Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 50 Next >>
Topic: OT: Texas mayor shoots daughter, then herself... (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John OConnor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1112
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 10:13am | IP Logged | 1  

the argument would then be made that the National Guard is PART of the Federal government with the example of them being repeatedly activated in the last 20 years to fight against assorted middle eastern insurgents....
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 10:32am | IP Logged | 2  

BTW, needing guns to hunt is just as archaic as needing them to form a militia, IMO.

Recall how Wolverine responded to Storm way back when he told her he went hunting.  Kinf of sums up my thoughts on the matter.

You dont need guns to form militias, go hunting, or go target shooting.  Self defense/home defense is probably a better reason to own a gun.  We all seem to agree that they were designed to kill.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Michael Abbey
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2007
Posts: 344
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 10:32am | IP Logged | 3  

Evasion.  Not an answer.  Please explain your interpretation Michael.

+++

I believe that it was thought that some rights were so intrinsic to being free men, that they needed to be specifically enumerated to protect them from the government. Hence the Bill of Rights. Gun ownership was one of these.



Edited by Michael Abbey on 30 July 2010 at 10:33am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
L’Homme Diabolique

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7592
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 11:00am | IP Logged | 4  

BTW, needing guns to hunt is just as archaic as needing them to form a militia

***

I'm about as staunchly anti-gun as you're going to get, but my position on guns for hunting has been softening.  (Mind you, I mean real hunting -- for food, not "sport".) 

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile eating meat with the atrocious way animals are treated by the meat industry.  At least hunted animals lived normal lives in the wild, rather than being crammed into tiny filthy cages their entire existence, prior to being killed.

But that's a whole other discussion.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 11:33am | IP Logged | 5  

This was clearly their intent.

******************

And it very well may have been, but that was at a time when the main weapon that people had was a musket. Can any of you say that if they could have forseen what kind of weapons we had today that they wouldn't have worded it differently. I certainly can't. I also can't say that they wouldn't have kept it exactly the same.

But at least I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong, whereas Mr. Abbey is so sure that quotes advocating that any single person can own a gun from 200+ years ago, should be all we consider when we pass gun laws.

But if only they had put those words "in service" into that amendment then it all would be so clear.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135316
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 11:58am | IP Logged | 6  

I believe that it was thought that some rights were so intrinsic to being free men, that they needed to be specifically enumerated to protect them from the government. Hence the Bill of Rights. Gun ownership was one of these.

••

Look out for that banana peel! Oops! Down he goes!

Once more, with feeling:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…"

Well regulated. And who is it who imposes and maintains regulations? THE GOVERNMENT. So, the moment you invoke the Second Amendment as something that protects you and it FROM the government, you and it LOSE that protection.

Clever, those Founding Fathers!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Abbey
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2007
Posts: 344
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 11:59am | IP Logged | 7  

Well, when the men who were responsible for the Second Amendment seem to disagree with your interpretation, then maybe your interpretation is the issue, not the wording.

-------

They do Michael?  Just how so?

+++

Here's a few quotes. I have more if necessary.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135316
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 8  

But if only they had put those words "in service" into that amendment then it all would be so clear.

••

To the men who wrote the Second Amendment, those words would have been redundant.

The language of the Amendment is crystal clear in the context of its time and place.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135316
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 12:06pm | IP Logged | 9  

Here's a few quotes. I have more if necessary.

••

Some that actually come FROM the Constitution would be fun.

Let's take a look at Mr. Jefferson, for one. He drafted the Declaration of Independence, and included in it phrases that were in staunch opposition to slavery. When the South objected, he allowed those phrases to be deleted. Does that mean he changed his mind? That he decided that, after all, slavery was a good idea?

Or does it mean that he understood what was necessary to accomplish the immediate goals of the Continental Congress? That some problems, however vile they might be, would have to wait their turn for solution?

Whatever the personal thoughts of the gentlemen concerned, the only words that matter are those that made it into the Constitution.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135316
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 12:08pm | IP Logged | 10  

I do find it interesting that JB has fallen back on adding or re-arranging the words in the Second Amendment…

••

I have presented the Second Amendment exactly as written, several times now. Since people like you seem to have trouble with the archaic phrasing, I have also presented a more modern version. The meaning is the same in both.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Abbey
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2007
Posts: 344
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 12:10pm | IP Logged | 11  

I believe that it was thought that some rights were so intrinsic to being free men, that they needed to be specifically enumerated to protect them from the government. Hence the Bill of Rights. Gun ownership was one of these.

••

Look out for that banana peel! Oops! Down he goes!

Once more, with feeling:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…"

Well regulated. And who is it who imposes and maintains regulations? THE GOVERNMENT. So, the moment you invoke the Second Amendment as something that protects you and it FROM the government, you and it LOSE that protection.

Clever, those Founding Fathers!

+++

Okay, JB. A few more for you.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;            --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

 



Edited by Michael Abbey on 30 July 2010 at 12:13pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Abbey
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2007
Posts: 344
Posted: 30 July 2010 at 12:12pm | IP Logged | 12  

Where exactly is the banna peel?

 

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 50 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login