RE: Well regulated?

RE: Well regulated? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 2:17:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery we no longer rely on militias as our main defense We do indeed. The militia is an armed citizenry. In practical everyday terms, the People's maintenance of a free state involves daily confrontations with muggers, robbers, and other violent assaults on persons and property. But, well regulated implies a standard. And just as someone who has checked out on a Cessna is not allowed to hop into the cockpit of a 757 Jumbo, I would see no Second Amendment objection to requiring a demonstration of skill with a weapon used for carry outside the home. Right now, you can meet the standard (here in Ohio) at 7 yards with a .22, and then legally holster a .44 magnum. K.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 6:45:16 AM)
Hi Tim, Actually this comment is absurd and unsupported. I showed comments from a couple of the framers that supported my position, which makes it supported. You have only offered your line of reasoning for your support. Live well, Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The argument some are making, however, that the reason is so that we're ready to overthrow the government is absurd, and as yet, unsupported with anything other than beliefs and suppositions, leaving behind the language of the document entirely.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 6:49:03 AM)
~FR~ One more time Tim Well Regulated The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are: 1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc. 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. 4) To put in good order. [obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1. 1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side. We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 9:16:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Hi Tim, Actually this comment is absurd and unsupported. I showed comments from a couple of the framers that supported my position, which makes it supported. You have only offered your line of reasoning for your support. Live well, Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The argument some are making, however, that the reason is so that we're ready to overthrow the government is absurd, and as yet, unsupported with anything other than beliefs and suppositions, leaving behind the language of the document entirely. "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." --Thomas Jefferson Hi Orion, I obviously understand WHAT you're saying, but one doesn't support the other, as it's outside of the context of the document. As you have been fond of saying in other threads, "show me in the Constitution where it says that." For that matter, show me where Jefferson or Madison or Adams or Franklin or any others of the group said, "Our purpose was to be sure citizens were armed so they could overthrow the government." Rather the opposite---the first group of armed citizens who tried it were promptly put DOWN by the militia George Washington sent, which is why the Whiskey Rebellion was such an important test and precedent for the new nation, establishing the legitimacy and authority of the central government. Others have argued for the eloquence of the founding fathers, the richness of their language. Yet they couldn't get it right here, so we have to muse about intent? That's a contradiction, especially of a document they debated at great length. The closest I've seen to a good explanation is "Hey, ya know, since we don't really have an army, and we aren't gonna stay a country long if we can't defend ourselves, we NEED these militias, at least the well regulated ones--so let's be sure Congress allows the citizens to keep their arms." I doubt that includes Kirata's modern take of defending against muggers, but that's possible (certainly the "navy" was mostly fighting Barbary pirates). And it certainly, explicitly, in fact, allows for regulation. Kirata's example here is a good, sensible one. Because, Orion, the government does NOT run unchecked. Congress can't do anything it wants, for example, as the President can veto it. And even if the President signs the bill, the law can be challenged in court, up to the Supreme Court. THAT'S our check against the tyranny of government. Jefferson, in fact, since you've focused on him, was hardly anti-government. Hell, he spent a great deal of his career in government, including VP, Secretary of State, Minister to France, Congressman, Governor of Virginia, and President. He WAS frustrated at times, especially working with the Virginia Constitution, at those in government. However, on balance-- The Philosophy Dictionary: "Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826) The statesman and third President of the United States was also the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. A polymath and widely-read man, his ideal of tolerant and representative government by an educated citizenry was profoundly influenced by Enlightenment ideas, and especially the Second Treatise of Government of John Locke. This example of the direct and benign influence of a philosopher on a major political figure in a Western democracy has seldom been paralleled since the eighteenth century, and is utterly remote from the twenty-first." The problems these guys faced were huge, and led to conflicting positions. Jefferson saw the need to a stronger central government--but also favored a weak military and weak courts. He saw problems with slavery, but owned slaves and let the future deal with it. He jumped on the Louisiana Purchase, even though nothing in the Constitution gave him this power. Or how about the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison? Who2Biography: "James Madison is considered the most influential contributor to the United States Constitution, and he worked vigorously to see it ratified. He also contributed to The Federalist Papers to explain his advocacy for a strong federal government. He served as a member of Congress and as Jefferson's Secretary of State before winning the presidential election of 1808." He differed with Jefferson on the courts-- U.S. Supreme Court: "Throughout his career Madison maintained a consistent philosophy regarding the role of the Supreme Court as a key institution able to check legislative excesses by either states or the federal government." But here's a more direct route to the Constitution (note the last sentence)-- Biography: "Madison's basic theoretical contribution was his argument that an enlarged, strengthened national government, far from being the path to despotism its opponents feared, was in fact the surest way to protect freedom and expand the principle of self-government. His concept of "factions" in a large republic counteracting each other, built into a constitution of checks and balances, became the vital, operative principle of the American government. In addition to taking part in the debates, Madison took notes on them; published posthumously, these afford the only full record of the convention." No evidence, though, of anyone proposing the Second Amendment as a mechanism for ensuring armed citizens could overthrow the government. Not in the language, not in the history. Not there. And Hamilton's piece from the Federalist Papers you quote above is an argument for a standing army, as the militia just aren't up to the job (one wonders then just how they'd overthrow the government anyway). Hamilton, too, advocated for a strong central government--that's the point of the Federalist Papers. "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." --James Madison Live well, Tim [for anyone interested, much, much longer versions of all this can be found at Answers.com.]

