Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

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

  • You both need to lighten up. And try smaller words. I can't listen to any word larger than obnoxious, not that I know what it means, of course.
    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
      You both need to lighten up. And try smaller words. I can't listen to any word larger than obnoxious, not that I know what it means, of course.
      Spoil sport.. besides, legaleagles are required by Bar Discplinary Rules to use big words... and be obnoxious too.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
        Spoil sport.. besides, legaleagles are required by Bar Discplinary Rules to use big words... and be obnoxious too.
        Yes, I know. You get to charge by the letter.
        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
          If the lawmakers had wanted the people to have a clear unambiguous right to keep and bear arms, they wouldn't have made an Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, knowing full well that there was a well established common law rule of construction, which dictated, that in such a case, the means should be sacrificed to the end.
          The lawmakers weren't giving anyone any rights. They were merely affirming that they understood that all people had those rights.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
            The lawmakers weren't giving anyone any rights. They were merely affirming that they understood that all people had those rights.
            and that they were not to be taken away.
            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
              and that they were not to be taken away.
              Which meant finding and then confiscating (did I spell that Right?) your weapon if they could.
              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                The lawmakers weren't giving anyone any rights. They were merely affirming that they understood that all people had those rights.
                Where does the Second Amendment say that?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                  Where does the Second Amendment say that?
                  It doesn't. But rights by definition are unalienable- check that other old piece of paper- the Declaration of Independence. Rights can never be given, only taken away.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                    It doesn't. But rights by definition are unalienable- check that other old piece of paper- the Declaration of Independence. Rights can never be given, only taken away.
                    Well said.

                    Lordy, forgive me, Rights can't be taken away, just Left.
                    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
                      Where does the Second Amendment say that?

                      The language "shall not be infringed" indicates a preexisting right that might otherwise be subject to infringment but for the application of the 2nd amendment. If it was not a preexisting right, the use of such language would not make sense.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                        It doesn't. But rights by definition are unalienable- check that other old piece of paper- the Declaration of Independence. Rights can never be given, only taken away.
                        Some body needs to tell that to those who don't acknowledge a woman's right to choose to be a God given right.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                          It doesn't. But rights by definition are unalienable- check that other old piece of paper- the Declaration of Independence. Rights can never be given, only taken away.
                          The 2nd does indeed indicate that the right to arms is a preexisting right by use of the language "shall not be infringed". Same theing with freedom of speech, press, etc. The wording is in the negative preventing the government from violating something. That presupposes that the right preexisted the limitation which was crafted by the Bill of Rights.


                          You are quite correct about the Declaration of Independence.... which was really a restatement of enlightenment philosophy articulated by the father of modern political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes. The right to life is mentioned first because self defense is "the first law of nature". Hobbes believed that the primary purpose for which societies are formed was to enhance the ability to protect oneself, and as such, the first law of nature could never be compromised, altered or diminished by any contract establishing that society. This right was so fundamental that it was deemed unalienable: "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void." Thomas Hobbes, LEVIATHAN, at pg. vii, (Aloysius Martinich ed., 2002) (1651).

                          The right to arms is a derivative of the unalienable right to life. Hobbes again articulated it best when he stated:

                          It is in vain for a man to have a right to the End, if the right to the necessary means be denied him, it follows, that since every Man hath a right to preserve himself, he must also be allowed a right to use all the means, and do all the actions, without which he cannot preserve himself.
                          Thomas Hobbes, Man and Citizen (De Homine and De Cive), 275

                          Notice the proper application of the means being expanded to provide for the desired ends.. . (Threw that in just to needle Miss You)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                            The language "shall not be infringed" indicates a preexisting right that might otherwise be subject to infringment but for the application of the 2nd amendment. If it was not a preexisting right, the use of such language would not make sense.
                            In 1789, the people had a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. But there was no right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose. See Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                              In 1789, the people had a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. But there was no right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose. See Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.
                              Incorrect, it did include the right to arms for personal protection:

                              The law does "not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence." Rex v. Gardner, 87 Eng. Rep. 1240, 1241 (K.B. 1739).

                              "The mere having a gun was no offense . . . for a man may keep a gun for the defense of his house and family. "Mallock v. Eastley, 87 Eng. Rep. 1370, 1374 (K.B. 1744).

                              "A gun may be kept for the defense of a manís house." Wingfield v. Stratford, 96 Eng. Rep. 787 (K.B. 1752);

                              "It is not an offence to keep or use a gun."The King v. Thompson, 100 Eng. Rep. 10, 12 (K.B. 1787).

                              "A gun may be used for other purposes, as the protection of a man's house." Rex v. Hartley, II Chitty 1178, 1183 (1782).

                              A common jury instruction of the period in question on the meaning of the right to arms in the English Bill of Rights stated in part:

                              A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is traveling or going for the ordinary purposes of business.
                              1776 Pennsylvania Constitution: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state.

                              1777 Vermont Constitution: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State

                              Thus, you are clearly mistaken.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                                In 1789, the people had a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. But there was no right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose. See Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.
                                Common defense can imply just about anything. If there is a criminal preying on the community, stopping his crime spree when he accosts you could be construed as being in the "common defense". The criminal had nothing personal against you, you just happened to be the first member of the community that he came upon.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X