Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 191
  1. #151  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Yes Peter look at the first part... and when you figure out what they are saying ( not what YOU WANT them to say ), you'll see what the founding fathers meant.
    It's not a question of what I want them (the founders) to say but what they said; read the Congressional Records where the actual debate for the Second was taken. At the time a permanent freestanding army was seen at the biggest treat to freedom...this is what a supposed tyrant would use to suppress the population. This was the purpose behind an armed population as opposed to a permanent army.

    I am not arguing that the founders didn't want us armed...they most certainly did. My argument is that we have basically abandoned the meaning behind the Second to where it is simply now 'a right to be armed for self-defense shall not be infringed'. That being the case what constitues a reasonable arm for self defense. This is what the argument has now boiled down to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #152  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    First off explain or rewrite this sentence.
    want, typo sorry...or are those not allowed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #153  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    This is going nowhere, apparently that is peters trademark.
    He'll be back, once he reloads on newer talking points....


    I do have to thank Peter though. If not for him, I wouldn't have had the full understanding of the Second that I do now...


    So for that Peter, Thank you
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #154  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    This is nothing more than media tendering to whom they perceive to be their listeners. We live in a free-market society and it reflects equally in our media coverage. If you don't think this isn't so then simply tune into Fox or conservative radio or thumb through The Weekly Standard or News Max or any right-wing rag. These and more have made their founders wealthy pandering solely to right-wing ideology. *Good for them. From the day that the first page rolled off the first printing press bias entered into the media. The founders were notorious in their manipulation of the media to suit their own political perspectives and for media pandering to them. Yet through it all we have somehow muddled through. This is why I say so what. You are sniveling and whining about something that, at the end of the day, really doesn't matter.
    So, you are admitting that the mainstream media is as far to the left as you claim that Fox and talk radio are to the right? That's nice of you to concede, but unfortunately, the mainstream media won't admit what you have. They keep insisting that they are unbiased, and that only the sources that you cite are ideological, but even that only tells half the story. I've never heard Fox claim that Al Gore was responsible for the Unabomber, or that Piers Morgan was responsible for Dorner. The most you will hear conservatives say is that they object to the double-standard, where the media claims that conservative speech breeds violence, but then deny that leftist speech does (and, for the record, leftists routinely call for actual violence, not just rhetorical violence, as any coverage of a strike by a union will demonstrate). The media's coverage isn't simply biased, it's dishonest. Glad that you admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Where is that being suggested? The question is why one can only defend oneself with an assult weapon with a 100 round clip?
    No, the question is who gives you, or the federal government, the authority to decide what we can and cannot use to defend ourselves? In your case, the answer is nobody, and in the case of the federal government, the Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    First, you didn’t give an argument. Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the right to regulate militia but you ignored the reason why congress sought to rely on the militia instead of a permanent army. An argument would have explored the reasons behind the wording of the Constitution and its articles.
    No, the distrust of a standing army was not germane to my point, but since you've decided that you need to delve into the Third Amendment, and the other acts by which the Crown used standing armies to enforce its will, I will happily explain that to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    The original intention of the Founding Fathers was that America would not risk maintaining a traditional standing army. The new American nation was to be founded on the high principles of freedom, liberty, and respect for life and property. As such the only concern was to defend the nation, not establish the means to conquer America's neighbors. When a need to defend the new nation arose, they would do as they'd done to fight the British - rely on a well armed citizenry motivated by enlightened self-interest to defend their own lives and property.
    Assuming that this is the reason for the founders' distrust of a standing army, you have argued for ensuring that the militia has to have the kind of arms that any standing army would, to include crew-served weapons, heavy artillery, armor and aircraft, and nowhere have you proven that we are not the militia. However, the founders' prohibition of a permanent standing army came from a greater concern than a supposed belief that Americans should not fight land wars outside of our borders (Jefferson sent a punitive expedition against the Barbary Pirates, which included land forces, so he clearly was not averse to fighting wars overseas). The aversion to standing armies came from the experiences of the British people, from 1066 onward, but especially in the century prior to the American Revolution, and the British Crown's use of military personnel to enforce his edicts in the colonies, in direct conflict with the local laws passed by colonial legislatures. Initially, William the Conqueror destroyed the Saxon militias when he took England, and imposed Feudal obligations of levies of troops on his loyal retainers, but the subsequent issues arising from convoluted formulas of how many troops and arms were owed per fiefdom, led to the replacement of the obligation to provide manpower with money. The taxes imposed by the Normans were used to maintain standing forces which then kept the country in a constant state of war between William and his barons, and facilitated the seizures of Saxon holdings. The native population came to loathe the standing armies that routinely pillaged their lands while idle, and laid waste to them during combat. The constant conflicts between subsequent kings, barons and foreign powers led to the perpetuation of standing armies, always to the detriment of the people. Things came to a head under Charles I, whose standing forces were so abusive to the populace, not to mention expensive, that the Lords and Commons petitioned the King to withdraw his troops from their homes. The Petition of Right, which was presented in 1628, resulted in conflicts between the Crown and Parliament, and ultimately, civil war. The Parliamentary forces won, and with the dismissal of those members of Parliament who were not Puritans (and therefore not inclined to convict Charles I of treason), the Rump Parliament became a rubber stamp for the military dictatorship under Cromwell. This, combined with the forced quartering of British troops in private homes in the colonies (where they ran roughshod over local governance), was why the founders considered standing armies a threat to liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    This isn't a question of weather the militia should be armed or how congress would regulate armament--of course they should be armed, they were intended to be the army!!!
    Wrong. The militia was and is the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    As for citations look at the Congressional Record for the period.The Founding Fathers viewed a standing army during times of peace as dangerous to freedom. Jefferson while he was president stripped it down to only 3000 men. Congress had no intention of infringing on the right to bear arms which is why your conclusion that “congress cannot, as a pretense of regulating the militia, infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” is pure BULLSHIT.
    It isn't a pretense, it is an accurate summary of the intent of the founders. The concern among the founders was that a central government would attempt to usurp the militia and supplant it with a standing army, as William had done after Hastings, and Charles I had done prior to the English civil war. Further, congress had no authority over the property of individuals within the United States. This is repeated throughout the writings of the era, and your random citations above do not invalidate my argument. In fact, the militia was not a state entity, although it could be called out by the governors (as well as by mayors or private citizens, something which you appear not to know). The militia was the people, and the right of the people form a militia was the based on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
    --James Madison: 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789.

