Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Well regulated?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Well regulated? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:49:35 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

And still not the point of the OP.

I'm not so sure about this.

However we discuss the meaning of "well regulated", the other part of the monkey wrench is "free state".  What exactly is a "free state", and how does it connect to a well regulated militia?

Is it possible that a free state is one where a militia composed of armed citizens has the capacity to resist government oppression, and take back whatever liberties have been compromised?  Is it possible that a well-regulated militia is one that can plausibly take such a stance?


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:50:24 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I'm sure this has been posted earlier but just in case. Our forefathers distrusted standing armies...they felt an army could be a threat to the republic. They wanted the states to have militias for defense not only from enemies of the republic but the republic itself if needed. To assure a militia could be raised when needed they did not want laws that would disarm the citizenry.

Butch
Our forefathers considered themselves citizens who owed their allegience to their home state first and their new republic second.Virginia distrusted NewJersey in turn New Jersey distrusted Delaware...and on and on...13 Seperate States trying to find common ground.  

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:53:14 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

And still not the point of the OP.

I'm not so sure about this.

However we discuss the meaning of "well regulated", the other part of the monkey wrench is "free state".  What exactly is a "free state", and how does it connect to a well regulated militia?

Is it possible that a free state is one where a militia composed of armed citizens has the capacity to resist government oppression, and take back whatever liberties have been compromised?  Is it possible that a well-regulated militia is one that can plausibly take such a stance?



Seriously, you see a "free state" as on the verge of dissolution from an angry armed citizenry at any moment, and the intent of the Constitution?

Doesn't that just makes us subject to different tyrants?

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:54:23 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I'm sure this has been posted earlier but just in case. Our forefathers distrusted standing armies...they felt an army could be a threat to the republic. They wanted the states to have militias for defense not only from enemies of the republic but the republic itself if needed. To assure a militia could be raised when needed they did not want laws that would disarm the citizenry.

Butch
Our forefathers considered themselves citizens who owed their allegience to their home state first and their new republic second.Virginia distrusted NewJersey in turn New Jersey distrusted Delaware...and on and on...13 Seperate States trying to find common ground.  


THIS reference makes sense to me anyway.

Butch

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:55:22 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. "

"Every generation needs a new revolution"

Thomas Jefferson


quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

And still not the point of the OP.

I'm not so sure about this.

However we discuss the meaning of "well regulated", the other part of the monkey wrench is "free state".  What exactly is a "free state", and how does it connect to a well regulated militia?

Is it possible that a free state is one where a militia composed of armed citizens has the capacity to resist government oppression, and take back whatever liberties have been compromised?  Is it possible that a well-regulated militia is one that can plausibly take such a stance?



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:56:45 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Yes and no. Tyrants only if the angry people allow it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Seriously, you see a "free state" as on the verge of dissolution from an angry armed citizenry at any moment, and the intent of the Constitution?

Doesn't that just makes us subject to different tyrants?


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:00:15 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The second amendment: 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.

Just out of curiosity...

What do you folks see as "well regulated"? What regulation does this call for or imply?



          It's a nice, vague term, isn't it?  Followed by another vague one, 'the security of a free state.'  Lots of room for debate and discussion in the first part of that sentence.  The other side of the comma is unambiguous.  

          

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:03:24 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Ya know, I started asking about the Second Amendment.

No one can stick to that point. Instead, we keep moving toward armed rebellion, as ridiculous as that scenario would be.

OK, y'all watch far too many movies.

So what happens then? Soon as you shoot, everything's rosy? Or you and your posse will set into place supergovernment?

Bull has it right. When you honestly sit back and think it through, it's not so easy--as he put it, a mind fuck.


(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:05:44 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Seriously, you see a "free state" as on the verge of dissolution from an angry armed citizenry at any moment, and the intent of the Constitution?

Doesn't that just makes us subject to different tyrants?

"At any moment"?  No. 

Consider for a moment part of the text of the Declaration of Independence--which I submit gives insight into the mindset and philosophy of our Founding Fathers on this point:

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


I do not believe the framers of the Constitution intended the citizenry to be in a state of constant agitation.  I do believe that, coming out of their experience of the American Revolution, they were cognizant of the potential for a "long train of abuses and usurpations" even as they were designing a government to reduce that potential.  Having risked everything--including their lives--to throw off the monarchy of Great Britain, does it then follow these same people would so order their new government as to prevent future generations from having the same option, should time and circumstance prove it necessary?


