Originally posted by Q5echo
you might want to reconsider that.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
the Preamble assigns no power to anything as you know. historically the phrase "We the people of the United States" has been interpreted as the citizens of the United States to exclude all others or Contitution's derivation of soveriegnty from the people.
from the Heller opinion:
additionally
are you saying that the people in We the people of the United States are only "represented by representatives who partook in constitutional assemblies" that secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and limited others?
No I'm saying that "the people" referenced in the 2nd amendment bears the same connotation as "the people" in the preamble. The preamble does say "we the people" but it's not the case that EVERY American voted to ratify the constitution. Every American voted for a representative who then voted to ratify the constitution. Thus indirectly "the people" ratified the constitution. That's what the founding fathers meant when they said "we the people." Similarly, the second amendment is structured such that "the people" have a right to bear arms. And despite what we may think 300 years later, what it's really conveying is that militias have the right to bear arms and these militias are represented by "the people". Thus it's not conferring the right to every individual to bear arms for the purpose of self defense (that's not in the constitution); rather what it is saying is that the militias are constituted of "the people" and have a right to bear arms in defense of the state. So in other words, those elected by the people ratified the constitution, while those who are deemed worthy by the state and elect to be a part of the state militia have a right to bear arms. By simply looking at earlier revisions of the second amendment you can clearly figure out what the intent of the founding fathers were.
Btw I would love to continue this argument but I'm going on vacation to the Galapagos in about 10 hours so any rebuttal on my part will have to wait 2 weeks. But by all means i love talking constitution so fyi I'll def respond, it'll just come in two weeks time
Cheers.
___________________
Retro ...
Jun-28-2008 06:02
DJ Shibby
Amphoteric Superbase
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Of Earthzen and the Therethen
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
No I'm saying that "the people" referenced in the 2nd amendment bears the same connotation as "the people" in the preamble. The preamble does say "we the people" but it's not the case that EVERY American voted to ratify the constitution. Every American voted for a representative who then voted to ratify the constitution. Thus indirectly "the people" ratified the constitution. That's what the founding fathers meant when they said "we the people." Similarly, the second amendment is structured such that "the people" have a right to bear arms. And despite what we may think 300 years later, what it's really conveying is that militias have the right to bear arms and these militias are represented by "the people". Thus it's not conferring the right to every individual to bear arms for the purpose of self defense (that's not in the constitution); rather what it is saying is that the militias are constituted of "the people" and have a right to bear arms in defense of the state. So in other words, those elected by the people ratified the constitution, while those who are deemed worthy by the state and elect to be a part of the state militia have a right to bear arms. By simply looking at earlier revisions of the second amendment you can clearly figure out what the intent of the founding fathers were.
Btw I would love to continue this argument but I'm going on vacation to the Galapagos in about 10 hours so any rebuttal on my part will have to wait 2 weeks. But by all means i love talking constitution so fyi I'll def respond, it'll just come in two weeks time
Cheers.
They were saying that we should all have guns locked and loaded and ready to go, and we should form our own militias/units to keep things in check.
Obviously violence in this day and age is outmoded, but not when someone else has weapons and you have nothing.
Want to curb violence? Find a solution to the "drug problem" that actually works. Guns are very secondary.
Jul-03-2008 04:36
occrider
Traveladdict
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
They were saying that we should all have guns locked and loaded and ready to go, and we should form our own militias/units to keep things in check.
Obviously violence in this day and age is outmoded, but not when someone else has weapons and you have nothing.
Want to curb violence? Find a solution to the "drug problem" that actually works. Guns are very secondary.
what?
___________________
Retro ...
Jul-12-2008 23:24
DJ UD
tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2007
Location: Missoula, MT
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
They were saying that we should all have guns locked and loaded and ready to go, and we should form our own militias/units to keep things in check.
Obviously violence in this day and age is outmoded, but not when someone else has weapons and you have nothing.
Want to curb violence? Find a solution to the "drug problem" that actually works. Guns are very secondary.
Drug's don't cause violence, drug control causes violence.
Originally posted by DJ UD
Drug's don't cause violence, drug control causes violence.
Jul-13-2008 20:34
The17sss
C.R.E.A.M.
Registered: May 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Jul-13-2008 21:28
DJ UD
tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2007
Location: Missoula, MT
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
That wasn't caused by drugs, that was caused by bad parenting, and a poor education system (which is poor because he's not the only one going around acting like that).
Originally posted by DJ UD
That wasn't caused by drugs, that was caused by bad parenting, and a poor education system (which is poor because he's not the only one going around acting like that).
uhhh, that may be but i'm sorry, drugs can do that despite the best parenting and the finest education.
Jul-13-2008 23:02
Zild
Ten City
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: San Antonio, US : TXTA #156
Here that guy would be shot. It happened a few months ago about a mile down the street from my house. A guy got out of his car and charged another man's car and began attacking it with a bat. He was shot dead and the shooter allowed to go free on self defense.
___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.
Originally posted by Zild
Here that guy would be shot. It happened a few months ago about a mile down the street from my house. A guy got out of his car and charged another man's car and began attacking it with a bat. He was shot dead and the shooter allowed to go free on self defense.
If I had a gun I would defend my property with lethal force.
Originally posted by Q5echo
uhhh, that may be but i'm sorry, drugs can do that despite the best parenting and the finest education.
you can't pin that behavior on any one factor. it is likely the cause is multiple factors. my personal opinion is the hip hop culture fosters this kind of behavior and is a substantial factor. although i agree drugs, poor education, and horrible parenting are all factors as well.
Jul-14-2008 10:03
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
quote:
Originally posted by DJ UD
Drug's don't cause violence, drug control causes violence.
Absolutely right. Q's video does nothing but provide example of a salesman in the black market of drugs, where violence takes the place of corporate competition, in the absence of a regulated legal market. No education and little capital needed to excel here. So Q, what do you suggest the poor uneducated project kids do? Work at McDonald's for minimum wage? Are you really going to call them out for choosing fast money over shit money, especially under their circumstances? No, drugs don't cause violence, the black market commerce in drugs causes violence. And here are endless poor youths ready to fill in the void of dead/jailed black marketers. The Drug War will always fail.
