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
    Based on his comments regarding the Second Amendment, it appears that Tucker may have favored a right to keep and bear arms for individual or personal self defense.
    Correct.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    However, he never actually said that the Second Amendment protected such a right. He only implied it.
    Incorrect. There is an old saying used by old lawyers to the effect:

    If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law or the facts are on your side, baffle them with bull$hit.
    It appears that you have exhausted the first two alternatives and are now relying upon the third. Tucker's treatise takes the constitution clause by clause and explains the meaning of each clause. With respect to the 2nd amendment, his meaning is crystal clear, it protects the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence..

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    In his comments on Article One Section Eight, Tucker implies that he interpreted the Second Amendment to mean "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."
    Incorrect. What Tucker is saying is that the Article I, Sec 8, Par 16 caused some uneasiness resulting in a proposed constitutional amendment from Virginia which would have specifically allowed the states to arm the militia in the event the feds failed to do so. However, that proposed amendment never made it to the US Constitution. In lieu thereof, those fears seemed (Tucker's terminology) to be rectified by two seperate factors. The first factor was the 2nd Amendment and the other factor was the the concept of concurrent powers . Nowhere does Tucker state, imply or suggest that the 2nd Amend was intended to allow the states to arm the militia.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    I don't see how to reconcile the two "implied" interpretations.
    You really have not tried. The fact that the people themselves can not be disarmed solves the problem quite nicely. In the event the feds ever fail to adequately arm the militia, the fact that the people have their own arms which can be employed to arm the militia in an emergency will provide an unassailable armory from which the militia can be armed.

    Assume this wild hypothetical.... Our militia (we will call it the National Guard) is somehow sent to a faraway place (we will call it Iraq). Unfortunately, and to the extreme embarrasement of our Generals, there are not enough of a specific type of arms to go around (we will call this personal body armor). The feds know that it will take months to go through regular procurement procedures to adequately arm the militia, so their solution is quite simple... DISARM the militia, as each unit is rotated out they are required to leave their arms in Iraq for the new National Guard units that take their place. Too bad this is not sufficient to fully rectify the problem. Now, the mother and father of our brave, but unarmed National Guard soldier, Joe Militiaman, get wind of this. Do they demand that their state provide arms to Joe? Nope. They go out and BUY the arm and send it to Joe so that Joe will have his personal body armor. Of course, Ma and Pa could not do that if some whacky legislation was allowed to ban the private sale of such arms. Now I realize that such a scenario is quite farfetched and would never happen, but just in case, the 2nd Amend protects that as a right and Joe Militiaman lives happily ever after, all because of the 2nd Amendment.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    It soundeth lyke he wolde bothe eate his cake, and have his cake.
    It soundeth like you do not know what you are talking about.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
      Only on TV -- I never missed an episode
      LoL. Me neither. I'm still watching. The more I watch, the more amazed I am. But simple lad as I am, that's not hard.
      Last edited by General Staff; 12 Nov 08, 18:20.
      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
        LoL. Me neither. I'm still watching. The more I watch, the more amazed I am. But simple lad as I am, that's not hard.
        I too, am enthralled with simplicity -- if it gets too complex, I can't keep up
        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


        • his meaning is crystal clear, it protects the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence..
          I think Tucker meant that the right to keep and bear arms was the palladium. Then, he goes off on the right of self defence, which isn't even mentioned in the Second Amendment. Finally, he praises England for disarming the people.

          Comment


          • naturally -- If England had not disarmed it's citizens - they would have deposed their government and the royalty -- in total

            We don't want that same option to occur here in the US -- people need their guns -- just in case we reach the point where we've had enough
            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 Miss You View Post
              I think Tucker meant that the right to keep and bear arms was the palladium. Then, he goes off on the right of self defence, which isn't even mentioned in the Second Amendment. Finally, he praises England for disarming the people.
              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."

              From your post quoting Tucker's writings about the Constitution of Virginia.

              It seems to me (and my limited reading comprehension) that Tucker is saying that he does not agree with the "specious pretext" of England's Gun Control under the auspices of Protection of Wildlife/Game.