celticlord2112 -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 9:36:32 AM)
quote: I obviously understand WHAT you're saying, but one doesn't support the other, as it's outside of the context of the document. As you have been fond of saying in other threads, "show me in the Constitution where it says that." For that matter, show me where Jefferson or Madison or Adams or Franklin or any others of the group said, "Our purpose was to be sure citizens were armed so they could overthrow the government." Rather the opposite---the first group of armed citizens who tried it were promptly put DOWN by the militia George Washington sent, which is why the Whiskey Rebellion was such an important test and precedent for the new nation, establishing the legitimacy and authority of the central government. There are several quotes, especially by Jefferson, that establish essentially that. However, there is a broad philosophical as well as semantic difference between "could overthrow" and "should overthrow"--and that difference is something directly confronted in the Declaration of Independence (see my earlier posts on this). Ensuring the population "could overthrow" is a safeguard against government oppression. In the case of both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion the "rebels" failed to persuade enough of their neighbors to go along with the idea, and the raising of the militias by Washington demonstrated that enough of their neighbors were in fact not supportive of their aims (which is further supported by the negligible amount of actual violence in either rebellion). In any question of armed insurrection, the government will resist with such means (militia or standing army) at its disposal. This is how it should be--a stable society will not exist when governments are toppled whimsically by force of arms. In challenging the notion that the framers of the Constitution deliberately left the door open to future rebellion, you have not addressed a question I posed earlier (or if you did I missed the response). To restate: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable?

