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
    Don't be silly...
    Why not? You are...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
      The First U. S. Congress, most of them anyway, were butt monkeys, at least when it came to drafting the Amendments to the Constitution, because the Amendments were "calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive." James Madison's doctor said so.
      So now Madison's doctor's opinion is what matters? Face it, you're grasping at straws...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
        The meanings of "well regulated militia" and "people" are "irreconcilably at variance".
        Well, off course they are. The one is designed to control the other. I mean, am I missing something, again?
        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 meanings of "well regulated militia" and "people" are "irreconcilably at variance".
          Not even a good try, Miss You. The MEANS provided must irreconcilably be at variance with the END desired.

          Your argument is totally idiotic. You could just as easily claim that the meanings of "Congress" and "press" are "irreconcilably at variance" in the 1st Amendment.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
            The MEANS provided must irreconcilably be at variance with the END desired.
            Go read the rules again.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
              It doesn't matter, because the lawmakers didn't make the Constitution to be construed according to whether or not Tucker praised the English.
              It does matter, because your intelligence, honesty, integrity and your ability to comprehend the english language is being called into question. If you can not discern the plain meaning of Tucker, and in fact twist it around so that it means quite exactly the opposite of what is said, everything else you might have to say is totally and completely discredited... In the law, it is known as "impeaching the witness". You sir, have been impeached by your own duplicity.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                Go read the rules again.

                Ok, I did so. You are wrong and I am right.

                the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                  The First U. S. Congress, most of them anyway, were butt monkeys, at least when it came to drafting the Amendments to the Constitution, because the Amendments were "calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive." James Madison's doctor said so.
                  We had two primary political groups at that time. The Federalists and the Anti Federalists. The Federalists wanted the Constitution ratified. The Anti Federalists did not (Patrick Henry, a leading Anti Federalist, felt that the names used were inappropriate, instead, those who supported ratification should be called the Rats and those who opposed ratification should be called the Anti Rats---yes they did have a sense of humor back then).

                  True to the political process which has ever been and will always be, the Anti Rats were opposed to almost everything the Rats were in favor of, with the primary goal of the Anti Rats being the prevention of the ratification of the Constitution. They even argued about the preamble, with Patrick Henry eloquently stating that "We the People" should be changed to "We the States". So why were the Anti Rats suggesting amendments to the Constitution when their real goal was to deep six the entire Constitution? They presumed that if they could convince the people that amendments were absolutely necessary, the result would be that the Constitution would be referred back to a new Constitutional Convention for a rewrite. They also knew that such a procedure would likely not be succesful, for a variety of reasons, which I can explain if anyone wishes.

                  Of all the objections which the Anti Rats dreamed up, the one that had the greatest impact with the people was a lack of a Bill of Rights. The Anti Rats used this ommision as a Trojan Horse in order to derail the ratification process, promoting it and extolling the virtues of a Bill of Rights. The Rats saw this as a real threat to ratification and therefore were required to oppose the whole idea of a Bill of Rights... not because they did not believe in safeguarding fundamental rights, but because they feared that the Constitution would not be ratified because of same. They dreamed up all sorts of theories on why a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but downright dangerous to thos fundamental rights... yeah politicians had the capacity to make white black and black white even then.... but what was interesting was that their argument actually made a bit of sense. Hamilton was the Rat who made this argument and he was probably the most intelligent of all the Founding Fathers... even out shining Jefferson in the brainiac department.

                  However, a compromise was suggested to allow the ratification of the Constitution coupled with a pledge that the first congress would propose a Bill of Rights, ratification occured and the Anti Rats lost the political struggle... and they also lost their enthusiasim for a Bill of Rights... again not because they were opposed to same, but merely because they felt there were more important things to be concerned with. Thus, the primary advocates at the 1st Congress for a Bill of Rights were actually the Rats, while the Anti Rats grumbeled about wasting their time.

                  Soooooooo, bringing this all together, the Bill of Rights was a political football used or opposed by both sides for partisan poltical purposes to achieve other ends. The rights protected were unremarkable... merely a restatement of common law tradition, the provisions in other state constitutions or in response to abuses by the King in the leadup to the Revolution. Thus, it is true that the Bill of Rights was "calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive", but the amusement and deception was not with respect to the words or phrasing of the Bill of Rights, but the partisan political process which resulted in the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
                  Last edited by legaleagle_45; 18 Nov 08, 11:25.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    The conflict occurs because the meanings of "people" and "militia" don't coincide, and because the means should be commensurate with the end being sought. Since the end sought is a "well regulated militia", the means to that end should be only that which is necessary and proper to achieve a well organized, well armed and well trained militia.
                    Originally posted by Torien View Post
                    So those People are the only citizens effected by the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Only Militia members have Freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion? Etc.
                    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    Don't be silly...
                    Hey, it was your premise. I just pointed it out. Doesn't make me silly.
                    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 Half Pint View Post
                      http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Freedom...he-French.html



                      You have never been to London. If you get the chance go to Hyde Park and stop at speakers corner.

