| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
dtguitarfan 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
 Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:55 |
 Epignosis wrote:
When you're through posting silly cartoons, feel free to respond to George Washington the page back.
|
George Washington is not the constitution, and the constitution is not the infallible word of god. Everyone is arguing about interpretation of the constitution, and it feels so much like arguing over the interpretation of the Bible. I think we're missing the spirit of the law in arguing over the letter of it. All this arguing over what a militia is and who is in the militia is crazy word games. If we're ALL the militia (which is an idiotic idea in my opinion), then we are subject to regulation, and we ought to be trained and disciplined and we ought to be ready to be employed in the service of our country as the Constitution says. If we aren't all of those things, then we don't get to have guns. Period.
|
|
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:01 |
It does have the enumerated power 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia' ... and since the reason for bearing arms is for the purposes of forming said militia then control over arms is a part of that.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:08 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
When you're through posting silly cartoons, feel free to respond to George Washington the page back. |
George Washington is not the constitution, and the constitution is not the infallible word of god. Everyone is arguing about interpretation of the constitution, and it feels so much like arguing over the interpretation of the Bible. I think we're missing the spirit of the law in arguing over the letter of it. All this arguing over what a militia is and who is in the militia is crazy word games. If we're ALL the militia (which is an idiotic idea in my opinion), then we are subject to regulation, and we ought to be trained and disciplined and we ought to be ready to be employed in the service of our country as the Constitution says. If we aren't all of those things, then we don't get to have guns. Period.
|
I do not believe it is an idiotic idea in context of the times. Back then the notion of a standing army was unpopular (in several countries, not just the USA), prior to the establishment of a standing (regular) army all armies were formed from conscripted militia. The idea behind having all people trained and able was so they could be called to arms when required without the need for a standing army that cost money to provide for whether they were needed or not.
|
|
What?
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:22 |
Then we should all be, as you put it, " trained and able." Since we're not, we don't get to have guns. And even if we all were, that doesn't mean we get to have any kind of gun we want. The government CAN restrict the type and magnitude of arms we are allowed to have. They have always been able to, and have always done so.
|
|
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:48 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Then we should all be, as you put it, "trained and able." Since we're not, we don't get to have guns. And even if we all were, that doesn't mean we get to have any kind of gun we want. The government CAN restrict the type and magnitude of arms we are allowed to have. They have always been able to, and have always done so.
|
Standing armies should still be unpopular. I suggest watching the entire episode, I posted, instead of just the 1 minute segment. You both are adding qualifiers that clearly don't exist and making up authorities that the federal government does not have (they clearly no longer respect their Constitutional limitations in most areas). You both seem to be playing to that "the government is our team" fallacy. The founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, largely using an armed citizenry. The point of protecting the right of citizens to bear arms was to allow them to protect themselves from government, not to be in service of government. Equality makes a good point, as well, the Constitution grants no power to regulate firearms. This argument largely breaks down to gun control advocates twisting language (there's no such thing as an "assault weapon") to suit needs that attack liberty and make us all less safe, anyway. If you want to have a debate about creating an amendment to the Constitution we can but stop twisting existing words to try to justify taking away a liberty based on an emotional reaction you're having.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:48 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Then we should all be, as you put it, "trained and able." Since we're not, we don't get to have guns. And even if we all were, that doesn't mean we get to have any kind of gun we want. The government CAN restrict the type and magnitude of arms we are allowed to have. They have always been able to, and have always done so.
|
This is what happens when a small standing army augmented by a militia is superceeded by a large standing army augmented by reservists. The technology and subsequent training of modern warfare has rendered the notion of a militia as redundant as a knight on horseback or practicing archery on the village green.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:58 |
manofmystery wrote:
Standing armies should still be unpopular. I suggest watching the entire episode, I posted, instead of just the 1 minute segment. You both are adding qualifiers that clearly don't exist and making up authorities that the federal government does not have (they clearly no longer respect their Constitutional limitations in most areas). You both seem to be playing to that "the government is our team" fallacy. The founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, largely using an armed citizenry. The point of protecting the right of citizens to bear arms was to allow them to protect themselves from government, not to be in service of government. Equality makes a good point, as well, the Constitution grants no power to regulate firearms. This argument largely breaks down to gun control advocates twisting language (there's no such thing as an "assault weapon") to suit needs that attack liberty and make us all less safe, anyway. If you want to have a debate about creating an amendment to the Constitution we can but stop twisting existing words to try to justify taking away a liberty based on an emotional reaction you're having. |
If you didn't want people to watch the 1 minute segment then you should not have posted it. Jillette's interpretation in that 1 minute segment was flawed and I showed that, the twisting of existing words to justify something was within that 1 minute segment. If they then qualified that by showing that the non-existent "BUT" is actually there then show it in your own words if necessary
Your government is not my team, your Constitution is not my Constitution to change. I am an outsider looking in and trying to understand the distinctions between what is written and what people think that means. I make no distinction between assault weapons and a bow and arrow.
|
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:00 |
The law should always be applied as written. Trying to interpret the "spirit" of the law renders it useless. A law is supposed to be known by everybody so they can act aware of the consequences. If the law's meaning is constantly "interpreted according to the spirit" it becomes a tool in the hands of those interpreting it.
The discussion going on in the US should be then amending the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:02 |
The T wrote:
The law should always be applied as written. Trying to interpret the "spirit" of the law renders it useless. A law is supposed to be known by everybody so they can act aware of the consequences. If the law's meaning is constantly "interpreted according to the spirit" it becomes a tool in the hands of those interpreting it.
The discussion going on in the US should be then amending the constitution. |
Isn't that like suggesting rewriting the bible to suit modern times.
|
|
What?
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:03 |
manofmystery wrote:
The founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, largely using an armed citizenry. |
"A tyrannical government"? I thought the American insurgence was due to a question of taxes (Currency Act, Sugar Act, Stamp Act...) Oh, silly me! All governments are tyrannical.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:21 |
Dean wrote:
The T wrote:
The law should always be applied as written. Trying to interpret the "spirit" of the law renders it useless. A law is supposed to be known by everybody so they can act aware of the consequences. If the law's meaning is constantly "interpreted according to the spirit" it becomes a tool in the hands of those interpreting it.
The discussion going on in the US should be then amending the constitution. |
Isn't that like suggesting rewriting the bible to suit modern times. |
Not at all.
|
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:40 |
manofmystery wrote:
You both seem to be playing to that "the government is our team" fallacy. The founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, largely using an armed citizenry.
|
Perhaps we are, perhaps not - but you, and most conservatives these days, seem to be fond of playing the paranoid schizophrenic game of "AHHH! THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US! WE NEED TO CONSTANTLY BE TRYING TO DESTROY IT!!!!!" That's no way to live, man. Some of us would rather try to fix the government we have than to always be trying to break it in order to prove it doesn't work....
Edited by dtguitarfan - January 18 2013 at 14:01
|
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:42 |
The T wrote:
The law should always be applied as written. Trying to interpret the "spirit" of the law renders it useless. A law is supposed to be known by everybody so they can act aware of the consequences. If the law's meaning is constantly "interpreted according to the spirit" it becomes a tool in the hands of those interpreting it.
The discussion going on in the US should be then amending the constitution. |
So men who lived over 200 years ago wrote something that was perfect, and perfectly applies to today?
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:58 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
The T wrote:
The law should always be applied as written. Trying to interpret the "spirit" of the law renders it useless. A law is supposed to be known by everybody so they can act aware of the consequences. If the law's meaning is constantly "interpreted according to the spirit" it becomes a tool in the hands of those interpreting it. The discussion going on in the US should be then amending the constitution. |
So men who lived over 200 years ago wrote something that was perfect, and perfectly applies to today? |
Where did I say that? Can't you read properly? If you have ever read something about the law in general (not any specific law but "the law") you would know how it is expected to be known so people can be aware of consequences and act accordingly. I'm just saying that for the debate and any new rules to be properly applied and legally justified the law itself has to be changed. Try taking off your ex-republican-in-penance glasses and you'll be able to read when someone is saying something that is not your typical "ho ho ho Palin ho ho ho Beck right wing nut craziness" that you love to childishly make fun of.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 12:30 |
Dean wrote:
It does have the enumerated power 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia' ... and since the reason for bearing arms is for the purposes of forming said militia then control over arms is a part of that. |
Why is the reason to pair arms to form a militia? I see in no way how that enables the Congress to prohibit the sale of a good.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 12:53 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Why is the reason to pair arms to form a militia? |
In 1791 what other reasons were there and are they applicable 200 years later?
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I see in no way how that enables the Congress to prohibit the sale of a good.
|
Oh, okay, you don't and I do.
A yew long-bow, a hand gun, a sniper rifle, a semi-automatic, an anti-tank missile, an anti-personnel mine and a quantity of weapons grade plutonium are all viable weapons for arming a government backed militia and I make no distinction between them. If congress is empowered to arm the people who would form the militia then congress can control which weapons are available for those people to buy for that purpose.
|
|
What?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 13:30 |
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Why is the reason to pair arms to form a militia? |
In 1791 what other reasons were there and are they applicable 200 years later? |
Because the right exists a priori, to hunt, to protect one's self from one's government, to provide for law enforcement. With the exception of the final, all are still applicable today.
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I see in no way how that enables the Congress to prohibit the sale of a good.
|
Oh, okay, you don't and I do.
A yew long-bow, a hand gun, a sniper rifle, a semi-automatic, an anti-tank missile, an anti-personnel mine and a quantity of weapons grade plutonium are all viable weapons for arming a government backed militia and I make no distinction between them. If congress is empowered to arm the people who would form the militia then congress can control which weapons are available for those people to buy for that purpose.
|
You realize that was a "I don't see so please explain." ? So the function of the people as a people and the function of the people as a militia does not deserve any distinction?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 13:56 |
In 1791 the hunt was for food, not for sport (for the common man that is) - that is no longer applicable - hunting is now a sport, not for a survival, that was never the intention back then. As I said earlier I do not believe that the second ammendment was ever to allow the people to protect themselves from their own government. The provision of law enforcement in 1791 (for example the night watch, which was a formal militia) was not by guns but by billy clubs or night-stick.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I see in no way how that enables the Congress to prohibit the sale of a good.
|
Oh, okay, you don't and I do.
A yew long-bow, a hand gun, a sniper rifle, a semi-automatic, an anti-tank missile, an anti-personnel mine and a quantity of weapons grade plutonium are all viable weapons for arming a government backed militia and I make no distinction between them. If congress is empowered to arm the people who would form the militia then congress can control which weapons are available for those people to buy for that purpose.
|
So the function of the people as a people and the function of the people as a militia does not deserve any distinction?
|
I don't understand the sentence.
|
|
What?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 14:07 |
Dean wrote:
In 1791 the hunt was for food, not for sport (for the common man that is) - that is no longer applicable - hunting is now a sport, not for a survival, that was never the intention back then. As I said earlier I do not believe that the second ammendment was ever to allow the people to protect themselves from their own government. The provision of law enforcement in 1791 (for example the night watch, which was a formal militia) was not by guns but by billy clubs or night-stick. |
People still hunt for food. And people still hunted for sport in 1791. I'll provide plenty of sources later to hopefully convince you of the second point. As to the third, I meant in the sense of protection since a law enforcement proxy didn't exist. [
Dean wrote:
I don't understand the sentence. |
I'll buy your premise for the purpose of this. However, Congress being able to regulate the militia which is composed of people does not equation to Congress being able to regulate the people separate from their function as militia.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: January 18 2013 at 14:26 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
In 1791 the hunt was for food, not for sport (for the common man that is) - that is no longer applicable - hunting is now a sport, not for a survival, that was never the intention back then. As I said earlier I do not believe that the second ammendment was ever to allow the people to protect themselves from their own government. The provision of law enforcement in 1791 (for example the night watch, which was a formal militia) was not by guns but by billy clubs or night-stick. |
People still hunt for food. And people still hunted for sport in 1791. I'll provide plenty of sources later to hopefully convince you of the second point. As to the third, I meant in the sense of protection since a law enforcement proxy didn't exist.
[
Dean wrote:
I don't understand the sentence. |
I'll buy your premise for the purpose of this. However, Congress being able to regulate the militia which is composed of people does not equation to Congress being able to regulate the people separate from their function as militia.
|
Wait...so Congress can't regulate me unless I'm performing Militia duties? Oh boy, I'm gonna speed while drunk and selling drugs tonight! (Not really - that's sarcasm, just so I don't get a knock on my door from a man in a black suit and sunglasses.  )
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
