RE: Duty to retreat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MercTech -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/25/2014 5:49:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Really? It was always intended to be an individual right? Prove it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
quote:


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.


quote:

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[112]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[113] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[114] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[115]

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[116]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[117] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[118]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[119] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.[120]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.


quote:

udge Thomas Cooley

Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,[146][147] and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the "right of the people":[148]

It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.




Kirata -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/25/2014 9:40:37 PM)


Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".

K.




MercTech -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 4:10:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".

K.


Could be.. but when I hear "prove it" I tend to go looking for examples and expert opinions and consider it all before making up my mind.

That is, unless I'm picking a contrary point of view, stir the pot, and see how high the fireworks fly. (i.e. dissenting opinion on U.K. gun control... I actually don't care what people in the U.K. want to do in their bailiwick unless they start trying to impose it on others by force)





PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 4:40:37 PM)

quote:

Did you by any chance go to school in England?
that is about the only place they teach this crap.


Bizarre comment. What makes you think they teach anything here at schools about any of it?




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 5:37:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Did you by any chance go to school in England?
that is about the only place they teach this crap.


Bizarre comment. What makes you think they teach anything here at schools about any of it?

So sorry another Englishman said that's where he learned it.
If you say he lied ok.
Though your statement sounds like the English are still in denial about it.
This reminds me of a English actress who said we were unhappy about some
laws so you gave us our independence.
She was surprised to find out there was even a war.
Of course she was an actress so that's not what I call a
first class source regardless of where they come from.




PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 7:35:30 PM)

quote:

Though your statement sounds like the English are still in denial about it.


Jeez, Bama . . . . There's nothing *worth* denying. It's not important to most Brits.

Things might have changed by now, but when I was at school I think I did maybe a couple of hours' worth on the American War of Independence. Britain was fighting major battles for huge land masses all over the world.




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 7:39:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Though your statement sounds like the English are still in denial about it.


Jeez, Bama . . . . There's nothing *worth* denying. It's not important to most Brits.

Things might have changed by now, but when I was at school I think I did maybe a couple of hours' worth on the American War of Independence. Britain was fighting major battles for huge land masses all over the world.

And I can see the lack of emphasis of all those being fought at that time this is the only one the lost.




Zonie63 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 10:18:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Though your statement sounds like the English are still in denial about it.


Jeez, Bama . . . . There's nothing *worth* denying. It's not important to most Brits.

Things might have changed by now, but when I was at school I think I did maybe a couple of hours' worth on the American War of Independence. Britain was fighting major battles for huge land masses all over the world.


Just out of curiosity, how much about America in general is usually studied in British schools? The reason I ask is because I've talked to many Brits who seem remarkably well-informed about contemporary American politics and culture. But I've also found many of these same people rather fuzzy on U.S. history and seem unaware of how America got to this point.

By saying that it's not important to most Brits, it almost sounds like you're intentionally trying to forget your own country's role in helping to set up this remarkable little enterprise we have here. [;)]




BitYakin -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/26/2014 10:53:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Even if your fanciful derailment were related to what actually happened it does not
change the fact that the 2nd was, by the writings of the people who wrote it, was always intended
to be an INDIVIDUAL right. The fear of the opposition was not the it would be taken as such
but that people like you would find a way to twist it into something else.
Your derailment also has zero bearing on the primary subject of the thread, a fictional
duty to retreat.


Really? It was always intended to be an individual right? Prove it.

If anyone here has twisted the 2nd amendment, it would be YOU. Hell you cant even rattle off the first dozen words of the 2nd amendment, and then explain what that means.



there is NO POINT in proving it to you, you just IGNORE the proof and continue to BLATHER ON!
I have seen it proven dozens of times on these threads and yet you INSIST it be PROVEN AGAIN

tell me WHAT EXACTLY will you accept as PROOF, JUDGES have said it, SCHOLARS have said it, the people who WROTE the THING have SAID IT...

do we have to get a WITCH to raise some founding fathers from the dead to tell you FACE TO FACE???




