24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 172
D
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
D
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 172
Hey folks, I believe a little history lesson is in order here. The entire Bill of Rights was written to counter laws and restrictions which had been placed on the colonists and across the British empire by the Royalists in a weak attempt to prevent the revolution they saw coming. I won't say that they were a knee jerk reaction, but they were a reaction, for sure. All of the things from firearms, to billotting, excise taxation, forbidden gatherings were a means to keep the colonists from getting together and conspiring to rebel. (Which they did very well.)
<br>
<br>If the Bill of Rights had been about guarantees of freedom, you would have seen such common practices as slavery and indentured servitude included. So let's not fool ourselves into believing that there was some divine guidance involved in the writing of the Bill of Rights. The entire episode, from the initial rebellion to the War of 1812 was fought about money, trade and finance.
<br>
<br>Who thinks the Boston Tea Party was about Tea? It was about the right to trade directly with India and cut the royals out of the tax they believed they had coming.
<br>
<br>One of the measures that the crown had imposed was the regulation of firearms and gun powder. They, the royals, had concluded that without firearms the colonists would have a devil of a time raising a rebellion. They were right. The Second Amendment was a reaction to that restriction.
<br>
<br>[Linked Image]


Dan in Arizona
GB1

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,943
Likes: 31
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,943
Likes: 31
AMENDENT II
<br>
<br> 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.
<br>
<br>
<br>Reading a little further we find:
<br>
<br>Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
<br>
<br>No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
<br>
<br>No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
<br>
<br>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
<br>
<br>Now, someone PUHLEEZE explan to me that the 2nd Am. only applies to the National Guard.
<br>7mm
<br>


"Preserving the Constitution, fighting off the nibblers and chippers, even nibblers and chippers with good intentions, was once regarded by conservatives as the first duty of the citizen. It still is." � Wesley Pruden


Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,119
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,119
You, of course, are correct. As are many of the previous posters.
<br>
<br>The Bill of Rights didn't get written at a weekend retreat by hired writers and then approved in a board meeting the following Monday.
<br>
<br>Every word, comma, dash and dittle was criticised, crucified and wordsmithed to death.
<br>
<br>As earlier referenced, most , or much of those debates are recorded in The Federalist Papers.
<br>
<br>Back around the tail end of the 1780's the framers were vehemently opposed to any form of "standing army". This is a term which is loosely defined as maintaining troops for any purpose other than the direct defense of the country. I wouldn't argue about a more specific definition if someone's got it at hand.
<br>
<br>Aside from standing armies the only other generally accepted means of waging battle were the use of mercenaries or militias. Mercenaries notwithstanding, the framers considered any person who received any pay for military service from any government entity to be a part of a standing army.
<br>
<br>Since the inception of the National Guard, these members have received pay for their services. This is exactly what the framers opposed. They are, in fact, a standing army.
<br>
<br>So, this National Guard thing kind of got slipped in on us as another good idea which not too many opposed. The problem now is that the lib's kind of think the Guard was there back in 1789 and the whole militia point is moot.
<br>
<br>Well, they're flat ass wrong!!
<br>
<br>"The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms, has no historical foundation.8
<br>
<br>Indeed, George Mason made a distinction between a 'standing army' and a 'militia' of civilian men.9 That is, the 'militia' was to be composed of all males capable of "bearing arms supplied by themselves."10"
<br>
<br>(This above in quotes from a Second Amendment website)
<br>
<br>
<br>The militia are we, the able bodied MEN who are citizens of this country who do not currently belong to any standing army. Or Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard for that matter.
<br>
<br>A better scholar, that's just about anybody, can give you more specific details. I'm just running on memory and I'll grant you it's not all that good.
<br>
<br>Key Words to remember in this debate :
<br>
<br>Militia------------------Us
<br>Standing Army------- Guard, Paid Reserves and Regulars
<br>
<br>2D

