See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2417
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Obama is going to shut down 95% of the Federal Government, abolish the Department of Education, end the "War on Drugs" and ... ? That would be "obeying the Constitution".
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
His votes in the Senate prove he is a liar. But then he is a politician so that is not unexpected. What is unbelievable is that so many people have been taken in by this jug-eared clown.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong. If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Does Obama's Constitution contain the 2nd Amendment? I think it is important to establish whether the Constitution he is reading is the same one we are reading.
If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong? If he actually obeys that oath he is required to take and shuts down most of the federal government? Not get us involved in undeclared (and therefore illegal) wars? End the welfare state which has no constitutional authorization? Tell the people that the "income" tax has been deliberately misapplied to things which are not "income" and that they should demand an end to it? Tell people that the Federal Reserve is a criminal syndicate that should be disbanded and the gold they have stolen returned to the Treasury? Yeah sure, if he does all of that I will be one of his biggest supporters.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. When he says he will obey he means he will {sometime in the future} obey the Constitution {maybe} as opposed to "Because I am a presidential candidate who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and obeys the Constitution of the United States of America." Same old lawyer parsing.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference. Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights . You may quarrel with the extent to which he would permit regulation, but he obviously believes the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong? I see. If he does those things, it won't be good enough for you. I guess you're prepared to live in a country that lacks habeas corpus. For some of us, those changes would count for a lot.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
To repeat: If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong? And I'd say two years is a reasonable time in which to expect him to do those things. If he doesn't do it within that time frame, I'll admit I was wrong. What about you?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Actually I'm counting on Obama to wake up whitey. Or enough of whites, at any rate; Beaton -- how appropriate! -- looks pretty hopeless here. Closing Guantanamo, if it happened, would be nice too, of course.
If you will go along with me we'll travel with the tide Yup. How can you make the Constitution say what you want it to say! We have the document. We have an owner's guide in the form of the Federalist Papers. We have an amendment process which is how the Constitution is supposed to be "re-interpreted". It is not a living document. The only possible "re-interpretation" are decisions such as determining whether or not new technologies such as the Internet falls under the First Amendment, whether or not electronic surveillance is covered by the Fourth Amendment, and such. That would be "obeying the Constitution". If you want a Department of Education, get an amendment that says "Congress shall facilitate the education of the people and have the power to pass the appropriate laws" or something like that. But that isn't what will happen. All politicians have this problem. Its not just an Obama thing.
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
It's a lawyer thing.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
A lot of people on this forum seem strangely unwilling to admit that.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Not everyone. Closing most of the "external" military bases would be an outstanding idea as well. Can we get that too as part of the package?
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
Are you aware of the fact that Obama wants a national ban on concealed carry? BHO's past actions, proposals, and votes give the lie to his words in this speech, it seems to me.
Just one more thing that proves he is full of crap. No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Why should it be enough when he has said that he understands the Constitution and would obey it? You pick out two things out of the hundreds of things the government has screwed up and trashed the Constitution and those two things are enough for you? That is pretty sad.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Novak's recent column on Obama's position on the Second Amendment says nothing about a stand on concealed weapons, but indicates his position on guns has evolved. Your link is about a Chicago Tribune article from 2004. If Novak knew Obama currently wants a national ban on concealed carry, surely he would mention it.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I know he thinks the 2A is in the constitution, but does he interpret it correctly? That is my point. We all know he doesn't, and pushes for strict gun control. In that case, it might as well not exist. Someone else quoted him as saying he believes the Constitution grants us the individual right. He is a crappy constitutional law professor.
And George Bush said he would have a humble foreign policy and not partake in nation building activites. He also swore up and down he was a conservative. I'm sorry ari, but I do not believe Senator Obama. The Democratic Party does not have a history of following the Constitution and instead have a history of reinterpreting it to mean things it has never meant in the past. I can see no reason why they would change their ways now.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Let's read the second amendment, shall we? 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. My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, since the founding daddies decided that not infringing on the right helps with the security of the free State, they agreed not to infringe it. Let's see if you can follow me now. If the free State may or may not infringe on the right to bear arms, the free State is effectively granting it, through the second amendment. Because, if the free State finds that it has no need for a well regulated Militia, then the free State may decide to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and there's nothing God can do about it other than maybe do an earthquake or send over some plague. I hope you understand now. Obama is right and you are not, which is not surprising at all, given his intellectual superiority.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Perhaps he never looked into it. In any case, actions speak louder than words, and every step of the way Obama has voted anti-gun. In addition to wanting a national concealed carry ban, he wants to outlaw ALL semi-automatic weapons, which means just about every modern rifle or handgun, as well as some of the finer shotguns made for duck hunting. Here's a link on that.. Recognize this, counselor? Do you think your hero, Obummer, would know who said it and when? As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-'that all men are [111 U.S. 746, 757] endowed'-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10. BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Read post #24. You might learn something (it is within the realm of possibility that even deluded people who support establishment scum are not beyond reach or help).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You'd be wrong, as it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it doesn't say shall not be infringed by Congress.
In what way is your quotation related to the second amendment? I explained it to you, by referring to the words in the second amendment itself that the right to keep and bear arms was tolerated because it served the interests of the State. Nothing to do with God, the pursuit of entertainment or any other freedoms. It's strictly about State security comrade. Shall I quote it to you again? Here it is: 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.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is offered as the reason for allowing the possession of arms. There is no reference to God or inalienable rights. It's something very practical.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
To repeat, once again: If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong? To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong? How could I not admit that I was wrong? It would be plain for everyone to see. But to answer your question, yes. If he closes Gitmo and restores habeas corpus, then I will indeed admit that I was wrong.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Hehehe.. Obama is a Consthitutional pro-festhor dontch'a know. You're getting pretty sneaky there lumping in understanding with obeying in the same breath. I honestly don't think he understands it, or obeys it. The best way to judge how a person will behave in the future, is to look at how they behaved in the past. Some people will fall for anything. After W, how anyone can trust any of these candidates is beyond me. Politicians keep throwing out the same bait... and the fish bite.
The Militia as referred to by the 2nd Amendment was understood to be all free men aged 18-45. In fact, there were laws on the books that REQUIRED men of that age to acquire a firearm. The "free State" was the United States itself. The Founders declared the Militia as necessary for the security of the United States, and further elaborated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not too hard to understand, at least in my opinion.
Justice Field's concurrence in that case, apparently giving the force of law to the Declaration of Independence, is contrary to the prevailing view of the courts on that point (i.e., whether the Declaration of Independence has the force of law.) As a concurrence, it of course does not itself have the force of law. On what the Supreme Court has held on this issue, see the article on "Declaration of Independence" in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2nd edition 2005), pp. 255-56.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Glad to hear it. I think you're the first person on this thread to answer my question in the affirmative.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
What is it about "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" that has you puzzled? Or is it the "shall not be infringed" that you don't quite get? If the second amendment applied only to some government sanctioned militia it would have been illegal (apparently) for the government to do a part of its function until the second amendment was ratified (which was a bit later than the adoption of the Constitution). Or is it your contention that Congress could arm the "militia" but the "militia" couldn't accept the arms until the second amendment was ratified? And who is the "militia"? At the time the Constitution was written it was every able-bodied man from 18 on up, not a government army. Here is what the Constitution says about the powers of Congress in regard to the militia: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (On December 15, 1791, Virginia ratified the remaining ten amendments, and the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution.) So I guess in Obummer land the Congress could arm the militia but the militia would have had to wait a few years to accept the arms. LOL! You guys are kinda funny, or would be if lives and liberty were not at issue.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yep, and he's against hi-cap magazines as well. I wonder if his security detail will switch to low-cap magazines, or it will it just be the law-abiding peasants that this new rule will apply to? That's if they don't confiscate the "assault weapon" first, aka a gun that fires more than one bullet without having to reload...
