Bodhisattva

I will look some of that up, I have before but don't know where it is. Besides, you are ignoring these sources. That is kinda lame. I am not trying to prove your point correct or incorrect. I am proving my point as correct and you are now acting as if I am not giving you the information that you want for your point. Stick with my point. Kay?

__________________

Bodhisattva

Oh gawd. You're such a ****ing internet pussy. Shoo.

Reverend_Hellh0und

I wanted founding father's quotes that would indicate a requirment of being in an organized militia for gun ownership.

The source you provided will be reviewed in good time my friend. lots of foot notes.

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/avatar...ine=1217695450

Goobieman

Kitty can't deliver what doesn't exist.
She knows this.

__________________
Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.
- Hillary Clinton
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/14843.html

DivineComedy

Wow, why not post the whole quote before you make such a charge, that it was rejected for your inability to read the English language; let me teach you how to define words, you national guard thing, you are not people worthy of any of the other rights of people, you have no right to vote, as this is a government of the people, and you are NOT people; did he say in the part you left out that no black person should ever be in a position of power over a white, like honest Abe, or did he say black things are not people?

"..." What does that mean? I do not understand that "..." legal code, so please spell it out for me.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

DivineComedy

"We the people of the United States...not including the guy with the gout, who cannot be in a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people without gout to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, and the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people who do not have the gout."

There, I found it.

Iriemon

I wasn't trying to misstate the meaning of Adam's proposal. The elipses were not mine but from the source I quoted it from.

I found another source with the entire proposal:

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/arms

Two points, which interrelate.

1. The proposal (and the one in the second amendment) was directed at the US Congress, it would forbid the US Congress from interfering with these rights. Regulation could be done by the states, however.

2. The quote about forbiding Congress to raise a standing army reflects the views of some (anti-Federalists like Adams) that a regular army was to be feared as a potential means of usurption of power by the federal government. By forbidding the federal government from having an army, while ensuring that states maintained militias through trained armed citizens, was viewed as the best way to address the fear of a federal government with an army behind it.

Of course, today we are far away from the model that folks like Samuel Adams enivisioned as being necessary for the security of a free state. Today we have not only a standing army but one made up of professional soldiers, not the general citizenship, and no effective indepedent state militias. And this is continued with the recent Supreme Court decision in Heller, rejecting the view of the 2A as a means of providing well regulated citizen militias with weapons that would be capable of insurrection, and limiting the scope of the right to guns commonly owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

If we really wanted to apply the 2A in the way that the founders meant, we'd abolish the armed forces, and reinstate well regulated militias with citizens armed with modern military weapons.

But it is of course speculation whether the founders would have written the amendment the way they did if they realized the destructive power that modern military weapons have.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

DivineComedy

I certainly take your word for it, but what was between the elipses was extremely important given your argument. I doubt the founders left the "who are peaceable citizens" out of the Second Amendment because they rejected the notion of depriving criminals guns, so there goes the "was not adopted," part of your argument right there. Also the First Amendment part of Adams, "the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience," must in your view be "directed at the US Congress...Regulation could be done by the states."

1) The First Amendment says, "Congress," and that Amendment is not attached to the others with a semicolon, so in law only the First Amendment out of the first two applies only to the Federal Government--a future Islamic Republic of Illinois may forbid the publication of pornography "free speech" of the MohamMAD pedophile screwing a piglet, and not be misinterpreting the Constitution like "liberals" consistently do. Since the word "Congress," which is NOT in the Second Amendment, is defined in Article 1 Section 1, therefore, the Second Amendment is NOT "directed at the US Congress" and was directed at both the Federal and State governments (which have a right to a militia, with good ole Southern Red Neck officers of their choice), both of which cannot infringe on the right of the people to be armed.

2) The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the part of Article 1 Section 8 having to do with the standing army: "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;" In fact the quote you used of Adams clearly indicates a standing army is possible, and envisioned as possibly being necessary: "or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States"


The founders did not legislate from the grave, an indication they understood things change. To assume the founders did not know weapons improve, and would improve, ignores much of the literature of the period. All of the lessons of technology and war were discussed in the Decline and Fall, and I would assume our founders were literate. There is nothing wrong with the way the amendment is worded, it provides protection for States (republics) and for the people who may need to overthow a usurped republic. What weapons the people may have for a successful insurrection against an oppressive Federal or State government is left for interpretation, and that is why there is a Supreme Court.

The "guns commonly owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes," such as magizine fed hunting rifles with scopes, and multiple shot handguns which would make a Prussian army proud, are fully capable of a successful insurrection by the whole of the people against an oppressive minority government. A delicate balance of power between the whole of the people and their armed government requires that all eventualities not be articulated in a sentence such as 2A.

When the government makes this military flashlight common for police duty, the people will seek to own such a flashlight:



Belton flintlock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iriemon

that is an interesting point. The 2A as written says "the people" and if you take that to mean an individual right, there is no exception for criminals to have guns as well. You'd have to presume that when they wrote "the people" in the 2A they were assuming that it would be understood that criminals (or loons, I suppose) are not "the people".

More likely is that they presumed the states would regulate who could have guns as part of the well regulated militia (or otherwise) to pass laws that infringed up the right to keep and bear arms so that irresponsible people could not have them.


Until the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was deemed to be a limitation on the powers of the federal government, not state governments, I believe.

Agree, but we were discussing Samuel Adam's proposal. His proposal would have prohibited a standing army except in times when necessary for the defense of the United States.

I guess with that loophole, Congress could have decided to have a standing army whenever it wanted, though that is contrary to the intent expressed in the preceding language saying that Congress could not raise a standing army, unless conditions applied.

If you are going to say the founders passed the 2A to provide a means for insurrection against the Govt, the Heller decision is inconsistent with that purpose.

Those kinds of small arms didn't prove effective against Hind helicopters in Afghanistan.

DivineComedy

As to who could have guns, it is only recently that Democrats saw the criminal element as people, not to be deprived of their rights to vote for Democrats, but cannot have guns, which creates a hypocrisy.

There is no indication whatsoever that the States could deprive White people of life, liberty, or property, without due process, so the Bill of Rights not specifically addressed to the "Congress" were binding upon the States. For the Bill of Rights to be "deemed to be a limitation on the powers of the federal government, not state governments," would have allowed the States to hang Rhet Butler without trial. The XIV gave blacks, or "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," equal protection of the laws, it did not give any rights whatsoever to those who already had rights in what was the Whitey Bill of Rights.

I could understand disbanding our standing army, marines..., and bombing the enemy back to the stone age until their Dictator (who does not care about how many of his people we kill) surrenders. My support for ground troops, which puts more of our own at risk, is only due to my liberal weakness for mercy. Anyway, the only law that applies here is the part that was passed. The intent is to require a standing army a unique requirement, it has the term of a House of Representives, and unlike a Navy it cannot last without it being necessary for the defense. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a standing army, the phrase isn't even in there.

This part is funny, from Heller:

"For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
'Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.' See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797" DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Do you think they were afraid the Negroes would use the arms for insurrection?

"And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that '[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.'” DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

That is consistant with my assertion that 2A does in fact come from ancient wisdom, like Aristotle (I am sure every self respecting founder had read), that to keep arms for self defense is not just for defense from the thief in the hood, but defense from the articulate usurping Prince.

Fifty Million Small arms in the hands of the whole of the people, if you do not kill them all, they will keep the bad Prince afraid of the shadows and his helos under heavy guard.