Kirata -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:08:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".

Could be.. but when I hear "prove it" I tend to go looking for examples and expert opinions and consider it all before making up my mind.

Fair enough. Here and here and Heller:

The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation

K.




crazyml -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:27:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Just out of curiosity, how much about America in general is usually studied in British schools? The reason I ask is because I've talked to many Brits who seem remarkably well-informed about contemporary American politics and culture. But I've also found many of these same people rather fuzzy on U.S. history and seem unaware of how America got to this point.

By saying that it's not important to most Brits, it almost sounds like you're intentionally trying to forget your own country's role in helping to set up this remarkable little enterprise we have here. [;)]


I can chip in here - the answer to the first bit, is that American history (both colonial and post liberation) is barely touched on. Part of the problem, and this isn't intended as a dig, is that we have so much fucking history! In the early 1800's we were fighting a European war, and afterwards we set about creating the British Raj in India (again, I'm not bragging - it's just what happened). So pretty much every topic from Ireland, to America, to India is covered very superficially.

People will tend to be moderately well informed about the current state of the US because, given the USA's superpower status, our news papers and TV news cover american politics in a fair bit of detail. The one downfall of the coverage is that we tend to get a pretty polarized view of america - which, must like this section of the boards, doesn't necessarily represent what regular Americans think and do.





joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 3:27:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".



And you usually bring nothing useful to most threads.




Toysinbabeland -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 3:34:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".



And you usually bring nothing useful to most threads.



Isn't it better to bring facts than opinion?




PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 3:47:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
By saying that it's not important to most Brits, it almost sounds like you're intentionally trying to forget your own country's role in helping to set up this remarkable little enterprise we have here. [;)]


Crazy's answered the first past of your post. But as for that: I think an awful lot of Americans *will* believe that there's something intentional about our trying to forget. It's odd. It falls into 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar' territory. There's no denial involved - nothing for the psychoanalysts to pounce on. There's not really any other way to say it than 'it doesn't mean much to most Brits'.




joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 3:59:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Even if your fanciful derailment were related to what actually happened it does not
change the fact that the 2nd was, by the writings of the people who wrote it, was always intended
to be an INDIVIDUAL right. The fear of the opposition was not the it would be taken as such
but that people like you would find a way to twist it into something else.
Your derailment also has zero bearing on the primary subject of the thread, a fictional
duty to retreat.

Really? It was always intended to be an individual right? Prove it.

If anyone here has twisted the 2nd amendment, it would be YOU. Hell you cant even rattle off the first dozen words of the 2nd amendment, and then explain what that means.

there is NO POINT in proving it to you, you just IGNORE the proof and continue to BLATHER ON!
I have seen it proven dozens of times on these threads and yet you INSIST it be PROVEN AGAIN

tell me WHAT EXACTLY will you accept as PROOF, JUDGES have said it, SCHOLARS have said it, the people who WROTE the THING have SAID IT...

do we have to get a WITCH to raise some founding fathers from the dead to tell you FACE TO FACE???


Its not so much proof, as it is the worry of 'down the road'. Slippery slopes aside, I think the founding fathers had a view on America all together different from what is known today. Don't know how to exactly prove it. The idea is that the 'militia' while following rules would not become a tyrant in itself, since its made up of the people. If the people are together, in common and just cause, the community would do well against any threat (man-made or natural disaster). That this militia would be something that brought the community together for something different then celebration or town/local politics; that it would be to show resolve in the concept of being a free people. In those days, it would have been relatively easy, since a few hours on the town common is a good way to chat with neighbors from far away (they didn't travel as much). Somewhere along the line, that practice and/or custom died out or grew disfavored.

The concept of the militia was to be accountable and responsible with power. But also, it would help neighboring towns and even the state for domestic problems (riots, flooding, fires, Indians) or foreign ones (other nations, Indians, God-Destroying-Stuff). But that the idea was, if the government (state or federal) could order a militia to handle something, could it also demand they surrender their weapons as a pre-emptive to a tyrannical power taking over in government? The answer is 'no'.