The "free State" was the United States itself. The Founders declared the Militia as necessary for the security of the United States, and further elaborated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not too hard to understand, at least in my opinion. I would like to point all to a most excellent post re: 'well regulated militia'. Props to Dawg. freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...? ArtNum=76144&Disp=53#C53 The US House subcommittee on the RTKBA (1982) was the best treatment of the subject. They very courageously discovered and documented that there were in fact TWO militias. The militia consisted of all able bodied men between the given age range of service who were expected to provide their own weapons, ball and powder. The other was the SELECT MILITIA which were also private citizens who were supplied with weapons and ammo from the state. Neither were to be confused with The Continental Army. The right to keep arms for personal use was so fundamental that the founders saw no need to mention it in the BOR, any more than the right to eat or breathe air. The 2nd amendment was a guarantee that the individual colonies were not dependent upon the national government for the supply of arms to protect themselves. Those who believe that the 2A only guarantees the govt's "right" to arm the national guard are wrong for several reasons. First, nowhere in the constitution is the word "right" used when referring to govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. (Bush federalized the state guards with a stroke of a pen and sent them to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no governors' objections could stop it. So, let's not waste time discussing just who is "the govt" when referring to national guard units.) Second, to suggest that only guardsmen have a 2A right would be like this: "Because an aristocracy of achievement is necessary to the maintenance of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed". In other words as Thos. Jefferson wrote, "A democracy of opportunity will produce an aristocracy of achievement". Would such an amendment guaranteeing the right to read only apply to congressmen and senators, or justices of the courts? Those who suggest that only the national guard has a 2A right would have to argue for this ridiculous interpretation. Those who suggest that the 2nd amendment is archaic and was applicable to another time fail to understand (or acknowledge) that in order to research the Miranda case the SCOTUS went back 4000 years to research the history of rights and render a decision. The simple truth is, America is unique because the people are (supposed to be) sovereign and the govt the servants. All attempts to render the govt superior by denying arms to the people is treason. Those who argue for it are state worshipers, and the 1st amendment guarantees their right to religious freedom, but they do not have any right to impose their religion on all through the govt regulation or banning of useful arms for self defense, or to keep the govt in check. At the time of the adoption of the constitution there were local laws that prohibited the carrying of concealed arms. The prevailing philosophy was "If a man be armed then let the world know it". Only "ne'er-do-wells" and "'scape gallows" had need to always conceal weapons, and that was to prey on the unsuspecting. And honest citizens had no reason to fear that govt would totally ban the carrying of arms, therefore there was no legit need to carry concealed, or to whip it out after too many mugs of grog and during heated political debates in barrooms! However in today's society if a criminal wishes to disarm an honest non belligerent they only have to call 911 and dishonestly claim that someone is brandishing a weapon, and if they can describe your weapon then you're going to jail! And, if you try to walk down certain streets displaying a weapon you'll be surrounded with people who taunt you with things like, "We know why you got dat gun, honky. IT'S CAUSE YOU DONT LIKE NIGGAS, HUH?" and you may be forced to shoot your way out. Or, a robber will simply shoot you in the back of the head (the way they do armored car people transporting cash in or out of a store or bank. These guards often have a weapon in one hand and the money in the other.) In short, nothing good can come from the exposed carry of firearms in certain urban areas where police are waiting to pounce on any citizen exercising his/her right to go armed for legitimate reasons. The 1939 Miller decision involved a sawed off shotgun, and the court ruled that the weapon had no military use and therefore was not a suitable militia weapon. Two points: First, the courts then ruled that a weapon with no military value wasn't constitutionally protected, and today's gun banners (like Bill Clinton) argue that weapons be banned because they're military weapons and have no sporting use! So, the antis and their media friendlies cite the Miller case but are careful never to explain what it says because they want it both ways. Second, the appellant (Miller) did not show up to argue his case before the high court. Had he done so (through counsel) he could have easily demonstrated that sawed off shotguns were used in the trenches in WW1, and their military usefulness could not be disputed. Today the federal govt has a totally arbitrary standard for legal shotguns and rifles. (18" bbls for shotguns, 16" bbls for rifles and minimum 26" overall length to be legal) This standard makes no sense when one considers that the XM177E2 (Colt CAR 15) assault carbine that was and is so popular with armies and special forces (John Wayne carried one in The Green Berets) has a 11.5" bbl. So, if a widely used military arm is A) fully auto or select fire, and B) has a 10" bbl (without flash suppressor) and detachable extended magazine, and C) the Miller court ruled that small arms with military value are constitutionally protected and suitable for militia use, then it's a slam dunk that the federal govt has exceeded its constitutionally limited powers in the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA. The strange case of United States v. Miller HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-03-19 2:46:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Some people will fall for anything. After W, how anyone can trust any of these candidates is beyond me. Politicians keep throwing out the same bait... and the fish bite. Peppa, it is really sad. With all the people coming out for Ron I had hopes that maybe some of the sheeple were stirring from their slumber and maybe gotten through a part of their state (government induced) brainwashing. It amazes me how some people can never figure out that if you keep on doing what you have always done you will keep getting what you always got. And in the case of politicians, vote for an establishment whore and see your rights violated at every turn. The Obummer people are a bit slow on the uptake it seems. And I wouldn't care but their votes for traitors effect me and mine in a negative way and I don't appreciate it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. What part of his opinion grieved you the most? The recognition that no man granted anyone any rights? The recognition, not explicitly stated but certainly implied, that if one group of men could grant you rights by putting the right words on one piece of paper that another group of evil men could take them away by writing contrary words on another piece of paper?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It's always amazed me that those who authored this great piece have since done an about face on the topic. Wonder what got to them, or what skeletons they have in their respective closets. Most surprising is in seeing Sen. Edward Kennedy as one of the authors. A "conspiracy theorist" might wonder if he recently had an urge to go back to the principled man he once was, and for that, he was given a lesson he couldn't forget..
Alright, I shall explain it to for one last time so that you may understand. The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State. The reason for granting the right (or not infringing upon it) is because it's in the State's interest to do so. It's not because God said that men should carry fire arms but not machine guns. A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B is derived from A, not from God. Do you understand now?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
You are the one who lacks understanding. People have the right to self defense and had that right since God created the first man. Your arguments are pitiful and make you look like a government worshiper.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. And it seems to me that this is exactly what has been happening for quite some time. We go one hundred plus years with the Constitution meaning one thing and then a bunch of guys in black robes decide that they will change things. For instance the meaning of the commerce clause, the second amendment, entitlement programs, the scope of government in our lives as it pertains to the 4th amendment, etcs., etc. I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to be schooled in the law, but if the Constitution can be changed at the whim of the Supreme Court, then our whole system of government is based on nothing more than the arbitrary opinions of those "ruling" at that time. It seems to me that this is a receipe for tyranny.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
It's not my argument. Perhaps you did not notice, but I am quoting the second amendment to the constitution of the US. The amendment states that people are allowed to bear arms because it saves the interests of State security, not because God says so.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State. The reason for granting the right (or not infringing upon it) is because it's in the State's interest to do so. It's not because God said that men should carry fire arms but not machine guns. A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. B is derived from A, not from God. Do you understand now? So basically you are saying that the government grants us our rights and can keep or take them away as they see fit. That may be the way it is today, but that's not the way it is supposed to be. And you can be as gleeful as you want over the situation but it will eventually lead to tyranny.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
I hear you and agree. One of the most astounding things to me is that we ALL still have the SAME DAMMMM PROBLEMS AS WE DID 30 YEARS AGO, and seem FINE with a never ending war as long as we change puppet heads. No one fixes jack. The country is dying and the blame seems to lie only at the feet of voters. If that is true, it is time to expect our fellow Americans to reject the status quo even if that only means,becoming friends with the truth. Stop with the BS already. Change will only come when people wake up.
You don't have to be "schooled in the law" to understand that you have a right to defend yourself. All people have that right and it is not one the government grants. Government has no rights to grant anyone. People have rights, government has powers. Many times they misuse their powers and deny people's rights but that doesn't mean the people don't have those rights--the only thing lacking is asserting them.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Most surprising is in seeing Sen. Edward Kennedy as one of the authors. A "conspiracy theorist" might wonder if he recently had an urge to go back to the principled man he once was, and for that, he was given a lesson he couldn't forget.. I did not remember the authors, but will go back and review. Thanks for the tip there. You bring an excellent point about Ted. Yep, you do have to wonder.
