|
joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/29/2014 2:13:24 AM)
|
I like how your out of intellectual ammunition and need to resort to 'gun nut' talking points to make an argument. What's wrong? Cant think up anything original?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Infringed back in the 18th century meant the government could not order a militia to lay its arms down as a pre-emptive move to the creation of a tyrannical government.
Your claim is full of shit, and repeating it ad nauseum will not improve its status.
The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin
Really? All 2.5 million persons within the thirteen colonies agreed 100% to this? By all means, you have the burden of evidence to prove. What percentage of the population was in total agreement to all of this?
Do you know that the founding fathers had long and tiring debates on how to exactly word the 1st and 2nd amendments? That they were originally merged together before agreeing to make them separate ideas? If what you or Mr. Gallatin said was truthful, then those debates would never have happened.
Mr. Gallatin fails his quote given the nature of the 10th amendment. Last I checked, states are NOT people, but made up of people. While it could be argued that those states are not just made up of people, but individuals, it can also be argued that the founding fathers did not write the whole of the Bill of Rights to the same depth as say, the Affordable Care Act (2409 pages on just one concept, not a whole nation's core laws).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry
With a feather? A pen? A musket? Wise words? Good deeds? Deep education? Or sound principles?
Your assuming a huge amount of stuff on that one line. What's the point of being armed (with a firearm) if you have no knowledge if it will help in a conflict?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton
See the last quote from Mr. Henry, and the answer.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington
Yes, Mr. Washington was a military man. An he was part of something larger than mere militia. A well organized army. Maybe not as organized as the British he faced off with, but still, considerately more so than a hodge-podge of militias all thrown together. Show the evidence that he is directing this quote towards individuals not in an organized group with rules and command structure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Which side of the Civil War was Arkansas on? Oh yeah, the side that LOST! Would they still be a bit 'pissed' at losing a mere thirteen years earlier? Could it be said they would desire to 'throw a monkey wrench' into the system as payback?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922
That's the top court for the STATE of Michigan, NOT, the US Supreme Court (that would be the top federal court). State legistators could not make laws that surpass those within the US Federal Laws.
Did you bother to look up where this one comes from?
If that case was brought up in the modern day court it would take the defense all of ten seconds to ask the judge to force the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the revolver was the true possession of the person that did not have a permit for it, and NOT, the other four guys with shotguns in the car with him!
"It will be noticed that our Constitution is inclusive of the right of every person to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state, and not merely citizens, as in the state of Pennsylvania."
Notice the wording. It does not state the arm is for individual use, but for defense of all things, from the citizen to the state.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
An who said that wording....specifically....Kirata? It comes from a thirteen page document file by none other than the Chairman.....Orrin G. Hatch. Which political party is he in again, Kirata? Oh that's right the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Has he accepted money from gun groups and the NRA? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. So has he gained from helping to redefine an amendment outside of the normal protocols of such things? Of course he has (how many terms has he had?). Did people complain about it? HELL YEAH!
You should check out Article V, in the US Constitution. It spells out how the amendment process works (creating, modifying, and removing/nullifying):
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "
Does it say anywhere in there that one person, in the US Congress, has the power to redefine anything within the US Constitution (and amendments) with a simple, one sided, history lesson? *NO*.
The problem you have (of many it seems), is the inability to put yourself in the 18th century American's shoes and look at the world. They had a very different understanding of 'ownership' of firearms. It was not a huge concern of theirs when compared to 21st century gun nuts. Making sure they had good harvests, do good things like the Good Book states, raise good families, and participate if they can in this 'great experiment' of some geez politician in some unheard of, let alone, untraveled place in the United States of America. That was important to them. Making sure evil people did not prey upon them or their families, was safe guarded by the local militia whose duty was to not just protect but be lawful and just (which means, they had rules and penalties).
|
|
|
|