    A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
    --Richard Henry Lee: Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788


    “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

    --George Mason

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    --George Washington
    “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.”
    --Alexander Hamilton: Federalist Paper #29

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    The point that is being ignored here is that we don’t rely on a States Militia for protection but the largest and strongest free standing army every conceived by man. So, other than self-defense, what is the reasoning today behind the Second? Certainly not solely to entertain a segment of society that seeks an unlimited and unrestricted armament so as to repel some mystical tyrannical invasion of government....as so many conservatives seem to think.
    The point that you are pretending not to see is that the militia is not a state entity, but is comprised of all of the people who are capable of bearing arms, as the founders intended. You are also ignoring the fact that our standing army protects us from foreign threats, but is barred by law from protecting us from domestic ones. For that, we have delegated our right of self-defense to local and state agencies which we have empowered through our consent, but that does not give them the right to unilaterally abrogate our right of self-defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    It isn’t a question now of whether congress can regulate arms, they already do, this is why we don’t see nukes or even an RPG in the hand of citizens. So why then are restrictions to certain types of weapons perceived as such an invasion of our rights?
    First, please show me where the Constitution explicitly gives congress the right to regulate arms. Do not say that it is implied by something that has nothing to do with arms, such as the Interstate Commerce Clause, but the actual enumeration of that power. Second, militia weapons were always understood to be personal arms. A militiaman wouldn't necessarily own a cannon, but would not be barred from owning one. In fact, most of the units that fought in the Civil War furnished their own arms (especially on the Confederate side). The first Gatling guns used in combat were privately purchased by regimental officers of private militias. The last privately raised militia in federal service was the 1st Volunteer Cavalry, Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. The National Defense Act of 1903 created the National Guard and Army Reserve, and specified standards for training and equipping, but did not bar private citizens from maintaining their own arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    How exectly would you defeat a tyrannicay goverment with an AR15? How did David Koresh fair?
    He held out against the ATF and FBI longer than France did against Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    This is why the Japs, Iraquis, and Afganis all won right! Yeah, we leftists know nothing of history...
    First, Fertig's insurgency in Mindanao defeated the Japanese (you really should read my posts before you reply to them). Second, do you really think that we won the Afghan and Iraq wars? We invaded successfully, and defeated the standing armies that met us in the field, but the insurgencies have forced us to declare victory and leave without securing anything. We are negotiating with the Taliban for control of Afghanistan, and the government that we installed in Iraq is now allied with Iran against us. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is beginning to look an awful lot like our withdrawal from South Vietnam. So, yes, leftists do need to study history, and badly.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    It is question of whether they have a right to regulate moron...
    And the answer is no, they do not. Once again, where is the enumeration of congress' power to regulate the private property of individual citizens? Where is the enumeration of congress' power to regulate our right to self-defense? What article of the Constitution contains that language?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #155  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Peter. Peter. Peter....