You appear to be beyond hope. What is it that baffles you so much about people's rights to defend themselves? They had that right before there was such a thing as an organization known as government.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I am only reading the second amendment. What is the the purpose of 'A' other than justify 'B' as a neat and useful thing to have.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I believe the problem goes much deeper than just the 2nd amendment. The WOD, the WOT, the abuse of the commerce clause. It's pretty much made mince meat out of the Bill of Rights.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Yes, I agree but it is not an assumption--that people are going to wake up--that I am going to make at this point. Seems a bit late in the game for those still asleep.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session February 1982 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1982 88-618 0 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania Vinton DeVane Lide, Chief Counsel Quentin Crommelin, Jr., Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa P ATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont Stephen J. Markman, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Randall Rader, General Counsel Peter E. Ornsby, Counsel Robert Feidler, Minority Counsel {snip}
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State. Wrong. The state cannot "grant" a right, a right is self-evident and inheritent for all men (and women). You can call it "God given", "a natural right", or whatever terminology you wish, but it is not granted by other men. States can grant a privilege, which is different than a right, in that a privilege IS granted by men. B is derived from A, not from God B does not derive from A, just as E does not derive from C, in that the freedom of speech is not derived from the prohibition on any law establishing a religion. Amd 1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. C) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion D) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof E) or abridging the freedom of speech
I couldn't agree more. The government and its useful idiots have pretty much destroyed the Constitution and are doing their best to destroy this country.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I'm not saying any part of Field's concurrence grieved me. I'm merely telling you what the courts have held on this issue. This very matter was discussed in class when I was in law school.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Most excellent post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. And I can tell you that I don't give a rat's ass what the "courts" have held. I understand English and can read the Constitution just fine. I know what every word in it means and don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thanks
:/
You're most welcome.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. What you are doing is interpreting the words the way you want them to read. However, we know that the intention of the 2nd amendment is not what you claim. We know this because every amendment in the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment, was vigourously debated by the founding fathers and each state legislative body. These words were recorded and have been preserved.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts. Of course, that's basically just what John Marshall had already said.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. So? As a person whose first language is English do you feel the need to have some government whore in a black dress tell you what plain English words mean? That's pretty sad but then I can understand why you might think that the lawyers who graduate to the cult of the black robe are God or at least sit by his side and make all the important decisions.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. How people close to the events (or, in John Marshall's case, living at the time) interpreted the words tells us a lot more about what the writers of the words intended to convey than what somebody now, like me, or you, may choose to believe.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When Tocqueville wrote that, was anyone in America confused as to the intent of the 2A? It wasn't about the state granting a right to a farmer so he could shoot a turkey. The Amendment's intent then, and now, is a warning to our government should it go rogue. Alteration, modification and ultimate change if necessary is a right of the people.
I don't know. There's been very little case law, then or now, on the Second Amendment. Why don't you look at the scholarly literature, if you want to know? There's been a lot written in the law reviews on the Second Amendment the past few years. I read some of it when I was in law school, but I've forgotten most of what I read, and I'm sure a good deal has been written since then.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
What a picture..... A golden ring is not the prize.
Little or no case law, by your own Tocqueville example, indicates little or no contention.
You mean that you can't read the plain English in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and understand them? Surely you are not saying that you don't understand that simple English, it is not like Chaucer or even Shakespearean English. And some of us even understand those.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
He's a liar. How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
Well, let's examine your premise. By that thinking, how can one "obey the Constitution" and be in favor of ROADS?
Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Lord Acton
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#5. To: aristeides (#3)
If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.
Lord Acton
#6. To: mirage (#1)
have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.
#7. To: echo5sierra (#4)
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
#8. To: James Deffenbach (#5)
If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.
#9. To: angle (#6)
If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.
#10. To: aristeides (#0)
Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning
And I will always keep you on the sheltered side
#11. To: angle (#6)
Same old lawyer parsing.
#12. To: mirage (#11)
All politicians have this problem. Its not just an Obama thing.
#13. To: Tauzero (#10)
Closing Guantanamo, if it happened, would be nice too, of course.
#14. To: aristeides (#13)
A lot of people on this forum seem strangely unwilling to admit that.
#15. To: aristeides (#7)
Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights .
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#16. To: FormerLurker. the thread (#15)
#17. To: aristeides (#7)
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
Lord Acton
#18. To: aristeides (#8)
I see. If he does those things, it won't be good enough for you.
Lord Acton
#19. To: FormerLurker (#15)
Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."
#20. To: aristeides (#7)
(Edited)
#21. To: aristeides (#0)
Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#17)
No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.
#23. To: aristeides (#19)
If Novak knew Obama currently wants a national ban on concealed carry, surely he would mention it.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#24. To: aristeides (#7)
Lord Acton
#25. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)
Lord Acton
#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)
My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#27. To: James Deffenbach (#25)
#28. To: FormerLurker (#26)
#29. To: Hayek Fan (#21)
If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.
#30. To: aristeides (#29)
If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
Why should it be enough when he has said that he understands the Constitution and would obey it
#32. To: FormerLurker, all (#23)
#33. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#28)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is offered as the reason for allowing the possession of arms. There is no reference to God or inalienable rights. It's something very practical.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#34. To: James Deffenbach (#24)
#35. To: Hayek Fan (#30)
But to answer your question, yes. If he closes Gitmo and restores habeas corpus, then I will indeed admit that I was wrong.
#36. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#27)
(Edited)
Lord Acton
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#38. To: FormerLurker, Hounddawg, Jethro Tull, 2A supporters, all. (#33)
The Militia as referred to by the 2nd Amendment was understood to be all free men aged 18-45. In fact, there were laws on the books that REQUIRED men of that age to acquire a firearm.
#39. To: Peppa (#31)
Obama is a Consthitutional pro-festhor dontch'a know. You're getting pretty sneaky there lumping in understanding with obeying in the same breath. I honestly don't think he understands it, or obeys it. The best way to judge how a person will behave in the future, is to look at how they behaved in the past.
Lord Acton
#40. To: aristeides (#34)
Justice Field's concurrence in that case, apparently giving the force of law to the Declaration of Independence, is contrary to the prevailing view of the courts on that point (i.e., whether the Declaration of Independence has the force of law.) As a concurrence, it of course does not itself have the force of law.
Lord Acton
#41. To: Peppa (#38)
(Edited)
The US House subcommittee on the RTKBA (1982) was the best treatment of the subject.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#42. To: James Deffenbach (#36)
B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#43. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#42)
Lord Acton
#44. To: James Deffenbach, aristeides (#40)
(Edited)
What part of his opinion grieved you the most? The recognition that no man granted anyone any rights? The recognition, not explicitly stated but certainly implied, that if one group of men could grant you rights by putting the right words on one piece of paper that another group of evil men could take them away by writing contrary words on another piece of paper?
#45. To: James Deffenbach (#43)
#46. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, James Deffenbach (#42)
Alright, I shall explain it to for one last time so that you may understand.
#47. To: James Deffenbach (#39)
Peppa, it is really sad. With all the people coming out for Ron I had hopes that maybe some of the sheeple were stirring from their slumber and maybe gotten through a part of their state (government induced) brainwashing. It amazes me how some people can never figure out that if you keep on doing what you have always done you will keep getting what you always got. And in the case of politicians, vote for an establishment whore and see your rights violated at every turn. The Obummer people are a bit slow on the uptake it seems. And I wouldn't care but their votes for traitors effect me and mine in a negative way and I don't appreciate it.
#48. To: Hayek Fan (#44)
Lord Acton
#49. To: FormerLurker, hounddawg (#41)
It's always amazed me that those who authored this great piece have since done an about face on the topic. Wonder what got to them, or what skeletons they have in their respective closets.
#50. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#45)
It's not my argument. Perhaps you did not notice, but I am quoting the second amendment to the constitution of the US. The amendment states that people are allowed to bear arms because it saves the interests of State security, not because God says so.
Lord Acton
#51. To: Hayek Fan (#46)
A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#52. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
You appear to be beyond hope. What is it that baffles you so much about people's rights to defend themselves?
#53. To: James Deffenbach (#48)
You don't have to be "schooled in the law" to understand that you have a right to defend yourself. All people have that right and it is not one the government grants. Government has no rights to grant anyone. People have rights, government has powers. Many times they misuse their powers and deny people's rights but that doesn't mean the people don't have those rights--the only thing lacking is asserting them.
#54. To: Peppa (#47)
I hear you and agree. One of the most astounding things to me is that we ALL still have the SAME DAMMMM PROBLEMS AS WE DID 30 YEARS AGO, and seem FINE with a never ending war as long as we change puppet heads. No one fixes jack. The country is dying and the blame seems to lie only at the feet of voters. If that is true, it is time to expect our fellow Americans to reject the status quo even if that only means,becoming friends with the truth. Stop with the BS already. Change will only come when people wake up.