              And there is much more in the Blackstone's Commentaries... that I can post. But you seem a reasonable person as you have adjusted your arguments to the topics as we have discussed them. I will let you examine this item and wait for your response.
              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


              • We seem to be similarly afflicted Friend Torien -- I've been told many time that I have limited reading comprehension capabilities <sigh> -- at least I find myself in good company
                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 Miss You View Post
                  I think Tucker meant that the right to keep and bear arms was the palladium. Then, he goes off on the right of self defence, which isn't even mentioned in the Second Amendment.
                  The two concepts naturally flow and conform to Blackstone's treatment of the provision in the English Bill of Rights and is emphasized by the footnotes provided by Tucker to the Blackstone text. The ONLY logical reading of Tucker's comment is that the right to keep and bear arms is the true palladium of liberty because it serves to protect the fundamental right of self defense.

                  Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                  Finally, he praises England for disarming the people.
                  Are you smoking whacky weed or sumpin???

                  Tucker is criticizing England for disarming the people. He asserts

                  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
                  Hmmm, liberty annihilated must be a good thing in your book, huh?

                  In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game
                  "Specious pretext" is an odd way to heap on praise.

                  You really think you can get away with these outrageous and clearly erroneous interpretations? Well, as long as I am around, you will not, because I will not allow you to use specious interpretations to annhilate the liberties protected by the 2nd amend.

                  Now, if we use your novel method of interpretation, the foregoing was a testament of my admiration for your honesty, integrity and perceptive argument.

                  Maybe in Bizzarro world, perhaps.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    I think Tucker meant that the right to keep and bear arms was the palladium. Then, he goes off on the right of self defence, which isn't even mentioned in the Second Amendment. Finally, he praises England for disarming the people.
                    I used to quite like the Palladium, had some great stage shows there!!! ( I know, I know, just applying a bit of corney humour to a solemn subject!)
                    'By Horse by Tram'.


                    I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                    " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                    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."

                      From your post quoting Tucker's writings about the Constitution of Virginia.

                      It seems to me (and my limited reading comprehension) that Tucker is saying that he does not agree with the "specious pretext" of England's Gun Control under the auspices of Protection of Wildlife/Game.

                      And there is much more in the Blackstone's Commentaries... that I can post. But you seem a reasonable person as you have adjusted your arguments to the topics as we have discussed them. I will let you examine this item and wait for your response.
                      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?
                      Last edited by Miss You; 13 Nov 08, 08:02.

                      Comment


                      • Lordy, if I ever need a lawyer (again) I know where to find one.

                        All this Norman English tends to send us simple Saxons to sleep though, so we tend to just pay up for our 'Rights' and if we have to attend court, we'll just wait around and maybe doze off.

                        After all, once disarmed by the Normans after rushing up to Stamford Bridge and then back down to Hastings to try to defend the place, language was the only weapon left to us.

                        Personally I think every citizen should have a weapon or two carefully hidden away so the children can't get to it. You never know what you may need to defend or how long you'll have to do it for.

                        http://www.britainexpress.com/Histor..._Conqueror.htm

                        http://everything2.com/e2node/Englis...he%2520Normans
                        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
                          Lordy, if I ever need a lawyer (again) I know where to find one.

                          All this Norman English tends to send us simple Saxons to sleep though, so we tend to just pay up for our 'Rights' and if we have to attend court, we'll just wait around and maybe doze off.

                          After all, once disarmed by the Normans after rushing up to Stamford Bridge and then back down to Hastings to try to defend the place, language was the only weapon left to us.

                          Personally I think every citizen should have a weapon or two carefully hidden away so the children can't get to it. You never know what you may need to defend or how long you'll have to do it for.

                          http://www.britainexpress.com/Histor..._Conqueror.htm

                          http://everything2.com/e2node/Englis...he%2520Normans
                          The only trouble nowadays is if you defend yourself or your home or loved ones even if its only with a stick, YOU are the one who finds yourself in court with a criminal offence charge against you!!
                          'By Horse by Tram'.


                          I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                          " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
                            The only trouble nowadays is if you defend yourself or your home or loved ones even if its only with a stick, YOU are the one who finds yourself in court with a criminal offence charge against you!!
                            How ironic -- it's the same here
                            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 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?
                              Not even in the same silliness league as this statement:

                              Finally, he praises England for disarming the people.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
                                The only trouble nowadays is if you defend yourself or your home or loved ones even if its only with a stick, YOU are the one who finds yourself in court with a criminal offence charge against you!!
                                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.
                                Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                                (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X