orionsproperty -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 9:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." --Thomas Jefferson Hi Orion, I obviously understand WHAT you're saying, but one doesn't support the other, as it's outside of the context of the document. As you have been fond of saying in other threads, "show me in the Constitution where it says that." For that matter, show me where Jefferson or Madison or Adams or Franklin or any others of the group said, "Our purpose was to be sure citizens were armed so they could overthrow the government." Rather the opposite---the first group of armed citizens who tried it were promptly put DOWN by the militia George Washington sent, which is why the Whiskey Rebellion was such an important test and precedent for the new nation, establishing the legitimacy and authority of the central government. The point of Shay's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion, in support of what I am saying, is that the citizens used what they felt was their last option. The armed rebellions did bring attention to the problems, and they were finally addressed. Letters, petitioning, and other avenues had been used and it took an extreme to have the government address it. Your quote from Jefferson above, is a good quote and shows one end of the spectrum but..... Jefferson also felt that failing that the citizens should be armed as safety against the government imposing "tyranny". Your quotes and siting does not contradict what I have put forth in my points, otherwise I feel you would have shown where my evidence is incorrect, point by point. Instead it shows the other side of how to maintain a good government. quote: Others have argued for the eloquence of the founding fathers, the richness of their language. Yet they couldn't get it right here, so we have to muse about intent? That's a contradiction, especially of a document they debated at great length. I showed you the obselete (sp?) definition of what well regulated means, but you ignored that. Why? Do you not feel that well regulated means a well trained militia? quote: The closest I've seen to a good explanation is "Hey, ya know, since we don't really have an army, and we aren't gonna stay a country long if we can't defend ourselves, we NEED these militias, at least the well regulated ones--so let's be sure Congress allows the citizens to keep their arms." I doubt that includes Kirata's modern take of defending against muggers, but that's possible (certainly the "navy" was mostly fighting Barbary pirates). And it certainly, explicitly, in fact, allows for regulation. Kirata's example here is a good, sensible one. Twice I have posted the direct reasons, supported by letters between Jefferson and Madison, that state the two reasons for the second amendment. Well regulated and regulations applied are two different things. quote: Because, Orion, the government does NOT run unchecked. Congress can't do anything it wants, for example, as the President can veto it. And even if the President signs the bill, the law can be challenged in court, up to the Supreme Court. THAT'S our check against the tyranny of government. Sorry but the government has run unchecked on several occurance. In the face of civilized discourse, where everyone is following the rules then what you prose is great but..... In the face that someone decides not to follow the rules then the last resort would be an armed citizenry to oppose it. Your premise is based upon everyone following the rules, when history has shown that the rules are not always followed. quote: Jefferson, in fact, since you've focused on him, was hardly anti-government. Hell, he spent a great deal of his career in government, including VP, Secretary of State, Minister to France, Congressman, Governor of Virginia, and President. He WAS frustrated at times, especially working with the Virginia Constitution, at those in government. However, on balance-- Please point out where I have shown that Jefferson is anti-government? The information above is nothing new to me, you also left a few things that he did. quote: The Philosophy Dictionary: "Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826) The statesman and third President of the United States was also the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. A polymath and widely-read man, his ideal of tolerant and representative government by an educated citizenry was profoundly influenced by Enlightenment ideas, and especially the Second Treatise of Government of John Locke. This example of the direct and benign influence of a philosopher on a major political figure in a Western democracy has seldom been paralleled since the eighteenth century, and is utterly remote from the twenty-first." This does not contradict anything I have said. Please how where it does. Instead you have the idea that being armed, as a last resort to government tyranny, is the same as saying the government cannot be trusted or anti-government. Please read what I write and do not put anything else into it. I will do the same for you, it is frustrating when you ask us what we feel well regulated means, and then ignore what we are saying or read something entirely different into what we are saying. quote: The problems these guys faced were huge, and led to conflicting positions. Jefferson saw the need to a stronger central government--but also favored a weak military and weak courts. He saw problems with slavery, but owned slaves and let the future deal with it. He jumped on the Louisiana Purchase, even though nothing in the Constitution gave him this power. Or how about the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison? Who2Biography: "James Madison is considered the most influential contributor to the United States Constitution, and he worked vigorously to see it ratified. He also contributed to The Federalist Papers to explain his advocacy for a strong federal government. He served as a member of Congress and as Jefferson's Secretary of State before winning the presidential election of 1808." He differed with Jefferson on the courts-- U.S. Supreme Court: "Throughout his career Madison maintained a consistent philosophy regarding the role of the Supreme Court as a key institution able to check legislative excesses by either states or the federal government." But here's a more direct route to the Constitution (note the last sentence)-- Biography: "Madison's basic theoretical contribution was his argument that an enlarged, strengthened national government, far from being the path to despotism its opponents feared, was in fact the surest way to protect freedom and expand the principle of self-government. His concept of "factions" in a large republic counteracting each other, built into a constitution of checks and balances, became the vital, operative principle of the American government. In addition to taking part in the debates, Madison took notes on them; published posthumously, these afford the only full record of the convention." No evidence, though, of anyone proposing the Second Amendment as a mechanism for ensuring armed citizens could overthrow the government. Not in the language, not in the history. Not there. And Hamilton's piece from the Federalist Papers you quote above is an argument for a standing army, as the militia just aren't up to the job (one wonders then just how they'd overthrow the government anyway). Hamilton, too, advocated for a strong central government--that's the point of the Federalist Papers. "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." --James Madison Live well, Tim [for anyone interested, much, much longer versions of all this can be found at Answers.com.] At this point the discussion is going no where. As some other posters have pointed out, your discussion style is not one that addresses my points and the debate is circular. I gave my opinion, supported very well, you ignored those points, which is your perogative. Have a nice day, Orion

Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 10:11:50 AM)
quote: I posed earlier: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? cl, I let that go as it's a different topic. If you start a thread along those lines, I'd likely contribute to it.

Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 10:23:52 AM)
Hi Orion, The question has always been what regulation would you see as appropriate under the Second Amendment. From that point, the discussion has ranged free and wide, especially this "overthrow the government" fantasy. The Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion advanced governmental progress not in favor of the protestors: "These mostly peaceable protests provoked alarm that the movement could spread across the thirteen states. This concern helped persuade the states to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in May 1787, and to create a central U.S. government" --US Military History Companion: Shays's Rebellion I'm sorry you've decided to patronize and deride. Obviously you're frustrated and angry---but that's not a logic point either. As for points ignored: But here's a more direct route to the Constitution (note the last sentence)-- Biography: "Madison's basic theoretical contribution was his argument that an enlarged, strengthened national government, far from being the path to despotism its opponents feared, was in fact the surest way to protect freedom and expand the principle of self-government. His concept of "factions" in a large republic counteracting each other, built into a constitution of checks and balances, became the vital, operative principle of the American government. In addition to taking part in the debates, Madison took notes on them; published posthumously, these afford the only full record of the convention." No evidence, though, of anyone proposing the Second Amendment as a mechanism for ensuring armed citizens could overthrow the government. Not in the language, not in the history. Not there. And Hamilton's piece from the Federalist Papers you quote above is an argument for a standing army, as the militia just aren't up to the job (one wonders then just how they'd overthrow the government anyway). Hamilton, too, advocated for a strong central government--that's the point of the Federalist Papers. From there we have more wriggling. Of course government falls short sometimes. So does the citizenry, and, as Washington and other recognized early in the Republic, a bunch of angry armed citizens marching around was no aid to security. The average nation has a coup every five years. Every five years! Most of these people's lives is trying to survive while warlords march about with impunity. This is not the future the framers of the Constitution envisioned, like it or not. Live well--and thanks to a strong central government, safely! Tim