Lord Acton
#55. To: FormerLurker (#41)
It's always amazed me that those who authored this great piece have since done an about face on the topic.
#56. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#52)
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Lord Acton
#57. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#42)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#58. To: Hayek Fan (#53)
I believe the problem goes much deeper than just the 2nd amendment. The WOD, the WOT, the abuse of the commerce clause. It's pretty much made mince meat out of the Bill of Rights.
Lord Acton
#59. To: James Deffenbach (#40)
#60. To: FormerLurker (#57)
Lord Acton
#61. To: aristeides (#59)
I'm not saying any part of Field's concurrence grieved me. I'm merely telling you what the courts have held on this issue. This very matter was discussed in class when I was in law school.
Lord Acton
#62. To: James Deffenbach (#60)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#63. To: James Deffenbach (#54)
Seems a bit late in the game for those still asleep.
#64. To: FormerLurker (#62)
Lord Acton
#65. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)
I am only reading the second amendment. What is the the purpose of 'A' other than justify 'B' as a neat and useful thing to have.
#66. To: James Deffenbach (#61)
I know what every word in it means and don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me.
#67. To: Peppa (#63)
:/
Lord Acton
#68. To: aristeides (#66)
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts. Of course, that's basically just what John Marshall had already said.
Lord Acton
#69. To: James Deffenbach (#68)
#70. To: aristeides, Tocqueville (#66)
#71. To: Jethro Tull (#70)
When Tocqueville wrote that, was anyone in America confused as to the intent of the 2A?
#72. To: James Deffenbach (#67)
#73. To: aristeides (#71)
There's been very little case law, then or now, on the Second Amendment.
#74. To: aristeides (#69)
Lord Acton
#75. To: James Deffenbach (#74)
You mean that you can't read the plain English in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and understand them? Surely you are not saying that you don't understand that simple English, it is not like Chaucer or even Shakespearean English. And some of us even understand those.
#76. To: aristeides (#0)
#77. To: Critter (#76)
He's a liar. How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#78. To: aristeides (#66)
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal courts have the power to "interpret" the Constitution?
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#79. To: Elliott Jackalope (#77)
Article 1, section 8: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#80. To: Peppa (#75)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#81. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
You mean, we iz cuzn's?? Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
#82. To: Peppa (#81)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#83. To: James Deffenbach (#82)
Allllllllllriiiiiiiiight!! I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
#84. To: Peppa (#83)
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#85. To: James Deffenbach (#84)
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
#86. To: Critter (#78)
Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Obviously, to decide such cases, a court has to interpret the Constitution. John Marshall explains all this much better than I could in Marbury v. Madison.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#87. To: Critter (#76) (Edited)
Given the way the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause, socialized medicine would clearly be constitutional. You guys obviously interpret the Constitution very differently from the way the courts do. But why don't you give that disagreement a rest for a while? The Bush regime is presently threatening rights that virtually all lawyers would agree are constitutionally guaranteed. Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back? Once that is done, then you can resume your disagreements with the lawyers and the courts.
How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#88. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#0) (Edited)
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party. That awesome quote is enough to My favorite line in the speech:
get keep my vote. Viva Obama!
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#89. To: Peppa (#85)
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#90. To: Arator (#88)
P.T. Barnum had folks like you in mind when he said there was a sucker born every minute. And Obummer is so proud of you dupes too.
That awesome quote is enough to get my vote. Viva Obama!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#91. To: Arator (#88)
How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get through the day :P
#92. To: James Deffenbach (#90)
While Obama is promising to restore habeas corpus, McCain is promising no such thing. Why is that, do you suppose?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#93. To: Jethro Tull, christine (#88)
October 3, 2000 The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate Excerpt: BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well- equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute. GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there. BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions, whether it's Milosevic or whatever, in the military and foreign policy area? GORE: Well, they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city, and most of my peers felt against the war as I did. But I went anyway because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place. I served for eight years in the House of Representatives and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control. I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years I've served on the National Security Council, and when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that's where World War I started. My uncle was a victim of poisonous gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. We have to be willing to make good, sound judgments. Incidentally, I know the value of making sure our troops have the latest technology. The governor has proposed skipping the next generation of weapons. I think that's a big mistake, because I think we have to stay at the cutting edge. MODERATOR: Governor, how would you advise the voters to make the decision on this issue? BUSH: I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I've been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so. Tonight in the audience there's one elected state senator who is a Democrat, a former state-wide officer who is a Democrat, a lot of Democrats who are here in the debate to -- because they want to show their support that shows I know how to lead. And so the fundamental answer to your question, who can lead and who's shown the ability to get things done? GORE: If I could say one thing. MODERATOR: We are way over three-and-a-half minutes. Go ahead. GORE: One of the key points in foreign policy and national security policy is the need to establish the old-fashioned principle that politics ought to stop at the water's edge. When I was in the United States Congress, I worked with former President Reagan. When I was in the United States Senate I worked with former President Bush, your father. I was one of only a few Democrats in the Senate to support the Persian Gulf War. I think bipartisanship is a national asset. We have to find ways to reestablish it in foreign policy and national security policy. MODERATOR: Do you have a problem with that? BUSH: Yeah. Why haven't they done it in seven years? MODERATOR: New subject. New question. Should the voters of this election, Vice President Gore, see this in the domestic area as a major choice between competing political philosophies? GORE: Oh, absolutely. This is a very important moment in the history of our country. Look, we've got the biggest surpluses in all of American history. The key question that has to be answered in this election is will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all of our people and doesn't go just to the few. Almost half of all the tax cut benefits, as I said under Governor Bush's plan, go to the wealthiest 1%. I think we have to make the right and responsible choices. I think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors, not just to the poor, under Medicare, not relying on HMOs and insurance companies. I think that we have to help parents and strengthen families by dealing with the kind of inappropriate entertainment material that families are just heart sick that their children are exposed to. I think we've got to have welfare reform taken to the next stage. I think that we have got to balance the budget every single year, pay down the national debt and, in fact, under my proposal the national debt will be completely eliminated by the year 2012. I think we need to put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. The governor will not put Medicare in a lockbox. I don't think it should be used as a piggy bank for other programs. I think it needs to be moved out of the budget and protected. I'll veto anything that takes money out of Social Security or Medicare for anything other than Social Security or Medicare. Now, the priorities are just very different. I'll give you a couple of examples. For every new dollar that I propose for spending on health care, Governor Bush spends $3 for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Now, for every dollar that I propose to spend on education, he spends $5 on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Those are very clear differences. MODERATOR: Governor, one minute. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
And days after taking office, war plans were on the desk.
#94. To: James Deffenbach (#89)
Well, you gots a point. Long as you got good coloresterall...;)
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
#95. To: Jethro Tull (#91) (Edited)
Where anyone's rights are threatened, so in the end are yours. For someone who claims to believe in the Constitution, you seem strangely eager to deprive some people of their constitutional rights. Habeas corpus, by the way, need not mean release. The government has the right to bring the people to trial. If it can prove guilt, the party is not released. And, if it's not able to prove guilt, then, for all we know, they're innocent. Especially when it's the Bush regime that is doing the charging. You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get through the day?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#96. To: James Deffenbach (#56)
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no? Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right. Do you want me to quote it again? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is the reason stated in the bill of rights. As for what I believe? I believe that you TAKE your rights. No one gives them to you, not even God. And you get to keep them for as long as you exercise them and for as long as you defend them.
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#97. To: aristeides (#95)
My rights are threatened daily by both govt. and geeks who claim I'm sitting in a tree with a scoped out rifle. So, eff the magic carpet riders at Gitmo. Once gas hit $4 a gallon, I lost my compassion. As a complete hedonist, they can go stroke camels for all I care.
Where anyone's rights are threatened, so in the end are yours.
#98. To: Jethro Tull (#97)
So why should anyone else care what you say, then, if all you care about is yourself?
As a complete hedonist, they can go stroke camels for all I care.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#99. To: FormerLurker (#57)
Wrong. The state cannot "grant" a right, a right is self-evident and inheritent for all men (and women). You can call it "God given", "a natural right", or whatever terminology you wish, but it is not granted by other men. Fine. Please interpret 'A' for me. A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Why didn't the text of the second amendment begin with 'B'? The second amendment could have been formulated thusly: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. But it is not. Why not? Remember, we are discussing the second amendment. Not the first. Not the declaration of independence.
