|
School Shooting in... Finland. 7 killed (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
even with all of those quotes the right to bear arms refers to a military purpose. There is no reference to a persons right to have a handgun to shot at random targets.
If you are interested, check out the transcripts to the oral argument.
ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS
CASE BRIEFS (DC v HELLER)
There is an interesting exchange on how "bear arms" was a military term back when the constitution was drafted. Each time they refer to "bear arms" or "keep arms" it is a military reference. In any event, I find it slightly silly that we are arguing whether the words "bear arms" was a military term back in the 1700's, when even the purpose of the amendment is obsolete today, even on the NRA reading of the amendment. |
Really? Not even this one?
| quote: | "No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
- Richard Henry Lee |
or this one?
| quote: | "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
how about these, by Tench Coxe
| quote: | "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people." |
|
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Really? Not even this one?
or this one? |
i don't pretend to be a historian, but i'm sure if you add the 100 words preceding and following those quotes you get a much different context than what your selected texts seem to display. i'm sure each quote came from a speech or writing having something to do with fighting the british or forming a militia (or something like that). It's possible to pick out any short text and have it suggest whatever you choose. i'm not going to sort through ancient texts to find what it says because what was said should matter little because those quotes are from a different time with different concerns. however, the fact that we are relying on the intent of people from 240 years ago to determine how our government functions in modern society is stupid. If we relied on the intent of the framers, we would still count black people as 3/5 of a man, and women wouldn't be able to vote. We shouldn't consistently look backwards to determine our future.
furthermore, the only ambiguity in the plain reading of the text is what conservatives want to read into the provision. that's why you guys always have to quote things said 240 years ago. notice how those quotes are NOT in the constitution. why should the language of the constitution be usurped by some informal document or statement? If those thoughts were so important they should have been included in the constitution. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I firmly believe that our Second Amendment was more or less based upon the rights of the people over that of a possibly oppressive government, which is what we were trying to escape by declaring independence from Britain in the first place. |
No it wasn't. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i don't pretend to be a historian, but i'm sure if you add the 100 words preceding and following those quotes you get a much different context than what your selected texts seem to display. i'm sure each quote came from a speach or writing having something to do with fighting the british or forming a militia (or something like that). It's possible to pick out any short text and have it suggest whatever you choose. i'm not going to sort through ancient texts to find what it says because what was said should matter little because those quotes are from a different time with different concerns. |
Trancer X went through some text. Can you do the same, because right now, your argument has been totally slammed. We do have a right to own a gun, and the balance of power between the people and the state remains relevant today just as it was in the American Revolution... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
At the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers considered two versions of the Second Amendment - the first was in form eventually adopted, and the second was the exact language used in Pennsylvania's state Constitution (under the Articles of Confederation control of arms/militias was relegated to state control).
The Pennsylvania Amendment, as it came to be known, specified that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, without any mention of militias regulated or not.
You don't think there's a "historical context" reason that the Founding Fathers rejected the version without mention of well-regulated militias in favor of the current language? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Trancer X went through some text. Can you do the same, because right now, your argument has been totally slammed. We do have a right to own a gun, and the balance of power between the people and the state remains relevant today just as it was in the American Revolution... |
Trancer X went on wikipedia and cherry-picked quotes that suited his need. If i had time i could find the highly relevant quotes that speak the other way. If you want to hear the opinions of people much smarter than you or I, perhaps you should read the supreme court merit briefs from the link i posted on the previous page, or the one from the link below (try page 31 forward).
Supreme Court Brief |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| jer, don't you get it? Supreme Court Justices are part of the GOVERNMENT!!11! They're the ones trying to take our guns!!! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Trancer X went through some text. Can you do the same, because right now, your argument has been totally slammed. We do have a right to own a gun, and the balance of power between the people and the state remains relevant today just as it was in the American Revolution... |
sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. jer's assessment is pretty accurate. |
|
|
| Krypton |
okok, I'll be looking at that brief. That's all I wanted...
I'm still of the opinion that we should have the right to own a gun. My $500 Romanian AK-47 looks mighty good. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I firmly believe that the majority of people that cite the Founding Fathers have a fundamental misconception of the context and process by which they created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I also find it highly ironic that one can get away with uniformly doubting the integrity of any politician today simply by virtue of their being a public figure while simultaneously taking the words (separated from any and all context) of the Founding Fathers as gospel. You don't think self-interest was a motivator in their careers? Jesus H. Christ, read John Marshall's Marbury v. Madison opinion. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I'm not making any comments on "Americans" and their willingness to carry out such attacks, I'm commenting on what the state does about it. In the UK, they DID do something about it, but in America, nothing has been done because to support gun control is akin to supporting al-Qaida over there!
|
In your own country's words...BULLOCKS...
The underground element isn't going to quiver over a few gun laws please! :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
