You should try again to prove your point? You have not proved me wrong. Venting does not equal debating. Thanks for using your "brake my own rules card" on my behalf, it should be an honor on my part.....I think?
Square #1, where it all begins, it never really leaves that I guess I would say. My argument is about principles and fundamental foundations. Yours is more about respect for the rulers of today regardless. I think basically the misunderstanding and ( ) some described in this thread is just due to that. Its not entirely the same argument, too many circumstances thought of and ignored on either viewpoint. The WMD thing was just a jumping off point and perhaps I jumped too far.
Square #1, where it all begins, it never really leaves that I guess I would say. My argument is about principles and fundamental foundations. Yours is more about respect for the rulers of today regardless. I think basically the misunderstanding The WMD thing was just a jumping off point and perhaps I jumped too far.
I have said from the start that we have to follow the. Obviously I do not agree with all laws. BUT until we get them changed through the proper channel's, we have to follow them
In the context of this thread what comes to mind first is outdated and highly ambiguous wording. To me, much of the US constitution sounds rather Shakespearean.
I guess the 2nd amendment would be written differently today, maybe like that:
A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The purpose and composition of said militia shall be [insert here]. The regulation of said militia is the responsibility of [insert here] and must include [insert here].
The people of the United States of America shall have the right to freely acquire firearms, to keep them in their homes in a safe manner and to carry them in public. The purpose of this right is [insert here]. The definition of "firearms' for the purpose of this article is [insert here]. The following groups shall be excluded from said right: [insert here]. While the basic right shall not be infringed, any additional regulation that may become necessary in the public interest is the responsibility of [insert here] and must be approved by [insert here].
Of course I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I think that would make things much easier already...
You bring up some excellent points for discussion. You're right, that the language has changed much in the ensuing centuries. Where possible they tried to word things as clearly and concisely as possible. Some points that may seem ambiguous that weren't at all at the time (as I understand it):
-"well-regulated" in regards to the militia meant functional and properly equipped, such as a well regulated clock would keep good time. It didn't refer to a separate set of laws or ruling body that "regulated" a militia. It meant a militia that could function effectively.
-they used the term "a militia" rather than "the militia" for a specific reason - it was not referring to a government sanctioned or sponsored force. The idea was to foster the people's ability to form a militia. That was separate from a standing army.
quote
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The militia wasn't separate from the people - it was the people (at least anyone capable of bearing arms).
Changes in the language over time are one reason the fewer words the better. Ask someone 200 years from now to read and comprehend the Affordable Care Act, and the 2nd Amendment will seem like child's play.
Here's an interesting analogue I ran across. What if the First Amendment read:
quote
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.
Free thought and ideas are far more dangerous than any firearm.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-24-2014).]
I have said from the start that we have to follow the. Obviously I do not agree with all laws. BUT until we get them changed through the proper channel's, we have to follow them
Or be punished yes. There are positive sides to civil disobedience though. With so many specifics left out the conversation is limited.
In addition many would probably decide not to follow an order to hand over all guns or ammo, for instance.
Originally posted by Formula88: Changes in the language over time are one reason the fewer words the better. Ask someone 200 years from now to read and comprehend the Affordable Care Act,...
Ask someone today, even someone in office who approved it
OK, so now again we are back to square #1 I understand that what we have now may not be what they intended at that time BUT it does not change the fact that we are still bound to this interpretation of the Constitution, it's amendments and the laws that have been made under them. I am not sure we EVER had a right to own WMD, but I am sure we dont have that right now. It is undeniable they are against the law to have. This law could have been challenged by now, may have been challenged by now, I dont know. I do know that IF this ban of WMD is unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. Simple deduction of these facts proves the ban is Constitutional.
Rick, You seem to base your logic and reasoning on your personal emotion and observable sense of right and wrong. I think this is why I find you so non objective and highly bias.
There is a world of difference between knowing what a system does and knowing how and why it does it. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
“Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)
In the context of this thread what comes to mind first is outdated and highly ambiguous wording.
The wording is neither dated nor ambiguous. Formula88 has gone over this several times in several threads. His analysis is perfectly clear to any number of us with a basic understanding of the English language. Not a criticism or jab at you, BTW, merely reiteration.
The wording is neither dated nor ambiguous. Formula88 has gone over this several times in several threads. His analysis is perfectly clear to any number of us with a basic understanding of the English language. Not a criticism or jab at you, BTW, merely reiteration.
Shall not be infringed is pretty confusing.
What about Tuesdays between the hours of 2 and 4 pm? It doesn't specify!
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Shall not be infringed is pretty confusing.
What about Tuesdays between the hours of 2 and 4 pm? It doesn't specify!
But yet owning guns has been VERY MUCH infringed upon.
Owning nukes, not so infringed Owning lethal chemical or biological agent, I am not convinced we ever had the right, so no infringement issue there either.
But yet owning guns has been VERY MUCH infringed upon.
Yes, it has. No one is claiming otherwise. That doesn't make it right.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Owning nukes, not so infringed Owning lethal chemical or biological agent, I am not convinced we ever had the right, so no infringement issue there either.
Sure. That's EXACTLY how an important legal document would be worded nowadays... Our lease is clearer and more specific than the 2nd amendment!
Its actually quite clear, if you want to take the time to understand what it says, without your bias. I cant comment on your lease however, i have not seen it.
The burden of proff, of something I am not sure of is on me? OK, i am not confused about this issue. It is very clear that we cant own WMD and a matter of opinion that we ever did have the right. That would be putting words in the mouths of the authors. WMD OF TODAY'S STANDRDS did not exist back then not to mention nukes. It would be a huge assumption on your part to say the founders would be OK with the general public owning nukes, biological and chemical weapons. WMD are a far cry and a MASSIVE stretch of the imagination to call them bearable arms.
