Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2002 6:40:40 PM EDT
I wrote this in response to a post in the "Revolution" thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, and besides, I think this deserves it's own thread, so I am pasting my post here. Thank you for reading:
Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf: ... There are a lot of fed up citizens that have had it with the rape of the US Constitution and its intent. ... When (not if) something bad happens to America, the People will rise again. For now it's suicide to organize any larger than neighbors, families, co-workers and friends do. Although it is can be viewed as sedition by politicians we know better: It's done to preserve the [b]US Constitution[/b]. ... [b]God[/b] be with us.
View Quote
This brings up something interesting. You mention the Constitution twice. There is plenty of blind "Constitution Worship" on this site and in other Liberty-oriented literature. I myself was once the same way. I thought the U.S. Constitution was one of the greatest documents ever written. It was the SLIMY POLITICIANS that had perverted it to get us in the mess we're in today. A great portion of my beliefs (and consequentally, my identity) was somehow based on the ideals in the Constitution. I recently read an excellent book that challenged that. Please read _Hologram of Liberty_ by Boston T. Party. You can order it direct from www.javelinpress.com . You can also get it from Amazon. In said book, Boston T. Party (Kenneth Royce) examines various drafts of the Constitution as well as other documents and news articles from that time. It is very well-researched and he makes a compelling case that the Constitution was DESIGNED to allow a strong Central government to emerge. Understand, I had a very hard time reading this book. As I said, I had many beliefs and opinions based on the Constitution, and frankly, I delayed ordering and reading this book because it frightened me that much of what I believed would be successfully challenged. But eventually, I decided that if I was so secure in my beliefs, then they should be able to withstand a well-reasoned argument, and if my beliefs couldn't stand up to it, then I didn't want such beliefs anyways. Long story short, this book changed my opinions on plenty of topics as well as brought me to understand the early history of the United States. I'll admit, some of the ideas in the book are a bit far-fetched, but no one says you have to agree 100% with anything. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who thinks they understand how the Constitution came about and who wants to obtain a fuller appreciation for early American politics and history. I'll ask one question that boils down the whole argument: If the Constitution is such a great document guaranteeing that we can live our lives without undue interference from Uncle Sam, then how in the world did we get into the mess we're in today? If we had an adequate Constitution, we wouldn't be suffering from all the BS that flows out of Washington City and goes downhill from there. Finally, a bit of trivia...several states were particularly anti-federalist (The Federalists were the ones pushing for the new Constitution and tossing out the Articles of Confederation). Pennsylvania was one. The Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional Convention (which is where the US Constitution was written) actually had the majority of their members WALK OUT IN DISGUST with the big government lovers and the slimy politics they were using to implement their ideas into the Constitution. Rhode Island held out and refused to join the new United States and sign on to the Constitution. The Rhode Islanders felt that it was a big-government disaster waiting to happen. In retaliation, the new United States placed a strict trade embargo on Rhode Island and economically crushed R.I.. Eventually Rhode Island gave in and signed on in order to have the embargo lifted. Looking at what we have today, I wish Rhode Island had held out--it would give me somewhere to live. Before I go on too long, I'll conclude: Read _Hologram of Liberty_ and give it a fair shot. You won't be sorry. -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 6:58:20 PM EDT
Though I've not read the book, I tend to concur with the basic premise that a strong central goverment was desired by the majority of the Founders, and the Constitution was written in such a way as to enable one to emerge. I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. What the Founders failed to do was recognize that regardless of the checks and balances the tripartite government had in place, the power they granted to Congress and the courts ensured that those safeguards could eventually be worked around. Hell, perhaps they didn't fail to recognize it - they did, eventually, add the Second Amendment to ensure the People had sufficient werewithal to resist a tyrannical government. What I think happened was that they believed we would elect and continue to elect men of honor - that our Republic would be a meritocracy and would remain one. That's where they really failed. It became, at best, a mediocracy. And in fact it is now a corpocracy - essentially run by the people who buy the offices with campaign contributions and other monies, regardless of who actually sits in the chairs. It is a problem with all elective governments - the governed aren't really all that interested in government, and therefore the governing can get away with pretty much anything they like. And he who has the gold makes the rules. No system of govnernment is foolproof. We keep making better fools. But what the Constitution [i]represents[/i] makes it special. It is, along with the Declaration of Independence, an incredible statement of intent and vision. I used to use a signature line that I think is too long for this forum: [i]The Constitution may not be the greatest work ever set to paper, but it beats the hell out of what they're using these days.[/i]
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:07:26 PM EDT
RI is now one of the most liberal states. Certainly one of the most corrupt. RI sucks! [puke] The real problem is not the Constitution, ( Except for 2, possibly 3 amendments ) it is the treasonous behavior of elected officials, appointed judges, and faceless bureaucrats.[pissed]
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:22:36 PM EDT
[b]N_Viejo[/b] as with most things, what you speak of is only partially correct and you fail to put it in perspective. you have presented a great analysis on "central government" as it relates only to its historical and contemporary effect on the U.S. yet you fail to compare it to other governments. our strong central government isn't so strong (or wasn't when it was created) when compared to other forms of government along the spectrum. in fact, the difference between our government today and our government in its infancy is minute compared to the differences between our government and those of the former Soviet Union, N. Korea, hell, even U.K. be wary of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. it's all too easy to move from one extreme to the other. and finally, a question (or two) for you: are you suggesting that the Constitution sucks? do [i]you[/i] have any better ideas? not flaming, just always a bit curious when people start shitting on things that benefit them and history has shown no better altervative for it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:25:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By N_Viejo: I'll ask one question that boils down the whole argument: If the Constitution is such a great document guaranteeing that we can live our lives without undue interference from Uncle Sam, then how in the world did we get into the mess we're in today? If we had an adequate Constitution, we wouldn't be suffering from all the BS that flows out of Washington City and goes downhill from there.