    You obviously have no understanding for history or the context for the writing of the Constitution. Because if you did, you wouldn't be arguing this silly point.


    You are exactly what the Founders feared, a blissfully uninformed twit, that has no understanding of freedom or what it takes to keep it...
    Why won't you address the first clause of the Second Amendment? If you are the constitutional experted then address it and if it was to be independent of the second clause, the one you so love, why not simply use a period or a semicolon as they certainly knew how to use them and thier purpose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #156  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,079
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    It's not a question of what I want them (the founders) to say but what they said; read the Congressional Records where the actual debate for the Second was taken. At the time a permanent freestanding army was seen at the biggest treat to freedom...this is what a supposed tyrant would use to suppress the population. This was the purpose behind an armed population as opposed to a permanent army.
    Debates about the 2nd? Who cares about the debates? I mean really Peter, all that matters is the final product...the Second Amendment as it IS written...period.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS
    I am not arguing that the founders didn't want us armed...they most certainly did. My argument is that we have basically abandoned the meaning behind the Second to where it is simply now 'a right to be armed for self-defense shall not be infringed'. That being the case what constitues a reasonable arm for self defense. This is what the argument has now boiled down to.
    Bob-and-weave Peter, bob-and-weave...

    The 2nd was put in place not for personal self-defense, but for the defense of a FREE nation. It was put in place so those in power would think twice before trying to rough-shod over our liberties...
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #157  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,079
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Why won't you address the first clause of the Second Amendment? If you are the constitutional experted then address it and if it was to be independent of the second clause, the one you so love, why not simply use a period or a semicolon as they certainly knew how to use them and thier purpose.
    As passed by the Congress:


    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.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


    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.

    Where is this semicolon you are so hung up on? I don't see it....

    Link
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #158  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,153
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Why won't you address the first clause of the Second Amendment? If you are the constitutional experted then address it and if it was to be independent of the second clause, the one you so love, why not simply use a period or a semicolon as they certainly knew how to use them and thier purpose.
    I did that in post# 95. You just chose to ignore it. Here it is again:

    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    The Second Amendment's Prefatory Clause

    Supreme Court of the United States
    District of Columbia et al v. Heller
    26 June 2008

    "The [Second] Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

    "The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., '[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people..."

    I think we're done here.
    Like I said, we're done here. Now go away.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #159  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    So, you are admitting that the mainstream media is as far to the left as you claim that Fox and talk radio are to the right? That's nice of you to concede, but unfortunately, the mainstream media won't admit what you have. They keep insisting that they are unbiased, and that only the sources that you cite are ideological, but even that only tells half the story. I've never heard Fox claim that Al Gore was responsible for the Unabomber, or that Piers Morgan was responsible for Dorner. The most you will hear conservatives say is that they object to the double-standard, where the media claims that conservative speech breeds violence, but then deny that leftist speech does (and, for the record, leftists routinely call for actual violence, not just rhetorical violence, as any coverage of a strike by a union will demonstrate). The media's coverage isn't simply biased, it's dishonest. Glad that you admit it.
    Any person, or media source, who claims to be unbiased is lying. There is no admission here simply a statements of fact.