Last edited by twodogs; 07/23/02.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2
V
New Member
Offline
New Member
V
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2
Here is an interesting article on this subject. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml
<br>
<br>And here is the study discussed.
<br>http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,119
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,119
Good pull. I added that to my "Favorites" list.
<br>
<br>I had kept a great reference list on this subject, but, had a major brain fart last summer and wiped out everything on my old computer. I have to start over. I really enjoy honest discussions on the 2nd and like to be at least partly armed going into battle.
<br>
<br>Thanks,
<br>
<br>2D


[Linked Image]
IC B2

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 172
D
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
D
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 172
Vin Man, Thanks for the marker. That is a great article. It takes a subject which has been made complex and simplifies it into the most basic terms.
<br>
<br>GREAT!!
<br>
<br>[Linked Image]


Dan in Arizona
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
T
Campfire Sage
OP Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
In my opinion, there was a big flaw in the above mentioned article, though it was generally good. The flaw was in asking a linguist, or grammarian to interpret it, divorced from a knowledge of history, law or archaic usage. The words "well regulated" do not, as the expert suggests, mean "answerable to a governmental authority." There are countless examples of this in early American texts. There is no doubt but that the grammarian has erred here, due to this factor being out of his field of knowledge. "Well regulated" meant "well ordered," not "well controlled by a governmental agency," which is what the phrase means in modern English. Other than this, I recommend the article.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 699
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 699
2nd Amendment isn't about hunting
<br>
<br> It's about being able to fight tyranny. In the 1770's the vast majority of people weren't unhappy enough
<br> with the King to raise arms against his troops. It was treason to openly suggest it..a hanging offense. The
<br> Revolution was not popular with society at that time...nobody wanted to raise a fuss or call attention to
<br> themselves. Do you read your paycheck stubs ? Are you happy with the government you are paying
<br> heavily for ? They didn't pay taxes like ours back then and they took up arms That's what
<br> that tea party was all about A relatively small but very vocal group
<br> of people pass laws about the environment, or make school policy but we just sit and complain about it to
<br> each other....Preaching at the choir as my father the Reverend would say...We need to write letters (not
<br> e-mail or phone calls) because they get the idea that we really mean it because we sat down and took
<br> the time to put it in writing and send it through the mail


"No honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun." William Batterman Ruger
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
T
Campfire Sage
OP Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
That's right. It says nothing at all in the Second Amendment about hunting. It's about the best method of preserving liberty against potential tyranny, and that best method is an armed citizenry. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that every able-bodied man be armed with a weapon, belonging to himself, equivalent to that of a contemporary military personal arm. Today, that arm is an M-4 assault carbine. Every able-bodied American man should have an M-4 (or its rough equivalent), as that is the official arm of the United States Military, and should know how to use it, and have a stockpile of .223 ammo. That is a basic responsibility as a citizen of this republic. When, in a hundred years or so, the United State Military adopts "ray-guns" as the standard personal arm, it will be our obligation to own one of them as well, along with a stockpile of plutonium to power it. I plan to. [Linked Image]

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 699
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 699
How about a plasma rifle in 40 watt range...taken from "The Terminator" to which the gunstore salesman says "Just what you see here"


"No honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun." William Batterman Ruger
IC B3

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
T
Campfire Sage
OP Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
Just thought I'd try to revive this one. Any takers?

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
All I can add is an interesting argument taken from Vin Suprynowicz that addresses the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own artillery pieces, anti-aircraft missiles, armored vehicles, military aircraft, or even (here it comes, get ready) nuclear weapons!

Suprynowicz points out that America was built upon the assertion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed...that is, all the powers the government has are delegated to it by the people. Therefore, it is impossible for the government ever to justly have a power that the people do not have, since the people are the only legitimate source for government power.

If you followed that, then it's obvious that if the government legitimately has the power to own nuclear weapons, then the only way it could possibly have obtained that power is to have had it delegated from the people. Conversely, if the people have no right to individually own nuclear weapons, then the government can have no such right either!

I thought that was a particularly astute observation. He outlines it at least a couple of times in his book The Ballad of Carl Drega, but I don't remember exactly where.