The concept of a militia is not really used as per the 2nd amendment in 2014. Some would argue that police stations are the modern equivalent to militias of the 18th century. If that was true, then we are left with whether individuals not part of that modern militia can have their arms protected under the 2nd. Yes, I know what the court cases say. By why so many court cases on the 2nd when we hardly have even a dozen for the 3rd? Unlike the 1st amendment which is not based on anything....tangible....the 2nd and 3rd are both based on tangible items (i.e. guns and housing soldiers). Given that for every one homeless person in this nation, there are some twenty-three vacant homes, I do not see the 3rd coming up much in the future. But the 2nd comes into 'the rights of the individual' verse 'the society being safe'. Mr. Franklin quotes aside, we are a people more knowledged of the human mind in 2014 then the founding fathers of the 18th century. Can someone mentally and/or emotionally unstable obtain a firearm? According to the gun nuts, 'yes', is the answer. To all the sane gun owners and other citizens, its 'no'. Should we test it in a court of law?

Just because it hasn't come up, doesn't mean it wont come up.

Also, do we take the amendments as written in stone, or can they be changed and/or modified. The Constitution was intended as a living document not the Holy Bible. Would it not be wise to debate the issue when nothing like 'Sandy Hook' like event is taking place? or do so when everyone's on edge? Which sounds wiser? Kirata would like to debate this while a Sandy Hook event has recently taken place. I disagree. We as a nation should help those families suffering from grief and lost....NOT....let's debate the 2nd.

If we wish to hide behind court cases, then when the next truly horrible event that pales Sandy Hook erupts; things will not go well for gun owners or the 2nd. Or, debate a hypothetical direction. One that places the 2nd with organized militias (i.e. police stations, for example) and another dealing with the individuals right to self defense? Funny how I keep getting bashed for being forward looking by those so closed off to reality and afraid of things I cant identify as of yet.




joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 4:02:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".


And you usually bring nothing useful to most threads.

Isn't it better to bring facts than opinion?


Funny how it was opinions that brought about the United States of America in the first place. Or have you not studied early American history? Why did the Boston Tea Party take place?





Politesub53 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:49:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Though your statement sounds like the English are still in denial about it.


Jeez, Bama . . . . There's nothing *worth* denying. It's not important to most Brits.

Things might have changed by now, but when I was at school I think I did maybe a couple of hours' worth on the American War of Independence. Britain was fighting major battles for huge land masses all over the world.

And I can see the lack of emphasis of all those being fought at that time this is the only one the lost.


Someone point out to him that it was because it was the least important, he has me blocked, allegedly.

Firstly, the bigger picture was the ongoing war with the French indeed it was only after the Seven Years War the the British ended the policy of Salutory Neglect. IE, most colonies were left to run themselves to a degree. Many British commanders declined to fight in the War Of Independence, including Amhurst, partly as it was seen in the UK to be a civil war. As such, no battle honours were awarded.

France had held long term plans to invade the UK, and when Spain joined forces with the French, they were the major concern. Amehurst had considered 95,000 troops would be needed to defeat the patriots, along with an increased naval force. The government refued to allow these sort of numbers to be raised from elsewhere in Europe, which would have played into French hands.




Politesub53 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:59:20 AM)

In reply to some of the younger British posters, my own education differed. I went to a Grammar School in the sixties and at 13 we had to chose between several subjects, along with Maths and English, for our GCE exams. One of my choices was History, which included just about every major event since 1066.

One outcome of the War of Indepedence came after Napolean was finally defeated. It was that the old order was unacceptable and reforms had to be made. This eventually led to the 1831 Reform Act. The Poor Act etc etc.




DomKen -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:59:43 AM)

Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be.




Toysinbabeland -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 7:39:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom".


And you usually bring nothing useful to most threads.

Isn't it better to bring facts than opinion?


Funny how it was opinions that brought about the United States of America in the first place. Or have you not studied early American history? Why did the Boston Tea Party take place?


Are you saying your opinion outweighs facts?







Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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