Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
A farmer whom grows crops has a firearm because he belongs to the town's militia, is supporting a right. A hunter whom using a firearm for his profession but not part of "A well regulated militia...." is not protected by that same right as the farmer against the government placing a limit on said firearms. A person whom believes they should have any firearm, for any reason, without constraint or rule, is someone open to abusing a right (i.e. a sovereign citizen).
This example should show to you that I am quite well aware of the right you and I enjoy discussing on other topics. That it is a 18th century understanding of that right, should also be used as clarification here. But I could argue that the same does apply even if I'm at odds in the argument to an organization that also thinks corporations are people too....
There are both limits and exceptions to almost each and every amendment found within the US Constitution's amendments section. Some amendments may have more than just one exceptional and/or limitation. That being ignorant of the exception and/or limitation is not justifiable grounds to ignore or abuse it. If caught in a legal and/or criminal case, I believe either you would have done the research to understand it, or be properly advised by your lawyer.
'Freedom of Speech' (one of five primary concepts of the 1st amendment) does have several limitations and exceptions to the rule. These are easily found with a simple web search you can do on your own. They are quite interesting to learn about and the history of how they came into being (I think you might enjoy learning such information, to be frank and sincere). FOX 'news' spreads lies in its 'journalistic' reporting; it has a freedom under the 1st to do such. However, it does not have the right to force me to believe any of the garbage as truthful or factual, when I can easily obtain the truth and/or fact from many other sources. When they do it, its often for a political agenda rather than keeping good, honest journalism integrity with their organization (the original concept for the 18th century understanding of the freedom). Which is often why most people out side of 'Low Information Voters' do not trust their 'reporting' of information until its been thoroughly checked and re-checked.
President Barlett in an episode of the TV series "The West Wing" put it best:
"When you have the facts in court, argue the facts. When you have evidence in court, argue the evidence. When you have neither the facts nor evidence in court; bang the table louder than the other guy can speak on either"
Which is a form of silencing speech. An this has been observed at....MANY....town hall style meetings in which Democrats had the facts and/or evidence on their side when discussing a topic. At the same time, Republican/Tea Party folks behaved like immature children, shouting over the speaker in an effort to drown out the facts and evidence. In the media format, its easier to tell lies than facts or giving evidence. It takes time to verify the information being used, or establishing the evidence is true without corruption or error. When your lying, you can just make shit up. Which is often why it takes time to debunk some of the bullshit the conservative right publishes on a wide array of concepts and issues. By the time people get around to debunking the lies with solid facts and evidence, the very people manipulated by the original lying are conditioned not to accept the information from the debunking as true; but instead fight against it.
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." [this means anything that is not against the law, therefore owning an *arm* 'for the hell of it' is not unlawful] This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Joe you really need to read Cruikshank http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9699370891451726349&q=US+v.+CRUIKSHANK+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,50
The Second Amendment was based partially [not partially, in whole] on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Look at this Joe-->> Sir William Blackstone KC SL (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780 was an English jurist, judge and Tory politician) described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
English Bill of Rights 1689
Provisions of the Act
The Bill of Rights dealt with constitutional matters and laid out basic civil rights. Specifically, the Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties":[12]
laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;
no taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;
the right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;
no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;[note 3]
Protestant subjects may have arms for their defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law;
the election of members of Parliament should be free;
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;
promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
Parliaments should be held frequently.
In a prelude to the Act of Settlement to come twelve years later, the Bill of Rights barred Roman Catholics from the throne of England as "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"; thus William III and Mary II were named as the successors of James II and that the throne would pass from them first to Mary's heirs, then to her sister, Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs (and, thereafter, to any heirs of William by a later marriage).
English Bill of Rights 1689
Parliament of England
Long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.
Ratified December 16, 1689
Location Parliamentary Archives
Author(s) Parliament of England
Purpose Assert the rights of Parliament and the individual, and ensure a Protestant political supremacy.
The Bill of Rights is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689 in the wake of the Glorious Revolution.[1][note 1] It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in February 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights described and condemned several misdeeds of James II of England.[2]
Hence why I correctly label them the founding cut and pasters!
Right down to the tune we use! Everything cut and paste!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9eK9fWUb3s
Britain
God Save the Queen
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen!
O lord God arise,
Scatter our enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their knavish tricks,
Confuse their politics,
On you our hopes we fix,
God save the Queen!
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world ov'er
From every latent foe,
From the assasins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign!
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!
Do you recognize that tune?
You are looking at the interests of state and dismissing the interests of the individual whom without, the state cannot exist, hence the pecking order is not militia first protecting the state but protecting the creator of the state presumably the living bodies of men and women, later the institutions created by the living bodies of men and women. The states interest is itself, -militia- the individuals interest is his/her body. The welfare of the body protects the welfare of the state. The right to protect his/her own life with 'arms', and as black stone said also against despots et al.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 6/14/2015 9:32:42 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Police Shoot to Death One Unarmed Person Every 3 Da... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
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