    No, the question is who gives you, or the federal government, the authority to decide what we can and cannot use to defend ourselves? In your case, the answer is nobody, and in the case of the federal government, the Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.
    Actually the answer isn’t, nobody, else we wouldn’t see any restrictions to arms and munitions.

    No, the distrust of a standing army was not germane to my point, but since you've decided that you need to delve into the Third Amendment, and the other acts by which the Crown used standing armies to enforce its will, I will happily explain that to you.


    Assuming that this is the reason for the founders' distrust of a standing army, you have argued for ensuring that the militia has to have the kind of arms that any standing army would, to include crew-served weapons, heavy artillery, armor and aircraft, and nowhere have you proven that we are not the militia. However, the founders' prohibition of a permanent standing army came from a greater concern than a supposed belief that Americans should not fight land wars outside of our borders (Jefferson sent a punitive expedition against the Barbary Pirates, which included land forces, so he clearly was not averse to fighting wars overseas). The aversion to standing armies came from the experiences of the British people, from 1066 onward, but especially in the century prior to the American Revolution, and the British Crown's use of military personnel to enforce his edicts in the colonies, in direct conflict with the local laws passed by colonial legislatures. Initially, William the Conqueror destroyed the Saxon militias when he took England, and imposed Feudal obligations of levies of troops on his loyal retainers, but the subsequent issues arising from convoluted formulas of how many troops and arms were owed per fiefdom, led to the replacement of the obligation to provide manpower with money. The taxes imposed by the Normans were used to maintain standing forces which then kept the country in a constant state of war between William and his barons, and facilitated the seizures of Saxon holdings. The native population came to loathe the standing armies that routinely pillaged their lands while idle, and laid waste to them during combat. The constant conflicts between subsequent kings, barons and foreign powers led to the perpetuation of standing armies, always to the detriment of the people. Things came to a head under Charles I, whose standing forces were so abusive to the populace, not to mention expensive, that the Lords and Commons petitioned the King to withdraw his troops from their homes. The Petition of Right, which was presented in 1628, resulted in conflicts between the Crown and Parliament, and ultimately, civil war. The Parliamentary forces won, and with the dismissal of those members of Parliament who were not Puritans (and therefore not inclined to convict Charles I of treason), the Rump Parliament became a rubber stamp for the military dictatorship under Cromwell. This, combined with the forced quartering of British troops in private homes in the colonies (where they ran roughshod over local governance), was why the founders considered standing armies a threat to liberty.
    Where is the disagreement and what is the lesson? And no, Jefferson had no adversion to the use of military during a period of war; the Barbary Pirates were raiding our ships which would be considered an act of war.


    Wrong. The militia was and is the people.
    And I said they weren't? If not people who would make up an army?



    It isn't a pretense, it is an accurate summary of the intent of the founders. The concern among the founders was that a central government would attempt to usurp the militia and supplant it with a standing army
    That was exactly my point thank you.



    The point that you are pretending not to see is that the militia is not a state entity, but is comprised of all of the people who are capable of bearing arms, as the founders intended. You are also ignoring the fact that our standing army protects us from foreign threats, but is barred by law from protecting us from domestic ones. For that, we have delegated our right of self-defense to local and state agencies which we have empowered through our consent, but that does not give them the right to unilaterally abrogate our right of self-defense.
    Where is that being suggested?

    He held out against the ATF and FBI longer than France did against Germany.
    Only because they didn't use deadly force; had they, it would have been over in minutes.



    First, Fertig's insurgency in Mindanao defeated the Japanese (you really should read my posts before you reply to them). Second, do you really think that we won the Afghan and Iraq wars? We invaded successfully, and defeated the standing armies that met us in the field, but the insurgencies have forced us to declare victory and leave without securing anything. We are negotiating with the Taliban for control of Afghanistan, and the government that we installed in Iraq is now allied with Iran against us. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is beginning to look an awful lot like our withdrawal from South Vietnam. So, yes, leftists do need to study history, and badly.
    Were we to retain full force that wouldn't be the case. Were an insurgency to occure in the US there would be no withdrawl and the insurgents would be nothing but mangled meat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #160  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    As passed by the Congress:


    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.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


    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.

    Where is this semicolon you are so hung up on? I don't see it....

    Link
    This is be cause they aren't intended as independent clauses as with the First Amendment. http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •