try to erode our freedoms each time.
                Good points. Thanks for joining in the fray.
                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 madmike View Post
                  If we lose the right to bear arms which I dont think will happen.We cease to be a free society.It just gives the Criminals and Politicians more power over a free people.The United States is different from any country in the world,we are free.Except that our leaders try to erode our freedoms each time.
                  Gun owership plays a very small roll in being free. Have you ever counted the countries that every second male is running around with an AK47?

                  There are few if any freedoms that Americans have that the other members of the G8 don't share, including gun owership.
                  "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                  Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                  you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                    There are few if any freedoms that Americans have that the other members of the G8 don't share, including gun owership.
                    It's not just gun ownership, it's the type of guns and lack of restrictions on how they are owned and controlled.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      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.

                      Seems obvious to me, historically speaking.
                      Historical speaking, in 1789, the meaning of constitutions were ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of legal interpretation. One of those rules applied to legal expressions which contained parts that didn't coincide.

                      The rule dictated that the means should be sacrificed to the end. Therefore, we are obligated to sacrifice the means, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to the more important end of a well regulated militia. Thus, we must deviate from the plain language of the Amendment, just as the founders deviated from the plain language in other laws, and understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mean the right of the militia to organize, arm and train as the standing force of the nation.

                      Comment


                      • They meant that it's OK for everyone to keep a weapon under their bed, in case someone comes to take their women, children, weapons or any other possessions.
                        If that were the case, the lawmakers would have included a clause in the Second Amendment which said that "a weapon under the bed being necessary in case someone comes to take the women, children, weapons for any other possessions..."


                        ********************

                        "The English language was carefully culled", by the butt monkeys who wrote the Second Amendment, "to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                          It's not just gun ownership, it's the type of guns and lack of restrictions on how they are owned and controlled.
                          That sounds like Afghanistan or Somalia


                          As a gun owner I totally agree with those restrictions. I don't care to live next to someone with a quad 50 mounted on the back of his pickup. Shotguns, rifles, pistols fine but I see no need for civilians to have full auto weapons. IF they want to play solider the Army is always looking for fresh troops.
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • The meaning of the word "people" and that of "well regulated militia" cannot be reconciled except by including only that which they have in common. The only thing the two have in common are the people who are members of a well organized, well armed and well trained militia. Thus, we construe the word "people" to mean only the people who are members of the organized, armed and trained militia, over which Congress was granted sole and exclusive authority under Article One Section Eight.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                              That sounds like Afghanistan or Somalia


                              As a gun owner I totally agree with those restrictions. I don't care to live next to someone with a quad 50 mounted on the back of his pickup. Shotguns, rifles, pistols fine but I see no need for civilians to have full auto weapons. IF they want to play solider the Army is always looking for fresh troops.
                              You're missing my point. You said that the other G8 nations had the same level of freedom of gun ownership that the US does. That is patently false. Try buying an AR15 of Glock pistol in the UK. Even if you could, you'd have to keep it locked up at the gun club or be subject to unannounced house searches.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                                You're missing my point. You said that the other G8 nations had the same level of freedom of gun ownership that the US does. That is patently false. Try buying an AR15 of Glock pistol in the UK. Even if you could, you'd have to keep it locked up at the gun club or be subject to unannounced house searches.
                                Not being a resident of the UK I have never tried to purchase an AR15 there. I think one active member of the Rod and Gun Club at Panzer has a15. A number have Glock's. You do know what country produces the Glock?

                                Founded in 1963,[1] Glock started out as a manufacturer of curtain rods before branching out into the arms industry in the 1970s,

                                Curtain rods!!!!!!!

                                Owership was the key word.
                                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X