                      Freedom of Speech , American Style, still has it's limits. Inciting to riot is forbidden IIRC.

                      I doubt that any country has totally free speech. If you don't believe me threaten the President of the US. See ya when ya get back:

                      HP
                      I appreciate your feedback on my post. I know that I was exceedingly vague in my statement and opened myself up for "correction". But my point was made.

                      European countries have many restrictions placed on their Free Speech (evidence is all over the French Embassy piece you submitted). I recall reading about arrests made in how the media covered the Muslim Riots in the Projects of Paris last year.

                      And a designated Free Speech location is not free speech!
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers'_Corner

                      BTW: What would make you say something like: "You have never been to London."?

                      It happens to be true. But, certainly an unwelcome assumption. I wonder what you were trying to imply?
                      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 Half Pint View Post
                        You have never been to London. If you get the chance go to Hyde Park and stop at speakers corner.
                        The true test of freedom of speech (or other fundamental rights) rests not in the transitory observance of the right, but in the degree of protection afforded to such right. The UK employs what is known as "parliamentary supremacy" which allows Parliament to override any right otherwise established by law or custom. Indeed, even the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are subject to the express intervention of Parliament. Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, [2003] QB 151 (Div Ct). Canada has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, and unlike our Constitution, Section One contains the "reasonable limits" clause, which allows the government to limit an individual’s Charter rights. Additionally, the Charter contains what is known as the "notwithstanding clause" which allows the Canadian Parliament or any provincial parliament to override fundamental individual rights, so long as they expressly indicate that they are doing so... Thus, if such a provision were in operation for the US, Congress, by a simple majority, could pass a law stating "Notwithstanding the First Amendment, it is hereby decreed that the New York Times will no longer be allowed to comment on the war in Iraq."

                        All in all, I believe our system to be quite superior.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Torien View Post
                          I appreciate your feedback on my post. I know that I was exceedingly vague in my statement and opened myself up for "correction". But my point was made.

                          European countries have many restrictions placed on their Free Speech (evidence is all over the French Embassy piece you submitted). I recall reading about arrests made in how the media covered the Muslim Riots in the Projects of Paris last year.

                          And a designated Free Speech location is not free speech!
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers'_Corner

                          BTW: What would make you say something like: "You have never been to London."?

                          It happens to be true. But, certainly an unwelcome assumption. I wonder what you were trying to imply?
                          Don't take it so hard. If you had been to London then most likely you would have made a stop at Speakers Corner. That is free speech at it's finest. Skypilot practices there. Seeing that UK/England, free speech is doing just fine, imho

                          From Wikpi

                          A Speakers' Corner is an area where public speaking is allowed. The original and most noted is in the north-east corner of Hyde Park in London, England. Speakers there are allowed to speak as long as the police consider their speeches lawful. Contrary to mythology[citation needed] there is no immunity from the law, nor are any subjects proscribed. In practice the police tend to be tolerant and intervene when they receive a complaint or when they hear bad language.

                          There are a number of other areas designated as Speakers' Corners in other parks in London, (eg. Finsbury Park, Clapham Common, Kennington Park and Victoria Park) as well as other countries.

                          HP
                          Last edited by Half Pint John; 18 Nov 08, 12:17.
                          "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
                            Skypilot practices there.
                            Is that where he makes sense too? (I guess I haven't imbibed enough for him to make sense to me. LoL)
                            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


                            • It doesn't matter what Tucker meant, because the lawmakers didn't make the Constitution to be construed according to whether or not Tucker praised the English. It also doesn't matter what I think Tucker meant.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                                It doesn't matter what Tucker meant, because the lawmakers didn't make the Constitution to be construed according to whether or not Tucker praised the English.

                                It does matter, because your intelligence, honesty, integrity and your ability to comprehend the english language is being called into question. If you can not discern the plain meaning of Tucker, and in fact twist it around so that it means quite exactly the opposite of what is said, everything else you might have to say is totally and completely discredited... In the law, it is known as "impeaching the witness". You sir, have been impeached by your own duplicity.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X