RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 3:59:04 PM)

Atually Spinner and zane the 2nd amendment has it's root in the English Bill of Rights. So Mr zane the same law that spawned your own country's legal system is the root of the reason for the 2nd Amendment .

The English Bill of Rights circa 1689 included

Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

apparently in 1689 it was seen as an Individual right as well since there is no menion of a militia.

The Reason for the 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms was a British right with a historical reason for existing, to prevent the Government (Monarchs) from persecuting religious minorities. (The various religios based revolutions due to the royal line having both Protestants and Catholics.)

And since we know that religious persecution was a major fear of the colonists, the idea that the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense including defense from government persecution was fresh enough on their minds, is simple enough to see.



Lucylastic -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 7:27:07 PM)

He probably hates the limeys as much as he does the merrycans
Lucy




Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 9:48:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Atually Spinner and zane the 2nd amendment has it's root in the English Bill of Rights. So Mr zane the same law that spawned your own country's legal system is the root of the reason for the 2nd Amendment .

The English Bill of Rights circa 1689 included

Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

apparently in 1689 it was seen as an Individual right as well since there is no menion of a militia.

The Reason for the 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms was a British right with a historical reason for existing, to prevent the Government (Monarchs) from persecuting religious minorities. (The various religios based revolutions due to the royal line having both Protestants and Catholics.)

And since we know that religious persecution was a major fear of the colonists, the idea that the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense including defense from government persecution was fresh enough on their minds, is simple enough to see.



"The Reason for the 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms was a British right with a historical reason for existing, to prevent the Government (Monarchs) from persecuting religious minorities. (The various religios based revolutions due to the royal line having both Protestants and Catholics.)

And since we know that religious persecution was a major fear of the colonists, the idea that the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense including defense from government persecution was fresh enough on their minds, is simple enough to see. "



You`ll have to show us where it says that.The founders were no dummies.They knew what they wanted in the Constitution and it`s Amendments,and what the didn`t want in them.

There`s nothing at all like that in the documents.If you`re going to tout a radical view like you`ve done,it`s on you to prove it.

IMO, using these type of reasoning,fighting the government,is not valid at best.

At worst,it`s a national apocalyptic nightmare and not what the founders had in mind.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 9:52:02 PM)

Hey Owner get yourself together and do your own research.

I claim it says that, it is up to you to counter the argument with proof it doesn't.






ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 9:59:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

IMO, using these type of reasoning,fighting the government,is not valid at best.

At worst,it`s a national apocalyptic nightmare and not what the founders had in mind.


Wait a minute... maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but these founders you're talking about... weren't they the same founders who had just finished creating the country by fighting the government? I know it's late, so maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be a disconnect there.



Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 9:59:29 PM)

lol ,Nope.My research is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You`ve got to show us where is says the founders wanted the government attacked by the armed populous and who said it.




Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:02:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

IMO, using these type of reasoning,fighting the government,is not valid at best.

At worst,it`s a national apocalyptic nightmare and not what the founders had in mind.


Wait a minute... maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but these founders you're talking about... weren't they the same founders who had just finished creating the country by fighting the government? I know it's late, so maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be a disconnect there.



Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say what Archer claimed?

You can`t just make something up and then expect others to show it doesn`t exist.

One needs 1st ,to prove something exists.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:18:09 PM)

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free; That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;


That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

You can see several amendments to our US Constitution have their roots in the rights codified in the English Bill of Rights, 1689 100 years earlier.  
The fifth item has a parallel in our 1st Amendment.
The seventh item has parallels to our 2nd Amendment.
The ninth item has parallels again in our 1st Amendment.
The tenth item has parallels in our 8th Amendment.
The eleventh item has parallels in our 6th amendment
The twelfth item has parallels in our 5th Amendment    

That makes 6 parallels between the English Bill of rights 1689 and the US Constitution 1787 roughly 100 years apart.



as to your

"You`ve got to show us where is says the founders wanted the government attacked by the armed populous and who said it. "

WTF ????   Put down the crack pipe!!!!!!

where did I infer such a thing?





Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:24:06 PM)

Quotes,links,subsequent letters and proclamations from the writers of our constitution,like the famous "wall of separation" letter regarding church and state.

Proof?

The founders guarantied our right to be armed.