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
T
Campfire Sage
OP Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
Barak, that's an interesting point. You are correct, of course, that the founding philosophy of our nation is that all just powers exercised by government derive from the consent of the governed (i.e., they all originally resided in us individually), but although it is a traditional liberty that free men may keep and bear arms, it is not a traditional liberty that individual men are free to posses nuclear weapons, therefore it is possible for the majority to vote away that individual right which we theoretically originally possessed, and thereby bind the minority (which is not the case for personal small arms). Although this vote was never actually taken, it was presumptively taken in our name by our elected representatives in government (i.e., it is illegal for you or I to posses a nuke). Personal small arms, however, are another matter, as this has always been the mark of a freeman over a slave, i.e., the right to own and "bear" personal small arms (let's refer to this as one of our "inalienable rights"). We may know that the founders were referring to personal small arms, because they can be "borne" by a person. The right to possess and bear personal small arms is also protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, as this is a liberty traditionally possessed, recognized and exercised by free Americans at the time of the founding. A suitcase nuke, by the way, is not a personal small arm by any definition I am aware of, even if it can be borne. It is not, therefore, one of those fundamental liberties that cannot be voted away by the majority (it's not inalienable), even if it is true that it was theoretically originally an individual right. Some powers which originally belonged to us individually have been delegated to government, such as the power to make war on nations, for the greater good. Other liberties are inalienable. The inalienable ones are those that we were traditionally known to possess at the time of the founding of our nation. We also, as sovereign people, are the original source of all governmental powers (including the power to posses nukes), but we have delegated many of those (i.e., we have alienated them from ourselves) to the government. Nukes are one of those powers that were not inalienable, and have been delegated away from us individually by actual or presumptive majority vote. We retain this right now only as a nation, not as individuals. The right to keep and bear arms (i.e., those personal militia arms capable of being individually borne), being inalianable, we retain as individuals.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
I understand your point of view, and I respect it, but I'm more Spoonerian.

I believe that if at some point in time I have a particular right, then I have that same right at every point after that as well, unless I specifically and personally decide of my own free will to give it up.

By the reasoning above, if the government now has the power to possess a nuclear weapon, then at some time I must have had that same right. Since I never gave it up, that means I still have it.

(We'll leave aside for a moment that the Constitution does not anywhere (that I'm aware of) authorize the government to prohibit the mere possession of anything.)

I understand the argument you make that my elected representatives have given up that right in my name, but I disagree with it. The most effective argument you could make, I think, is that my vote for a particular representative constitutes my personal agreement to give up whatever rights he decides I don't need or shouldn't have. I still have issues with that; but I absolutely refuse to accept that a representative I didn't vote for (and whom I may even have voted against) has any authority whatever to speak in my behalf.

I also understand that the government would take issue with me for that belief, but I'm sure you'll understand if that doesn't particularly impress me. The government takes many issues with me, and the feeling is thoroughly mutual.


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
T
Campfire Sage
OP Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
Barak, your elected representatives do not possess the authority to vote away any of our traditional liberties, i.e., those recognized and enjoyed by individual Americans at the time of our nation's founding. The reason they do not possess this authority is that you do not possess this authority. Certain rights are inalienable, even by you. You may choose not to exercise them, but you retain them still the same. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those rights, as is the right to seek and secure employement, and the right to travel, as well an many others not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights. We retain all rights not delegated exclusively to government by the Constitution, e.g., we gave up the right to wage war on nations when we gave it exclusively to the Federal Government. We gave up the right to print money when we gave that power exclusively to the Federal Government. That list of powers is pretty short though. Somehow I am willing to let the Federal Government exercise authority over who can have a nuke. That one doesn't bother me too much. I see your point though.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Quote
We gave up the right to print money when we gave that power exclusively to the Federal Government.


Who's "we?" I never gave up that right. I suspect you probably never gave up that right either. Somebody a long time ago, before either of us was born, took it upon himself to give up that right for both of us, obviously without our consent. Since we didn't consent, I don't believe he was successful in his endeavor, whoever he was.

That's part of what I mean in my signature when I say, "The Constitution may have its problems." Lysander Spooner sums it up this way: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

You have a point when you say that the mere fact that you choose not to exercise a right does not mean that you don't have it. In most cases, I am willing to choose to live in the same way I would if I actually had consented to give up the rights the Constitution purports to take from me; but that doesn't mean it has taken them from me, or that I no longer have them. If I should choose at some future point no longer to be governed by the contract laid out in the Constitution, it would be entirely just (in my estimation, anyway) for me to do so.