The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#100. To: Hayek Fan (#65)
Please respond to #99. It's not so hard.
What you are doing is interpreting the words the way you want them to read.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#101. To: aristeides (#98) (Edited)
With the current state of the economy, each and every one of us is going to become a hedonist in time. This notion of a United States died years ago. I'm beyond being insulted by anything this government does, or by the lies our politicians use to gin up faux patriotism.
#102. To: Jethro Tull (#101)
Do you really think everyone in Depression America was a hedonist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#103. To: aristeides (#95)
you guys? who is you guys?
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
#104. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
They didn't say the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms shall be given due to any sort of specific reason, they said the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They acknowledge that self-defense (by extension the keeping and bearing of arms) is a RIGHT, and they are declaring that it SHALL not be infringed. They do not attempt to state that the only reason this RIGHT will not be infringed is due to the convenience of the state, but they do describe the necessity of a militia, in that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state (as in a body of the people).
Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#105. To: Peppa (#93)
iow, don't read their lips. just curious, when's the last time a presidential candidate made a promise and kept it?
And days after taking office, war plans were on the desk.
#106. To: christine (#103)
Me too, I noticed that some use 'we' and 'they' in their posts. I happen to believe that we (this one is the generic 'we', not the 'we' that is used to imply that the writer speaks for or is in agreement with many others) should all speak for ourselves, unless we receive some delegation from others to speak for them. Those who use 'we' are probably not secure enough to take responsibility for their views. As far as 'they' or 'them', it's probably not right unless it is clear that it is in reference to those who were part of a specific discussion on one side or the other.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#107. To: aristeides (#92)
Why is that, do you suppose? The promises of a politician mean that much to you? How old are you and what color is the sky on your home planet? There is far, far more that needs to be done to restore the Constitution than the little bit your hero is talking about. But of course that moron wants to ban so-called "assault weapons" which aren't even really assault weapons so that alone disqualifies him. And I wouldn't trust McCain and any of his promises either if he made any. He is a Manchurian candidate as far as I am concerned (no better or worse than Obama or Clinton, they are all owned by the same folks and will take their orders from them just like Bill Clinton did and just like both Bush's have).
While Obama is promising to restore habeas corpus, McCain is promising no such thing.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#108. To: aristeides (#95)
Do you think Obama would pursue or allow a neutral investigation into 9/11? I believe his masters are the same people that Bush and Cheney report to, after a layer or two of intermediaries perhaps.
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#109. To: James Deffenbach (#107)
You know what they say about great minds... :)
(no better or worse than Obama or Clinton, they are all owned by the same folks and will take their orders from them just like Bill Clinton did and just like both Bush's have)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#110. To: FormerLurker (#104)
No, they do NOT talk about self-defense. They talk about the security of the State. Do you want me to quote it again? Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," No word about self defense. It's the defense of the free State that justifies the granting of the right to bear arms.
They acknowledge that self-defense (by extension the keeping and bearing of arms) is a RIGHT,
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#111. To: Peppa (#94)
I reckon it is still alright to be white, ain't it? I mean the obummer people ain't campaigning to make that a crime yet, are they? If they are I ain't heard 'bout it.
Well, you gots a point. Long as you got good coloresterall...;)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#112. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so. Here is a picture of your hero I thought you might like. Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted...
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#113. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#110)
They are talking about the security of a free body of people. They further state in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They do not say they are giving this RIGHT, they say that RIGHT will not be INFRINGED upon. It is a rather profound and concise statement. The security of the STATE is not a RIGHT, it is a NECESSITY if that STATE is to function and if it is to remain FREE.
No word about self defense. It's the defense of the free State that justifies the granting of the right to bear arms.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#114. To: christine (#103)
Isn't it obvious? Anyone who isn't a government-worshipping Obama supporter.
you guys? who is you guys?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#115. To: FormerLurker (#109)
Seems I have heard something about that. >(;^[}
You know what they say about great minds... :)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#112)
You would talk about anything BUT the second amendment that you are supposed to be discussing. You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both? The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period. 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. That's all there is. It doesn't matter what the founding grand mothers or uncles must have said before or after. The language is clear enough not to leave the possibility of a 'God penumbra' or of a 'self defense penumbra'. It is clear that the protection of the right to bear arms in the second amendment is narrow and conditional. I understand that not everyone likes this. I am one of them but I'm not one of those who believe that the constitution and its protections are worth much to begin with.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#117. To: FormerLurker (#113)
Indeed. And the 'well regulated Militia' means...? Who does the regulation? Could it be... the State? Yes, the right exists in the universe of Platonic concepts but the second amendment implies that the state may or may not protect it. If the state decides not to protect it, then the right goes away. The implication is that the State was better off with this right protected or granted. The implication is that the State might have decided not to protect or grant the right to bear arms but, since it was good for the state, the second amendment was included into the bill of rights. If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They are talking about the security of a free body of people. They further state in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They do not say they are giving this RIGHT, they say that RIGHT will not be INFRINGED upon. It is a rather profound and concise statement.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#118. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
Again, a right can not be GRANTED by the government, it already exists. As you touch upon, the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS this RIGHT, but the RIGHT is not limited to the purpose of protecting the "free state", but exists by itself on its own. The protection of this right is not dependent upon the existence of a militia, nor the necessity of the free state, as the sentence ends with "shall not be infringed". It doesn't end with "shall not be infringed in regards to the security of the state".
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#119. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
So the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list what was good for the state, and not necessarily for the people?
The implication is that the State might have decided not to protect or grant the right to bear arms but, since it was good for the state, the second amendment was included into the bill of rights.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#120. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It DOES say that. Geesh. It prefixes the clause with a declaration that a militia is necessary, and defines why it is necessary. Basically it declares the militia to be a necessary body, and as such protects it. The wording of the remainder of the clause is much stronger in terms of the right to keep and bear arms, where that right is protected outright by stating that "it shall not be infringed".
If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#121. To: FormerLurker (#118)
It doesn't because the statement that establishes the security of the state is placed before the 'shall not be infringed' part. Yes, all the rights, responsibilities, shapes, colors, gods... they all exist in the virtual universe of our imagination - that's were 'Platonic love' comes into play. They are all floating in hyperspace, all waiting to be instantiated. The second amendment instantiates the right to bear arms in the context of defending the free State. You can instantiate it for yourself and bear arms regardless of whether the State agrees or not. You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail. The State - and the constitution is the high level manual explaining how the State is suppose to work - says that you may bear arms. Remember, the second amendment CAN be repealed and replaced with one that denies you the right to bear arms. All it takes is for a number of States to agree on it and... goodbye God-given right. If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#122. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)
Sorry to be a jonnie come lately on the thread, but I understand your point and will ask you to consider this. Line B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "right" was already in existence prior to the formation of our country. Who or what gave our forefathers that "right"? Did King George issue a decree that stated settlers are given the right to arms? It was already a "right" agreed to by common sense.
A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#123. To: James Deffenbach, aristeides, christine, Jethro Tull, rowdee, Peppa (#5)
If there was any danger of him making good on these promises, then he'd be "whited out" like Ron Paul. What this popular and well received campaign rhetoric tells me is, the PTB know how to market him while never forgetting that campaign promises don't mean jack doodly. Don't forget that Dennis Hastert did his part before the least election when BushCo was "all things to all people." He said that if re-elected BushCo was going to abolish the income tax! When Sen. Lugar was doing his presidential exploratory he also promised to run on an "anti-IRS and income tax platform", so the Pubs know all too well how despised the tax and the agency is. They keep it in reserve as a backup winning issue never intending to abolish the god-cursed thing at all. I can certainly understand why Mr. ari is thrilled by Obama's promise. After all, Obama is the only (mainstream Kosher-approved) candidate to promise closing G-Mo and abolishing renditions. But, in his heart Obama knows it's DAWGGY dew, as do you, Mr. ari and I. I disagree on one point with others though. Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage) Pubs are at their best when frustrating Democrats' wet dreams. It creates the illusion that they're principled defenders of something, and it requires no substance or bold ideas for governing in the 21st century.
#124. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
Wrong. They are state limits. They regulate the state not the people. Period.
Those are all State-given rights.