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 11:21:34 AM)
This is an interesting commentary on the historical context of the 2nd A. http://www.potowmack.org/higg.html "Lawrence Cress's article below addresses the issues raised by Robert Shalhope in "The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment," Journal of American History, Dec., 1982. Shalhope reads into seventeenth and eighteenth century republican ideologies the rightwing ideologies of the late twentieth century. He starts out seeking roots in classical republicanism but quickly switches to "libertarian" to describe the ideology he wants to find. He uses libertarian nineteen times. He transforms the citizen-soldier of classical republican theory into the sovereign individual of the contemporary ideologies of the Libertarian Right. We find the same development in Stephen Halbrook's use of "libertarian republicans" in That Every Man Be Armed (1984)." http://www.potowmack.org/lcress.html A brief quote about the "Standard Model" of 2nd A interpretation " Adherents of the Standard Model find in the Second Amendment a right to insurrection. The people retain the individual right to bear arms as an implicit threat to revolution. In good times, that threat keeps the government in line; in bad, when the government oversteps its bounds, the people may rise up and overthrow that government. The position was most clearly stated in the context of the recent bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma, when Linda Thompson, declaring herself the Adjutant General of the Unorganized Militia of the United States, explained that the Second Amendment “isn’t about hunting ducks; it’s about hunting politicians.” 18 The most obvious question which adherents of the Standard Model must answer is: who gets to decide? Who chooses when it is time for “the people” to use their arms against the government? Does Linda Thompson get to choose? Timothy McVeigh? The very questions point up the weakness of the position; the Standard Model is an abstraction divorced from a specific historical context. At times it borders on an intellectual game played by law professors swapping quotations and citing one another. As one reads yet again Justice Story’s description of the militia as the “palladium of liberty,” he realizes that the Standard Modellers are just shuffling the same deck and dealing it out in a different order." http://www.potowmack.org/mbelles.html Now this is DEFINITELY not the Standard Model: " James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South." http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 1:20:18 PM)
Interesting reads and thoughts indeed! Thanks for the contributions.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 2:49:46 PM)
Yeah I gave back what I felt was being done, you know that mirrors thing. As far as the rest, you just do not wish to acknowledge the evidence that was presented, discounting it and even ignoring it. That is your choice. Knowing you, you did the research as well, you just disagree with it. Thankfully the USSC does not believe the same way. Now I will let you get back to your campaign, because that is how I perceive it. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm sorry you've decided to patronize and deride. Obviously you're frustrated and angry---but that's not a logic point either. As for points ignored:

Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 2:53:25 PM)
quote: that is how I perceive it Hi Orion, That's really the heart of this. Your perception. Live well, Tim

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 4:03:39 PM)
Hi Tim, Actually that would only be half of it, would it not? The other part would have been the questions I asked that never got an answer, and the points I made that were never directly addressed by you. If it is only my perception, why have you been derisive by calling some of the points "Rambo fantasy"? That is just one example. Maybe if you reread some of your responses, you would realize that perception just does not come out of thin air, it is influenced by what we read. Also, frustration yes, but not anger. I don't get angry over words on this forum any longer, unless directly insulting (which you have never done, and with our mutual respect doubt you would). Live well, Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: that is how I perceive it Hi Orion, That's really the heart of this. Your perception. Live well, Tim

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 5:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Because, Orion, the government does NOT run unchecked. And this is exactly where we disagree. I am sure the "twain shall never meet.

BamaD -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 5:19:06 PM)
Do you not count the statement by Madison in the Federalist papers that America, unlike Europe would never fall to despotism because in America, unlike Europe the citzens had unfettered freedom to own firearms, this being the final answer to tyrany on the part of the government. He was not anti government but saw the danger of an overreaching government. Neither he nor any of the founders could say that revolt on the part of an oppressed people was wrong. That is exaclty what they felt they had just done. The failure of the Whiskey rebellion, and Shays rebellion proves only that at that point the government was stronger than the rebels as during the Civil War. It has no bearing whatsoever on the intent.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875