It says nothing about sedition or insurrection.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:24:36 PM)

What is it you are saying I claimed the second amendment said?????
Cause I only said the roots of the 2nd amendment was to be found in an English law document 100 years earlier.
and that the reason for the English law was religious persecution in England.



DomKen -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
The English Bill of Rights circa 1689 included

Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

apparently in 1689 it was seen as an Individual right as well since there is no menion of a militia.

The Reason for the 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms was a British right with a historical reason for existing, to prevent the Government (Monarchs) from persecuting religious minorities. (The various religios based revolutions due to the royal line having both Protestants and Catholics.)

WTF! The 1689 bill of rights was essentially a surrender to foreign invaders whose only saving grace was that they were protestants. The document is rife with religious persecution including forbidding catholics from owning weapons.

The british experience with armed rebellion, the roundheads for example, could be considered a clear argument for a disarmed populace not an armed one.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:26:24 PM)

English Bill of rights

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

US Constitution

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:28:36 PM)

DomKen so you dispute the fact that the Catholic vs Protestant civil wars in England had back and forth denial of rights to bear arms????
Because the reason the Bill of Rights 1689 included the right of protestants to keep and bear arms was an earlier law that forbid protestants specificly from doing so.

Edited to add:

1642 the Tudors forbid the Catholics from keeping arms at home, so the 1689 law was a turning of the tables so to speak.
England's history is full of protestant vs catholic tit for tat when it comes to denial of rights.



Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 10:40:38 PM)

That was Europe,Archer.

This is America.

It was legal to torture,imprison without charge or if you fell into debt.

All things the founders rejected ,specifically, in the Constitution.




Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 11:01:38 PM)

Again Owner PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE

You're proving to me again why I generally should just ignore you.

I provided both documents and drew 6 parallels Owner refute the parallels if you can.
The founding fathers didn't toss out everything they had from England, they maintained much of British Common Law, just ask any lawyer what the basis of our legal system is.



Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 11:10:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

What is it you are saying I claimed the second amendment said?????
Cause I only said the roots of the 2nd amendment was to be found in an English law document 100 years earlier.
and that the reason for the English law was religious persecution in England.



Perhaps Archer,we have a mis-understanding.

My comments concerns your post:

The Reason for the 2nd amendment is clear, the right to keep and bear arms was a British right with a historical reason for existing, to prevent the Government (Monarchs) from persecuting religious minorities. (The various religios based revolutions due to the royal line having both Protestants and Catholics.)

And since we know that religious persecution was a major fear of the colonists, the idea that the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense including defense from government persecution was fresh enough on their minds, is simple enough to see. "

and how that`s not true.

And that you must show otherwise.

If it`s simple enough to see,it shouldn`t take much effort to show where(anywhere)the FFs said it,2nd Amendment or otherwise.

I hope I`m making myself clearer.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 11:18:13 PM)

1642 The tudors (corrected by lucylastic Stuarts) restrict Catholics from keeping arms at home.
When William and Mary took power they turned the tables and took the right to bear arms from Protestants and gave it back to catholics
1689 The English Bill of rights gives protestants back the right to keep and bear arms.

We have the entire span of history about 100 to 150 years of it where holding the State Religion determined if you had the right to keep and bear arms.
That was the 100 - 150 years much of it during the colonial period so very fresh in the social minds of the founding fathers.

You have a series of Protestsent vs Catholic wars in England where each side first denies the right of the other faith to keep arms, and where each side persecutes the other when they hold power.

This is what I am pointing to when I say religious persecution by the government (monarch) was a root cause for laws guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms both in English common law and US constitutional law.

The history is plainly evident that religious persecution by both sides against the other took place and that disarmament was used to be able to do it.



Lucylastic -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 11:23:52 PM)

Elizabeth 1 died in 1603, she was the last of the Tudors.
Charles 1 was king in 1642 and was a Stuart
sorry my period of history :)
carry on.....ahem
Lucy



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 11:33:01 PM)

OK Wrong date on my part Henry VIII was the first volley in the disarmament of opposing church members. His target being catholics naturally.
And the back and forth persecution started there. Including as you corrected me the Stuarts in 1642.
But overall the entire period between Henry VIII up until Cromwell at least was a series of one side or the other persecuting based on religion and exercising arms control to do it.




Lucylastic -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 11:40:22 PM)

I love the period of history, but the violence and religious battles made it a dark crazy period for me.Heh maybe thats the attraction.
I will leave you to get back to the topic at hand:)
Lucy




Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875