#125. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
Such a thing would not have happened a hundred years ago as the people back then were more aware of their rights under GOD AND the US Constitution. There are many writings as to what was meant by the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment, I've tried to summarize what the authors meant when they wrote it. If I had more time, I could delve into Google and find the links and historic writings that prove my point. I leave it to you to do it yourself, as it may be better if you actually found the information on your own so you don't brush it aside as something I may have found at some pro-2nd Amendment site that you might suspect is either exaggerated or ficticious. Hell, the entire Bill of Rights is being trashed anyways, not just the 2nd Amendment. What you state is in fact true, that the state can do whatever it damn well pleases regardless if it is contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land, because in effect we have forfeited our ability to prevent such abuses and high crimes by allowing them to trample our rights slowly but more egregiously each passing year.
You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#126. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
I ask you again, "Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so." Show us the quotes if you have them. Show us any of the founders statements that said they believed they were "granting" us any rights. I can wait...and wait...and wait.
You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#127. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117) (Edited)
You think the Founding Fathers thought The State would protect us from The State? Think again. :) More government is not the solution to out-of-control government, anymore than that that old woman that swallowed a fly knew what she was getting herself into.
Indeed. And the 'well regulated Militia' means...? Who does the regulation? Could it be... the State?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#128. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
Dawg they won't go after guns yet. They will tax per round. And those pubbies you consider your protectors will smilingly aye that bill. Over and over and over again.
I disagree on one point with others though. Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)
#129. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
Yep, gotta agree.....here come the dark days of Bob Michals.
Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)
#130. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
Nobody can "grant" a RIGHT. BUT, a state may or may not decide to PROTECT that right. And as is seen in practical matters, the state (being the cabal of puppet masters that actually run the show) can do whatever it wants to do, for the right bribes, kickbacks, and blackmail, along with pure thirst for power.
If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#131. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#132. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
Why point that out just now? You're defending an anti-2nd candidate?
If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:
#133. To: FormerLurker, a vast rightwing conspirator (#120)
The subordinate militia clause and the RKBA was to guarantee the states' power to raise and arm their own militias so as not to be dependent upon the national govt for funding. If the feds took it upon themselves to fund state militias then they could with a stroke of the pen deny that funding and eliminate and disarm state militias, which serve as a check and balance against federal tyranny. The founders were not about to write a blank power draft for the new govt as is evident by the careful wording of the 2nd amendment, which only in passing acknowledges arms for every man. That was a given and was a cultural right of passage for boys and men for centuries prior.
#134. To: HOUNDDAWG (#133)
Excellent points.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#135. To: James Deffenbach (#131)
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#136. To: buckeye, a vast rightwing conspirator (#132) (Edited)
There were in fact two militias. The (ordinary) militia which provided their own arms powder and shot, and the select militia, made up of citizens with state supplied arms. Neither were ever confused with the Continental Army which were soldiers in federal service with federal-supplied weapons. One cannot acknowledge these facts and still deny the true purpose of the 2nd amendment and the sovereignty of the states which were by design without the jurisdiction of the federal government.
#137. To: Dakmar, James Deffenbach (#135)
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that. Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree. Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us." Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist. "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
#138. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.
Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#139. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
Great post.
But, in his heart Obama knows it's DAWGGY dew, as do you, Mr. ari and I.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#140. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply the bureaucratic right to dictate the number of vacation hours I should be allowed to earn, but it happens all the same.
Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us."
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#141. To: Dakmar (#135)
LOL!
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#142. To: FormerLurker (#119)
To the extent that the State is the expression of the people's will, there is no distinction but, as the State separates itself from the people, the State assumes itself the power to protect or encourage the exercise of certain rights or to prohibit or discourage their exercise. The right to bear arms is a good example of one instance where a State that acquired nuclear weapons and battle robots has no interest in maintaining an armed citizens militia. As for the abstract right itself, the State will tolerate the possession of weak arms for as long as they can only be used for self-protection from other citizens but not from the State troops or for hunting animals. That's how pathetic the current instantiation of the God-given, inalienable but abstract right to has become. By the way, do you know what was the origin of Judo? The Japanese peasants were not allowed to bear arms and were at the mercy of the Samurai. Eventually, they developed these methods of defending themselves with their bare hands. I will not continue this discussion. The language of the second amendment is quite clear to me. The right to bear arms is protected but within the very narrow context of maintaining a Militia force. It would not be difficult for a supreme court to interpret 'militia' as today's military or maybe the States' national guard and then you can say goodbye to even the pretense of having a right to bear arms.
So the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list what was good for the state, and not necessarily for the people?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#143. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us." Exactly. How is it that supposedly well-educated people can miss or not understand such simple concepts? Must have been too many years in the government schools.
Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#144. To: Ragin1 (#122)
The "right" was already in existence prior to the formation of our country. Who or what gave our forefathers that "right"? Yes, the right existed and it exists as an abstraction. So is 'harmony'. But the very fact that it CAN be infringed and it needs protection (within the context of a useful to the state militia) tells us that, in reality, the right is granted and protected by the State. You need a bunch of instruments to 'make' music but, while they are absent, the concepts of music or harmony do not go away. Same with the right to bear arms. It may exist a priori but, unless you have the ability to take your family out for a stroll while wearing a nice sniper rifle and a couple of grenades and be able to return home for dinner, undisturbed and unarrested, your abstract right can not manifest itself for more than the few minutes it takes the SWAT team to come and get you.
Line B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#145. To: buckeye (#132)
Why point that out just now? You're defending an anti-2nd candidate? No, I am not trying to defend a pre-determined conclusion. I am only giving the second amendment a honest reading. I am not saying that individuals do not have the right to self-defense. They do, but that right is nowhere to be found in the bill of rights. The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.
If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#146. To: Dakmar (#140)
The abuse of powers does not legitimize such, does it? Or, perhaps it does. "The price of freedom is ever vigilance." The usurpation of our rights and freedoms directly correlate with the people's unwillingness to safeguard them. So, in theory we may have (or had and lost) those rights and freedoms, but we're going to (or already have) forfeit them by default. I'd be willing to bet that if voters were given a choice between absolute freedom and cradle to grave health care and welfare it would be "goodbye constitution, Hello REAL ID!" And, then seniors could get busy campaigning, lobbying, agitating for stem cell research that would permit them to live and collect benefits forever!
Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply the bureaucratic right to dictate the number of vacation hours I should be allowed to earn, but it happens all the same.
#147. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#144)
I see. The right to keep arms is nothing more than an invitation to intimdate and abuse other citizens. Sweet. Good thing you've never seen that home movie of me thrusting at my then next-door neighbor with salad tongs, cause dog gonnit I really like salad, especially with those little cherry tomatoes. Now that's just good eating, there.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#148. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#145)
It doesn't persuade me to pull the lever for Obama. It might lure me into attending a Constitutional Convention, though.
The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.
#149. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#142)
The major obstacle to that is the most comprehensive study ever done on the 2nd amendment in the early 1980s by the house select committee on the right to keep and bear arms. They went back tens of thousands of years and logically progressed forward leaving no historical gaps that would permit creative interpretations by antis or state worshipers. The conclusion simply read, "Thus it is inescapable that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right." To ornery folks who insist that it can be dismantled by judicial decree, I say, "If you mean to have a war then let it begin here." The govt knows that millions share my commitment to the defense of the 2nd amendment, which is why they don't share you glib appreciation of the current state of affairs, or embrace your seemingly simplistic solution to the question of the armed American.
It would not be difficult for a supreme court to interpret 'militia' as today's military or maybe the States' national guard and then you can say goodbye to even the pretense of having a right to bear arms.
#150. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)
American Voters recently proved so in the primaries. Anti-war, civil libertarians could have voted for Gravel or Kucinich, but either didn't or there weren't enough of them. I'll go with the latter. At least some things will always be the same.
I'd be willing to bet that if voters were given a choice between absolute freedom and cradle to grave health care and welfare it would be "goodbye constitution, Hello REAL ID!"
And, then seniors could get busy campaigning, lobbying, agitating for stem cell research that would permit them to live and collect benefits forever!
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#151. To: Dakmar, HOUNDDAWG (#150)
I'll go with a third option. American voters watch TV and read their magazines and newspapers to find out how to vote. They just do what they're told. Could we break the cycle? How? Do we have to manipulate them, as well? (That would end badly, I think.) The answer I keep coming to is to do my best to change minds even when it's unpopular or unprofitable. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave with a sand bag.
American Voters recently proved so in the primaries. Anti-war, civil libertarians could have voted for Gravel or Kucinich, but either didn't or there weren't enough of them. I'll go with the latter.
#152. To: Ragin1 (#128)
That's quite plausible.
Dawg they won't go after guns yet. They will tax per round. And those pubbies you consider your protectors will smilingly aye that bill. Over and over and over again.
#153. To: Jethro Tull (#129)
No matter how many times DEMlibs get their teeth kicked in on gun control (sic-actually it's unilateral personal disarmament) those morally bankrupt assholes keep coming back. Obviously their idea of good govt must involve some Castor oil that we as an armed citizenry may resist. This is why Larry Flynt said, "Scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist underneath, every time!" They want to be our nannies and inject us, feed us, force us to exercise, quit smoking, drive slow and think little and question nothing. Or, we fucking DIE when they send the state gun goons after us! Their definition of equality is mutually shared misery where we're all steam rollered flat and therefore "eekwal!"
Yep, gotta agree.....here come the dark days of Bob Michals.
#154. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#145)
The "people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are the same "people" mentioned in the 4th. In other words, you are taking a statist viewpoint and twisting the words of the amendment to make it mean whatever the state wants it to say, as most statists actually do in practice. You ignore the fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Those people are the same people referred to in the 4th Amendment, which states; Amd 4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution?
The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#155. To: buckeye (#151) (Edited)
One thing that stuck with me from a property tax protest I went to last year was the idea that everyone on the government payroll votes, so that's easily half the population right there.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#156. To: FormerLurker (#138)
Right. The only problem is I've been reading this stuff since the 70's when I was told (by a fundie preacher's son) that Carter would suspend the congress and be the last elected prez of the US. Despite secret EOs, bills and decrees, the fact is there is still a heck of a lot of wishful thinking by those power mongers, and they just can't realize their nightmares because they have little or no support in their own counsels. And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment. It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world. Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans.
We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.
#157. To: buckeye (#151)
We'll reach a point where 5% fight for change, 5% oppose them (or us) and the other 90% will go along with whoever wins.
I'll go with a third option. American voters watch TV and read their magazines and newspapers to find out how to vote. They just do what they're told. Could we break the cycle? How? Do we have to manipulate them, as well? (That would end badly, I think.) The answer I keep coming to is to do my best to change minds even when it's unpopular or unprofitable. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave with a sand bag.
#158. To: HOUNDDAWG (#156)
And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment. Exactly right, that is why they are trying as best they can to erode support for gun ownership and to demonize those that legally possess weapons as means of self-defense as opposed to duck hunting. It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world. It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen. Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans. Most of the military is spread thin across the globe and/or recovering from multiple extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater would do whatever they're paid to do if the price was right.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#159. To: Dakmar (#155)
If they vote themselves too much of the taxable economy they'll drive it underground. And then like bureaucrats in the former Soviet Union they'll have to supplement their meager, inflated wages with bootleg and black market gasoline, cigs, sugar and bathroom tissue. That's assuming there's any left after the low level cargo handlers have take their cut. They can certainly kill the proverbial Golden Goose, and as it is the govt is concentrating on taxing their own non-compliant employees (whose wages are within the grasp of the power to seize them) and not wasting any more precious man hours trying to collect anything from people like me. They can pass all the laws they like but, like Mexicans we won't protest, we'll simply ignore them. People who wish to fall on their swords by deducting a percentage to avoid supporting the war machine will still be able to do so. But, in order to do that they'll have to file. Why file when it makes more sense to avoid it altogether, and then the govt has no starting point to target and punish dissent? (Martyrs are welcome to sacrifice and garner the praise of other dumbshit assholes) At that point it becomes more dangerous to comply than to fight. And that will be the beginning of the end of the transfer of wealth that is the real culprit. Why fight and die when we can simply de-fund the bastards and their evil schemes?
One thing that stuck with me from a property tax protest I went to last year was the idea that everyone on the government payroll votes, so that's easily half the population right there.
#160. To: HOUNDDAWG (#159)
They can pass all the laws they like but, like Mexicans we won't protest, we'll simply ignore them. Why fight and die when we can simply de-fund the bastards and their evil schemes? And don't forget how utterly incompetent more than 75% of the gubmint trained monkeys actually are.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
#161. To: FormerLurker (#158)
When I lived in Los Angeles I became friends (and the bootleg gunsmith) for several LAPD guys, active and retired. Believe me, they had no plans to join their fellows, other agencies and the guardsmen and fight in the streets. In fact they all without exception had escape plans for their wives and children who they intended to join as soon as they could get away from the city and to their retreats, a long way away from the soon-to-be warring armies of blacks and Hispanics. Those cops know all too well that they cannot win and they won't die in the vain attempt. Most cops are only cops because the people respect them and don't shoot them on sight. Damned few would ever report to work again once they know that Americans consider them the enemy. Those commandos who do believe that state might makes right will do so at their own peril. Hell, on New year's Eve and The 4th of July here, there isn't a single prowl car to be seen anywhere around. There are too many citizens who celebrate with live ammo and the cops don't want to present any targets of opportunity to liquored up celebrants. When they do answer calls they fly through the neighborhoods at high speeds without sirens, hoping to avoid drawing attention to themselves. They won't announce this because they don't want the people to know how much they rely on us to discipline ourselves, and how much they fear those nights when Americans feel entitled to shoot their guns in the air. I dare say that if one cop per night was shot, by day four there wouldn't be anyone to answer the calls because their families won't let them report for duty. The only other way to remain above the fray is to do what the German police did-they stayed away from Hitler's actions and were never targeted or punished during or after the war. Imagine what BushCo (or Hillary or whoever) would say when they realize that the police refuse to be the muscle that makes tyranny a reality? I was actually told this by an LAPD sgt. That was his idea of how to avoid being murdered in the event that the feds tried to spring the trap. Believe me, the police have given this a great deal of thought. Given a choice of being respected or killed by their own friends and acquaintances, the majority will opt for the former.
It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen.
#162. To: angle (#160)
Thank you for yet another cheerful and upbeat contribution!
And don't forget how utterly incompetent more than 75% of the gubmint trained monkeys actually are.
#163. To: HOUNDDAWG (#161)
You write well. You motivate me. Thank you.
#164. To: HOUNDDAWG (#161) (Edited)
I believe the ordinary street cop might feel the way you describe, but those in militarized units, the various federal, county, state, and yes, local SWAT commandos are salivating over the chance to "off" some "targets".
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#165. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#100)
Yawn. I'm not interested in playing your word games. I could care less what your opinion of the 2nd amendment is. I know that if it meant what you claim it meant then somewhere in the House or Senate Journals or the Annals of Congress it would have been mentioned. Also The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution by Jonathan Elliot would have mentioned it or it would have been commented on by St. George Tucker in his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which had extensive writings on the United States Constitution included with it. You are like the crazy Christian cultists who take one sentence out of the Bible and claim it means something without taking into context the paragraph the sentence belongs in.
Please respond to #99. It's not so hard.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
#166. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, FormerLurker, all (#121) (Edited)
Actually the amendment talks about the security of a free state, not the state. There is a difference. By the way, since you are focusing on the grammatical structure of the the amendment, you may want to research what an ablative absolute in latin prose is, because that is the rhetorical device used to construct the sentence. While we may find that odd today, it was quite common in those days. If wriiten in today's language it would be something like "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I contend that the free state the founders were talking about was the state of being free and not "the state" at all. See, I can take words out of context and make them mean anything I want them too as well. isn't this game fun?
It doesn't because the statement that establishes the security of the state is placed before the 'shall not be infringed' part.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
#167. To: aristeides (#87)
You liars, I mean lawyers are a big part of the reason we're in this mess. No thanks.
Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#168. To: aristeides (#86)
No, its job is to interpret the law and test it against the Constitution as written. Liars, I mean lawyers are great at finding hidden meanings in simple wording.
Obviously, to decide such cases, a court has to interpret the Constitution.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#169. To: FormerLurker (#154)
Amd 4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution? excellent point!
You ignore the fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Those people are the same people referred to in the 4th Amendment, which states;
#170. To: Ragin1 (#163)
Thank you.
#171. To: christine, FormerLurker, peppa (#169)
ding ding!
Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution?
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
#172. To: angle, christine, FormerLurker, peppa (#171)
After the "change we can believe in" campaign from the Democrats when they took over the legislature in 2006 resulted in the same old shit, Obama's campaign slogan should more appropriately state: "Change some will believe in."