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:08:06 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		Musicmystery  you have to understand it wasn't ridiculous in 1776..so it IS the point of the 2nd amendment

Butch

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:08:39 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

does it then follow these same people would so order their new government as to prevent future generations from having the same option, should time and circumstance prove it necessary?


i.e., having escaped a "failed" government (a government the South embraced well into the 19th century), they decided to build a government likewise doomed to failure?

No, that doesn't follow.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:18:02 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

i.e., having escaped a "failed" government (a government the South embraced well into the 19th century), they decided to build a government likewise doomed to failure?

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion the government is "doomed."

There is a wide gulf between "what may be" and "what will be".  Worst case scenarios and similar planning tasks are predicated on "may be."  Likewise, it "may be" that our government at some point becomes oppressive and tyrannical.  I do not consider it a foregone conclusion--i.e., I do not consider our form of government "doomed."  I do however, acknowledge the potential for any government, no matter how noble, just and enlightened at the outset, to oppress and tyrannize the citizens.

If the potential exists, what should be the potential remedy?  Whom does the well regulated militia serve--the people or the government?


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:23:27 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		cl,

Your view of this militia is, and always will be, a fantasy, needed or not, justified or not, at best some futuristic failed coup attempt.

Or, if not, it will be to overthrow a government so pathetic that it just doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, seems we still want to dodge the Second Amendment issue.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:25:18 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Meanwhile, seems we still want to dodge the Second Amendment issue.

I am curious--how is this "dodging" the Second Amendment issue?


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:27:18 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		cl,

I can't see any justification for arguing the Second Amendment is an "overthrow the government just in case" clause.

Surely the absurdity of this can't escape you.

But let's go back to the language.....

How is the invitation to overthrow the government "well regulated"?

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 8:28:24 PM >

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:29:16 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

I can't see any justification for arguing the Second Amendment is an "overthrow the government just in case" clause.

Question:

Does a "free state" have a tyrannical government?


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:36:50 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

How is the invitation to overthrow the government "well regulated"?

In every definition of regulated, by ensuring arms are possessed broadly and not narrowly.

Remember, the militia can protect the government as well as the people.  Shay's Rebellion demonstrates this, as does the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion.

The man who thinks to take up arms against his government and does not have the agreement of his armed neighbors is not likely to succeed in effecting any change.  The man who leads a sufficiently large group of armed citizens in overthrowing a government perceived as tyrannical and oppressive would possibly be seen as the second coming of George Washington.

The armed citizens become the regulation, because in sufficient numbers they can bring down tyranny or combat anarchy.

< Message edited by celticlord2112 -- 11/14/2008 8:58:58 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:57:12 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


Including if that rebellion intends to overthrow America?

Seems capricious at best, my friend.

How would you respond if our government suspended all civil liberties, curtailed free speech and free assembly, established a state religion, and basically voided the Bill of Rights?

Is there a scenario where you would consider taking up arms against the government?



I know how I and probably 10's of  millions of other people would react and we wouldn't be going to court!
We'd be having "speedy" trials and then hanging or shooting the traitors.
And when there's tens of millions of people with firearms there's no such thing as the secret service, the police or even the "army".
A "well regulated" militia will be waiting for them as they report to and from their shifts and overpower them.
If I were in an l.e. agency and that happened I'd quit, I wouldn't want to be a target of the militias! Would you want to be wearing a badge or uniform in C.L.'s scenario with a "govt" that the people hate and want to overthrow by force?
And what's that govt. going to do, order them to kill their neighbors and friends?
Oh we'd see some "well regulated" alright!
Music, I don't really live my life on what "courts" may think.
And, I want the people who work for our govt, the hired help, to do their jobs and not try to "interpret" them.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 11/14/2008 9:00:58 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 9:15:51 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		A point of clarification on Dred Scott  the ruling also stated that a slave taken into a free would remain a slave. In that case he lived in Illinois for a period.  The ruling stated that since he was "legally bought" in a slave state he could not be freed just because he was living in a free state, in effect destroing the concept of free states. 

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 9:18:23 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		You may not but James Madison did, see the Federalist papers.  So did Thomas Jefferson.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Well regulated? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094