Politicians and bureaucrats, on the other hand, are a different breed. If when you take your oath of office you swear to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," then you are bound to be governed by it.

I think I understand your doctrine of "traditional rights," but I've never heard it anywhere before and it's not yet clear to me why I should accept it.


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
T
Campfire Sage
OP Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,034
Likes: 64
Barak, "traditional liberties" is a legal term of art. It is used to refer to all the rights retained by the people, which are alluded to in the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically, we have the right to do everything we could do before the Constitution was enacted, except those things which "We the People" have assigned exclusively to the Federal Government. For example, We the People have surrendered the individual right to wage war against foreign nations (we have to join a national army in order to do that). While "We the People" still retain that right, we retain it only in the collective sense of retaining it via our elected representatives in the Federal Government (or we can join a foreign military, as was done by H.W. McBride in WWI). We can do that now, only as a collective.

I know you and I didn't agree to this stuff individually. It is presumed we presently agree to it (at least the majority of us), however, because there is no grass roots movement to elect representatives to restore those powers to us individually.

"Traditional Liberties," on the other hand, require no grass roots movement to restore them to us individually, because they are always retained by the people individually. Certain rights are inalienable, such as the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Our right to keep and bear arms is part of our right to life and liberty. Since we have the right to life, we have the right to defend that life, and liberty cannot long survive without the right to the means of defending it from tyranny, as stated clearly in the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Okay. It appears that at least on this subject we have reached an impasse.

Anyone else?

Anyone?


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Coming in late on this thread, but I have to respond to part of Danr55's "little history lesson"..."If the Bill of Rights had been about guarantees of freedom, you would have seen such common practices as slavery and indentured servitude included."

Problem with this assertation........

The abolishment of slavery was indeed brought up in the Constitutional convention. There was much pressure to include it (though I don't recall if it was suggested to be a part of any "BOR"). The fact that it was not taken up has less to do with whether the BOR is about rights or not, than it does with the reality of having to apease the southern states to some degree in order to assure ratification of the Constitution.

The BOR was not part of the original Constitution, because it was accepted at that time that it should be unneccessary and might even be damaging. The result of controversy over BOR was for it to be tabled until after ratification.

Whether slavery came up during the same debates that gave us the BOR as amendments is a point that I no longer recall with any reliability. But to assert that because one right (or "wrong", in this case) is not included in the BOR - that the entire collection has nothing to do with rights is error. It is the same attitutde that alarmed some of those at the Convention against a BOR in the first place. The fear was that they could not possibly include every right known to man (for lack of a better phrase), and that government would surely usurp those that were left out. Accordingly, it would be better to assume that government had no powers that were not specifically granted by the constitutuion. Under this theory, a BOR should not be necessary. Of course, we know what happened later...(long subject).

BTW - in regards to slavery. Slaves were held by individuals or corporations. For slavery to be properly adressed in the BOR, it would seem to me that said BOR would have to be adressing slaveholding by government (another loooong subject we could get into). The BOR is not about what citizens and/or corporations do to each other, it is about what government cannot do to citizens.

Sorry, Dan - IMO, that was an errant line of thought.

-FreeMe


Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.




Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Barak???? Is that you, my friend?

I have some thoughts on 2A, regarding "weapons of mass destruction". I'm interested to hear your response.

Do you think the BOR was meant to include devices that a typical citizen could not aquire or deploy individually? I mean - why would it not also say that a citizen or group of citizens, on their own, could maintain an army - if there was not an intent to allow some upper limit of destructive power not controlled by government?

I'll save other questions for another post...

-FreeMe


Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.




Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

597 members (1beaver_shooter, 10gaugeman, 219DW, 10gaugemag, 160user, 1shotnokilz, 75 invisible), 3,396 guests, and 1,192 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,194,636
Posts18,533,423
Members74,041
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.154s Queries: 53 (0.027s) Memory: 0.9219 MB (Peak: 1.0320 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-05-24 02:55:03 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS