|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233756 - 01/20/03 09:34 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
But if their intent was for "people" to own guns, why did they very specifically say "well regulated militia"??? It would be dumb of them to write something down that clearly differed from their intent
Excellent point. This is where the NRA argument collapses.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233757 - 01/20/03 09:35 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You have to remember what time period that was in and the historical context within it was written. At the time, "militia" meant a non-government (indeed, the militias of that time had just finished overthrowing their government) group of fighting people. It still does have this meaning, but some try to redefine "militia" as meaning the Army or National Guard, which is certainly NOT what the framers meant.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233763 - 01/20/03 09:38 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well, if we have to take it in the context of the time in which it was written, one could argue that the right to bear arms only applies to the arms that existed back then. Everyone grab your muskets!
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233771 - 01/20/03 09:43 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"militia" meant a non-government (indeed, the militias of that time had just finished overthrowing their government) group of fighting people
In other words organised state and private armies - NOT individuals. Individuals are individuals, militias are militias. There is a difference. The founding fathers knew this, which is why they were very careful to include the clause about militias in the second amendment.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK

Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233773 - 01/20/03 09:43 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I completely agree with you on the defenition of militia. But I wonder what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated"?
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233779 - 01/20/03 09:47 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Then what do you say about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?
|
JiminiCricket
member
Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 116
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 22 years, 6 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233787 - 01/20/03 09:50 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"militia" meant a non-government (indeed, the militias of that time had just finished overthrowing their government) group of fighting people
In other words organised state and private armies - NOT individuals. Individuals are individuals, militias are militias. There is a difference. The founding fathers knew this, which is why they were very careful to include the clause about militias in the second amendment.
The definition of tyranny during the revolution was a standing national army. The militia is the people. The second amendment want to people to be well regulated and well armed. It specifically clarifies what it means by militia by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Since you're a Brit it's also worth noting that Lexington and Concord started off as a British gun grab.
-------------------- Molon Labe!
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233790 - 01/20/03 09:51 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I just thought I should mention that the right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't mean they can own ANY kind of arms. People shouldn't be carrying around machine guns and bazookas.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
The second amendment want to people to be well regulated and well armed.
Nah, I don't buy it. And neither does pretty much every legal expert in America. Otherwise the Supreme court and federals court wouldn't be so heavily against the NRA's interpretation.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233814 - 01/20/03 09:59 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Now that you're back to the Supreme Court, Alex, you never responded to my request:
Provide us with a Supreme Court ruling that says the Second Amendment is not a personal right.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I just thought I should mention that the right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't mean they can own ANY kind of arms.
Of course if the idea was that individuals should be able to fight off tyranny then small arms would be utterly useless nowadays anyway. Individuals would need anti-aircraft missiles and tanks at the very least to trouble any tyranny.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (01/20/03 10:02 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233818 - 01/20/03 10:00 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I hope that this post puts the Constitution argument to rest. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to determine what the Government cannot do in terms of restricting certain rights of the People.
Amendment 1. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to worship as they wish, express themselves, and gather peaceably.
Amendment 2. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to arm themselves for their individual and collective protection.
NOT
Amendment 2. The army is allowed to have weapons.
moving along...
Amendment 3. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to be free from being forced to house soldiers (a common practise of the Brits).
Amendment 4. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure.
Amendment 5. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to not be required to incriminate themselves or be tried twice for the same crime.
Amendment 6. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to have a fair and speedy trial.
Amendment 7. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to have a fair trial in the case of civil suits, and again guarantees freedom from double jeapordy.
Amendment 8. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE to be free from cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail.
Amendment 9. states that just because a right isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that the government is automatically ALLOWED to just take it away. Sort of an "including, but not limited to..." clause for the Bill of Rights. (the right to decide which chemicals you wish to put in your body anyone? )
Amendment 10. Delegates to the states powers not reserved by the national government. (Internal commerce, etc.).
I can see how the word "militia" could throw people off... But "militia" meant, and has always meant, a non-government group of fighting men. Otherwise, it's called an Army. Does anyone really think that the framers thought that "The Army must be allowed to have weapons" was just so important that they needed to make a specific clause in the Bill of Rights about it? No, they meant the People. It is the purpose of the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the People, and restrict the powers of the Government. Clinging to the notion that they meant the Army and not the People is a demonstration of complete disregard for logic, reason, and common sense . If you want to attack gun-ownership on other grounds, fine, we can go there too, but this Bill of Rights argument is just too worn out.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233824 - 01/20/03 10:01 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Exactly. You saw what happened in Waco despite the massive amounts of firepower those people had.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233840 - 01/20/03 10:05 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
non-government group of fighting men
Well it meant a little more than that. Me and my mate couldn't ride into town and start blasting everyone and call ourselves "militia". We would be called "criminals" and hung from the nearest tree. As would any individual who behaved like a state organised army.
No, they meant the People
We're back to ignoring what they wrote and imagining what they meant. Lets just look at what they wrote.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233853 - 01/20/03 10:08 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Lets just look at what they wrote. Lets....why don't you post what they wrote, then give your interpretation.
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233857 - 01/20/03 10:09 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Of course if the idea was that individuals should be able to fight off tyranny then small arms would be utterly useless nowadays anyway. Individuals would need anti-aircraft missiles and tanks at the very least to trouble any tyranny.
The North Vietnamese did very well with small arms fighting against the most powerful military in the world.
I remember that at least once in American history (and I really wish I could remember when and where, someone help?) the local police department got really out of hand, and the locals fought them off with their weapons.
Also... have you read that article yet? what do you think of it? You too silver soul...
Edited by mushmaster (01/20/03 10:11 AM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233864 - 01/20/03 10:10 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't have the attention span to read that article.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
Then you have no place even arguing here.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233871 - 01/20/03 10:13 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We're back to ignoring what they wrote and imagining what they meant. Lets just look at what they wrote.
Alex, you are reading the words out of historical context and applying very recent and politically motivated interpretations of the terms. Please provide quotes from the founding fathers to back up your interpretations of the meanings of the words 'militia' and 'people' as they relate to the second amendment.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233872 - 01/20/03 10:14 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Are you saying that article is the only thing relevant in here? I'll get around to it, ok?
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
|