The burdon of "proof" has been and always will be in the hands of those that want to change a law, and even more so to amend the Constitution. They are already illegal, the arguments against them have been made. The courts decided to ban them from the general public. IF YOU want to own them or think you have the right to own and just want to argue for principal, then YOU have to provide enough proof to overturn the court's rulings. I dont have to prove anything. I am OK with them being in the hands of our military and NOT be in the hands of the general public.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-25-2014).]
Sure. That's EXACTLY how an important legal document would be worded nowadays... Our lease is clearer and more specific than the 2nd amendment!
Because no one understands language today, and because an offended, lawsuit happy culture requires it. Not because the 2nd amendment isn't clear.
If you are having a problem with , it usually helps to sit down and take some deep breaths until the problem clears. If your ness continues, you should see a doctor, as you may have an inner ear problem.
The words of our Founders were concise enough to limit the Constitution to only a few pages.
Properly chosen words speak volumes......
If that is so, why are even supreme court judges divided on the meaning of the different bits? I don't recall decisions being consistent over time or unanimous...
If that is so, why are even supreme court judges divided on the meaning of the different bits? I don't recall decisions being consistent over time or unanimous...
If that is so, why are even supreme court judges divided on the meaning of the different bits? I don't recall decisions being consistent over time or unanimous...
The Constitution by and large, and the Bill of Rights specifically, place limits on Federal power. If everyone was content with a small Federal government, I suspect that the Code of Federal Regulations would be only a small percentage of it current size.
If that is so, why are even supreme court judges divided on the meaning of the different bits? I don't recall decisions being consistent over time or unanimous...
Because they are like you and want things their way.
If that is so, why are even supreme court judges divided on the meaning of the different bits?
That is because they insert their personal agendas into their rulings, and dont work from our founders wishes. Many of them even admit they have a 'cause', which should be grounds for instant dismissal. They have one job, and that job does not include personal agendas.
The Constitution by and large, and the Bill of Rights specifically, place limits on Federal power. If everyone was content with a small Federal government, I suspect that the Code of Federal Regulations would be only a small percentage of it current size.
Most of us are content with a limited federal government, as it was designed to be. The problem is that the people running the federal government are not us..
Most of us are content with a limited federal government, as it was designed to be. The problem is that the people running the federal government are not us..
They are the people you send there, by majority vote. So "most of us" can't hold true.
They are the people you send there, by majority vote. So "most of us" can't hold true.
Yes that is how they get there, but you will find once they are there they no longer do what was requested of them by the public, so its not really a fair statement. ( in a perfect world, i would agree with you ) I was even told flat out by one of our senators that he was "NOT put there to do as we ask, but to do as he felt was best for us".. He had been in office something like 50 years..
The burdon of "proof" has been and always will be in the hands of those that want to change a law, and even more so to amend the Constitution.
If our gun rights have been infringed upon as you mentioned in earlier post, you are saying you believe they have been infringed on, and the governmetn does not believe that. Right? So does this neman you believe they did not show a good enough "burden of proof" to bypass our rights?
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
But yet owning guns has been VERY MUCH infringed upon.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-26-2014).]
If that is so, why are even supreme court judges divided on the meaning of the different bits? I don't recall decisions being consistent over time or unanimous...
Because our constitution and bill of rights were written in a way to keep our human agendas in check, checking ourselves. It is working.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone:
Sure. That's EXACTLY how an important legal document would be worded nowadays... Our lease is clearer and more specific than the 2nd amendment!
They dont compare. The lease is designed to stand up and be measured by our legal system, the Constitution / Bill of rights in part is a guide for what the legal system is and should be like and accomplish. Also the lease is focused and about something very specific, it is not nearly as all encompassing. Make sense?
Originally posted by 2.5: If our gun rights have been infringed upon as you mentioned in earlier post, you are saying you believe they have been infringed on, and the governmetn does not believe that. Right? So does this neman you believe they did not show a good enough "burden of proof" to bypass our rights?
If you go off the argument he gave me earlier, then those laws are "constitutional since they still exist".. Consistent logic isn't his best trait.
If you go off the argument he gave me earlier, then those laws are "constitutional since they still exist".. Consistent logic isn't his best trait.
That is exactly what I said. Yes it is my opinion that the Constitution has been changed and will no doubt continue to be changed. It is also my opinion that one of those changes include limiting our Constitutional rights to bear guns uninfringed. I never said I like it or agaree with it. It is simply what it is. It appears that one of the changes has been to remove any trace of God, that only leaves natural law? Power hungry politicians believe they controle nature, so I guess now the fundamental rights come from people who are in controle or rewriting the Constitution?
Thanks gor not being done Maybe now you can demonstrate how exactly how the Constitution grants us The right to own WMD. And while you are at it, show examples of inconsistent logic.
Well regulated meant well equipped and arms, generally meant small arms. So full auto M4, yes. ICBM no. What purpose would a nuke have in reigning in a government? None. VX none. Select fire M4, plenty. BTW militia meant anyone able to fight, not the national guard. Its pretty easy to google this and get to the core of the matter.
The goal was to give citizens a fighting chance against the government, so the argument the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen modern firepower is idiotic. If the government goes back to muskets then we can too, if they have select fire M4 rifles, we do too.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 06-26-2014).]
BTW militia meant anyone able to fight, not the national guard.
And the point? We have been talking about private citizens rights all along, i dont think that statement above that this is about 'citizen militia' ( like the one that secured our freedom ), and not 'government militia' was in question. ( unless i missed a post .. )
) some described in this thread is just due to that. Its not entirely the same argument, too many circumstances thought of and ignored on either viewpoint.
Our lease is clearer and more specific than the 2nd amendment!