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#173. To: Ferrett Mike (#172)
ping to the above post
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
#174. To: aristeides (#87) (Edited)
"...I said there was a Society of Men among us, bred up from their Youth in the Art of proving by Words multiplied for the Pleasure, that White is Black, and Black is White, according as they are paid. To this Society all the rest of the People are Slaves. For Example, if my Neighbour hath a Mind to my Cow, he hires a Lawyer to prove that he ought to have my Cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my Right, it being against all Rules of Law that any Man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this Case, I who am the right Owner lie under two great Disadvantages. First, my Lawyer being practiced almost from his Cradle in defending Falshood; is quite out of his Element when he would be an Advocate for Justice, which as an Office unnatural, he always attempts with great Awkwardness if not with Ill-will. The second Disadvantage is, that my Lawyer must proceed with great Caution: Or else he will be reprimanded by the Judges, and abhorred by his Brethren, as one that would lessen the Practice of the Law. And therefore I have but two Methods to preserve my Cow. The first is, to gain over my Adversary's Lawyer with a double Fee; who will then betray his Client by insinuating that he hath Justice on his Side. The second way is for my Lawyer to make my Cause appear as unjust as he can; by the Cow to belong to my Adversary; and this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the Favour of the Bench. Now, your Honour is to know that these Judges are Persons appointed to decide all Controversies of Property, as well as for the Tryal of Criminals; and picked out from the most dextrous Lawyers who are grown old or lazy: And having been byassed all their Lives against Truth and Equity, are under such a fatal Necessity of favouring Fraud, Perjury, and Oppression; that I have known some of them refuse a large Bribe from the Side where Justice lay, rather than injure the Faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their Nature or their Office. It is a Maxim among these Lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again: And therefore they take special Care to record all the Decisions formerly made against common Justice and the general Reason of Mankind. These, under the Name of Precedents, they produce as Authorities to justify the most iniquitous Opinions; and the Judges never fail of decreeing accordingly. In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the Merits of the Cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious in dwelling upon all Circumstances which are not to the Purpose. For Instance, in the Case already mentioned: They never desire to know what Claim or Title my Adversary hath to my Cow; but whether the said Cow were Red or Black; her Horns long or short; whether the Field I graze her in be round or square; whether she was milked at home or abroad; what Diseases she is subject to, and the like. After which they consult Precedents, adjourn the Cause from Time to Time, and in Ten, Twenty, or Thirty Years, come to an Issue. It is likewise to be observed, that this Society has a peculiar Cant and Jargon of their own, that no other Mortal can understand, and wherein all their Laws are written, which they take special Care to multiply; whereby they have gone near to confound the very Essence of Truth and Falsehood, of Right and Wrong; so that it may take Thirty Years to decide whether the Field, left me by my Ancestors for Six Generations, belongs to me, or to a Stranger three hundred Miles off. In the Tryal of Persons accused for Crimes against the State the Method is much more short and commendable: The Judge first sends to sound the Disposition of those in Power; after which he can easily hang or save the Criminal, strictly preserving all due Forms of Law. Here my Master interposing, said it was a Pity that Creatures endowed with such prodigious Abilities of Mind as these Lawyers, by the Description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be Instructors of others in Wisdom and Knowledge. In Answer to which, I assured his Honour, that in all Points out of their own Trade, they were usually the most Ignorant and stupid Generation among us, the most despicable in common Conversation, avowed Enemies to all Knowledge and Learning; and equally to pervert the general Reason of Mankind in every other Subject of Discourse, as in that of their own Profession. A VOYAGE TO THE COUNTRY OF THE HOUYHNHNMS (From Gulliver's Travels)
Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#175. To: James Deffenbach (#174)
Don't you wonder what Jonathan Swift would have made of Guantánamo?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#176. To: aristeides (#175)
Well, he isn't around to ask but I think he made it pretty clear what he thought of lawyers.
Don't you wonder what Jonathan Swift would have made of Guantánamo?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#177. To: Critter (#168)
You don't like the wording of the Constitution? Here's Alexander Hamilton in 1788, in Federalist Paper 78, trying to persuade his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. What could be better evidence of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution?
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#178. To: Peppa, rowdee, a vast rightwing conspirator, richard9151, mirage, Ragin1, angle, FormerLurker, Dakmar, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, christine, aristeides (#38) (Edited)
I was a bit lazy when I summarized the findings of the The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS in my post. Below are the relevant militia facts and the summary that anti gunners can only gnash their teeth about. There is no historical evidence or even plausible alternative interpretations to counter the subcommittee's findings, and that leaves only emotional pleas (or lies and misrepresentations of the value of firearms as a deterrent to crime) with which to respond. (please review Prof. John Lott's MORE GUNS LESS CRIME.) Also, the two cities of Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA were compared and the US city had the higher rate of gun violence, until race was factored in! When non whites were removed from the study it was found that heavily gun-restricted Canada has the much higher rate of gun related violence! So, the conclusions of the (religiously anti gun Kellerman) Vancouver/Seattle study were successfully disputed by their own statistics! In short, when the black crime wave is factored out heavily armed America is an amazingly civilized society, and the availability of firearms alone simply cannot be used to explain gun crime. And, if gun prohibition is the solution then why isn't NYC (with its draconian 100 year old Sullivan Law) a paradise filled with peaceful, toga and sandal wearing vegan Eloi who spend their days doing the dance of the butterfly? NYC Mayor Bloomberg would have us believe that NYC is a shooting gallery because Virginians can buy and own guns. But he can't explain why those guns don't cause the same epidemic of violence in states where people have lawful access to them. I suppose NYC has a heroin problem because Afghanistan is allowed to exist. The fact that New York-based banks probably launder most of the world's illicit drug proceeds (and no American laundry/bank that cranks out billions of freshly rinsed and sweet smelling cash has ever been closed down) is not something he'd likely ever address, though. And, it was a refreshing bit of truth when former NAACP president and US Rep. Kweisi Mfume recently announced that "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!" (which is exactly what the high court noted in the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The court held that "If blacks were free citizens they'd be able to keep and carry firearms everywhere they went!" Those undesirable consequences required no explanation then, and they shouldn't now.) So, what other rights if any should law abiding Americans surrender because shiftless inner city blacks cannot act responsibly or uphold the duties of freedom? If in the future blacks and Hispanics (in Los Angeles for instance) riot at every encounter should all Americans forfeit the right to freedom of assembly? Despite these revelations, no one in power or "respectable academia" will utter the truth about the black crime wave and how it threatens freedom in America. And if they did it still would not move some to change their views, and trying to counter emotional arguments with indisputable facts will remain an exercise in futility and the endless assaults on the 2nd amendment will continue... Having said that, I believe that the crime issue is a red herring and gun control (sic-*UPD) is really about changing the balance of world political power and other mischief that Americans are still well equipped to prevent. From the subcommittee report: "That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a). The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." (*UPD=Unilateral Personal Disarmament)
#179. To: HOUNDDAWG (#178)
I suppose NYC has a heroin problem because Afghanistan is allowed to exist. 
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#180. To: HOUNDDAWG (#178)
i agree. very well thought out and informative post. thanks, dawg!
Having said that, I believe that the crime issue is a red herring and gun control (sic-*UPD) is really about changing the balance of world political power and other mischief that Americans are still well equipped to prevent.
#181. To: FormerLurker (#164)
You may be right and I have no special insight. I believe that if there is a shortage of street cops then the "elite" tactical officers will find themselves in cop cars on street patrol, looking for the safest routes to the donut shops. They won't be of much use if they're back at the barn clustered in armored response vehicles. If big shot lawyers, politicians and judges call the police they will demand a response, and they won't want to hear that the cops are waiting to respond to "important crimes" that require dynamic entries, MP5s and stun grenades and are just too important and well trained to take a rape or carjacking report. On the other hand, if a group of patriots or criminals (they're the same thing to the cops) try to stand their ground like MOVE in Philadelphia, well, the paramilitary MOS cops live for that stuff, and they'll kill the living Hell out of whoever is foolish enough to get cornered in any dwelling that isn't grenade or C4 proof.
I believe the ordinary street cop might feel the way you describe, but those in militarized units, the various federal, county, state, and yes, local SWAT commandos are salivating over the chance to "off" some "targets".
#182. To: christine (#180)
Thank you, sweets. And, say hi to "the twins" for mee! ;)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest