85 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

The longer this country is around the more it is going to have attacks to the Constitution.

The question will be do we want a strong Constitution that is not to be changed at every arbitrary change within society or a diluted and weak Constitution that can be changed at the whim of the average lawmaker.

Quote

Well, unless a background check is done, how do we know if you (general) have lost that privilege?  I work with abused women and families.  It's not unusual for an abuser to uproot his family to another state trying to get around the laws that limit an individual with a violent background.

This would be an appropriate use of background checks, but your right to be placed on said list should be done on an individual basis. When we blanket certain groups into laws we weaken our judicial system not strengthen it.

[questionmark]

lightly, on 05 February 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

The right of the people to keep arms was a clear issue to most of the founders ..  as these quotes from them show...  

http://econfaculty.g...uotes/arms.html

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

• "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  

• "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
  --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46  
  
• 
  
• "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 right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
    -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789  
    
  • 
    
  • " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
    -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
    
  • "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
    -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
    
    • "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
      -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
    • "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  
      
    • 
      
    • "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
      

What was clear to some is the one chapter, what was passed as law quite another. And the only thing relevant is what the majority voted into law. And that is the constitution.

Edited by questionmark, 05 February 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

What was clear to some is the one chapter, what was passed as law quite another. And the only thing relevant is what the majority voted into law. And that is the constitution

In English please

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

In English please

The personal opinions of the framers is irrelevant if 2/3 of them voted for something different. And 2/3 voted for the text as is. And that text is the law, not the opinion of 10 people.

[AsteroidX]

So what your saying what they said is not important today ? cause Ill just throw that back at you and say much of what was said yesterday is irrelevant today or is there hard date for things maintaining relevant that anything said before is irrelevant. Perhaps 1933 would be a good year to say anything before was irrelevant.

As to the signing of the Constitution I personally am aware of the controversies over the wordings and where the pulled some of the text used from. There are even people that refused to sign it as they saw it as too invasive to their freedoms.

Maybe Im not understanding what your saying but I do find the quotes relevant as to the mindset of our forefathers and to get a glimpse as  how to interpret some of the language that was decided upon by the majority of the writers of the Constitution.

[preacherman76]

Besides, the text matches thier quotes. "Shall not be infringed" is exactly what they were trying to say in thier quotes.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

So what your saying what they said is not important today ? cause Ill just throw that back at you and say much of what was said yesterday is irrelevant today or is there hard date for things maintaining relevant that anything said before is irrelevant. Perhaps 1933 would be a good year to say anything before was irrelevant.

As to the signing of the Constitution I personally am aware of the controversies over the wordings and where the pulled some of the text used from. There are even people that refused to sign it as they saw it as too invasive to their freedoms.

Maybe Im not understanding what your saying but I do find the quotes relevant as to the mindset of our forefathers and to get a glimpse as  how to interpret some of the language that was decided upon by the majority of the writers of the Constitution.

I am not saying that it is irrelevant,but as it is not the text of the law it can be discarded when interpreting the law. For that only its text is valid, not any intention a part of the members of Congress had at the time. It was 66 Congresspeople, of whom 44 had to pass the bill. And there were 26 senators, from which 17 had to pass the bill. And then there were 13 States out of which 9 had to pass the bill. So it could even be that the above is the minority opinion (as we don't seem to know everybody's opinion).

Edited by questionmark, 05 February 2013 - 11:14 AM.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

So it could even be that the above is the minority opinion (as we don't seem to know everybody's opinion).

A decent argument but as I have not seen any other opinions and the text of specifically the 2nd Amendment became more restrictive on the insistence on New York (and perhaps others I dont know).

But Ill maintain the quotes are indicative of the beliefs the individuals (some of which had nothing to do with the Constitution) maintained at the time. But in a legal context they are indeed irrelevant unless your trying to understand the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the commas that cause so many confusion. Then the quotes do become a good source of commentary on the subject IMO.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

A decent argument but as I have not seen any other opinions and the text of specifically the 2nd Amendment became more restrictive on the insistence on New York (and perhaps others I dont know).

But Ill maintain the quotes are indicative of the beliefs the individuals (some of which had nothing to do with the Constitution) maintained at the time. But in a legal context they are indeed irrelevant unless your trying to understand the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the commas that cause so many confusion. Then the quotes do become a good source of commentary on the subject IMO.

Be it how it may, what we have is the text, and the text is law. And on top of all else we have to consider that the right of life comes above any of the items as it was put in the original constitutional text.

[Uncle Sam]

As long as there are people like Reid, Obama, and Piers Morgan; there will be people in powerful position to challenge our constitution.

[lightly]

• 
  
  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keepand bear arms, shall not be infringed.
  
     .. maybe i'm dense... but  what part of People , and Keep,  is being misunderstood?  It doesn't say     " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[lightly]

Uncle Sam, on 05 February 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

As long as there are people like Reid, Obama, and Piers Morgan; there will be people in powerful position to challenge our constitution.

As long as there is a congress and the american people there will be those in powerful position to do what ever we want  with  the constitution.

[questionmark]

lightly, on 05 February 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

• 
  
  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keepand bear arms, shall not be infringed.
  
     .. maybe i'm dense... but  what part of People , and Keep,  is being misunderstood?  It doesn't say " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And as with all laws, they are valid unless they infringe on a superior law, which in the case of the second amendment is the right to life put in the constitution. Laws follow a priority scheme, the top law is the constitution, after that come the amendments and after that the normal laws, all have to conform to the law on top of them.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

As long as there is a congress and the american people there will be those in powerful position to do what ever we want  with  the constitution.

If only it were that simple. If you want to talk about the Constitution and changing it you need to figure in how it will impact future generations. Or leave it alone.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

And as with all laws, they are valid unless they infringe on a superior law, which in the case of the second amendment is the right to life put in the constitution. Laws follow a priority scheme, the top law is the constitution, after that come the amendments and after that the normal laws, all have to conform to the law on top of them.

You 2 are talking apples and oranges. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with ones right to life. But I agree thats a founding principle of this country.