View Quote
How can a document actually guarantee anything? It is people who have to back the document up and make sure that it is enforced. Most people want a strong central government ("there ought to be a law . . ." or "where is the government?"). Politicians, particularly evil ones, are happy to oblige. In the case of the Constitution, the biggest failure has been the interpertation of regulating "commerce among the several states" as regulating "anything that effects commerce among the several states". When the courts interpret the Constitution as meaning things it doesn't say, the Constitution becomes a useless defense of our rights. No document can protect us from this. Perhaps we could have a better document, but we could have worse. Consider a Constitution without the added Bill of Rights.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:37:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By N_Viejo: I'll ask one question that boils down the whole argument: If the Constitution is such a great document guaranteeing that we can live our lives without undue interference from Uncle Sam, then how in the world did we get into the mess we're in today? If we had an adequate Constitution, we wouldn't be suffering from all the BS that flows out of Washington City and goes downhill from there.
View Quote
How can a document actually guarantee anything? It is people who have to back the document up and make sure that it is enforced. Most people want a strong central government ("there ought to be a law . . ." or "where is the government?"). Politicians, particularly evil ones, are happy to oblige. In the case of the Constitution, the biggest failure has been the interpertation of regulating "commerce among the several states" as regulating "anything that effects commerce among the several states". When the courts interpret the Constitution as meaning things it doesn't say, the Constitution becomes a useless defense of our rights. No document can protect us from this. Perhaps we could have a better document, but we could have worse. Consider a Constitution without the added Bill of Rights.
View Quote
What you think of as a problem, I believe can be a solution! The commerce clause can inevitably be the gun industry's best friend. When states like NJ and CA ban certain firearms that are legal in bordering states. Isn't that restricting the sales by Colt, DPMS, RRA, BM? In banning items which have not been proven to be dangerous, I think these states have left themselves open to an attack based on the commerce clause. I could go into further detail, but that's the crux of it. Another way to regain some of the firearms that were banned in 1989 and 1994 would come from international sources. As you are aware, we ban certain foreign made guns, which can be made in the US. (Ex. FAL, CETME, AK47 variants, G3...) Now all that would need to happen is for a country like Spain to file against the US for unfair trade practices and we would be unable to win. They can easily prove that we are protecting the home market by banning complete guns in favor of creating the finished product here in good ol USA! I know that got off topic, but I thought I'd share, considering our 2nd Amendment rights are eroding on what seems like a daily basis and we need a way to get them back! Maybe the Eurotrash can save us yet!
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:39:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:51:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By N_Viejo: I'll ask one question that boils down the whole argument: If the Constitution is such a great document guaranteeing that we can live our lives without undue interference from Uncle Sam, then how in the world did we get into the mess we're in today?
View Quote
Because people need to be responsible for their actions and be active participents in goverment. "Thus, that Sept. 18, as the Philadelphia sun was rising on the infant Constitution, a Mrs. Powell approached Dr. Benjamin Franklin, the eminence grise among the Convention delegates. She inquired, "Well Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied Franklin, "if you can keep it."
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 9:19:48 PM EDT
I concur with [b]DonS's[/b] sentiments. The Constitution is only as good as those who are reading it. But I'd also like to add that the current thing we call the "Consititution" is not the same one that was written in 1789. Many changes were made since then, and several of them have directly led to the growth of this behemoth Federal Gov't and to the installation of even more self-serving political hacks. Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)] Nuf said. Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)] Senators were originally elected by [u]state legislatures[/u] to represent purely STATE interests, as opposed to the popularly elected House of Representatives. Nowadays, there's NO state representation in the happenings of the Federal Gov't, hence the tremendous whithering of [u]states rights[/u]. Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)] More political whoring for votes. All-in-all, the Constitution is still pretty damn good - the problem lies in the people.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 9:27:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: I concur with [b]DonS's[/b] sentiments. The Constitution is only as good as those who are reading it. But I'd also like to add that the current thing we call the "Consititution" is not the same one that was written in 1789. Many changes were made since then, and several of them have directly led to the growth of this behemoth Federal Gov't and to the installation of even more self-serving political hacks. Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)] Nuf said. Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)] Senators were originally elected by [u]state legislatures[/u] to represent purely STATE interests, as opposed to the popularly elected House of Representatives. Nowadays, there's NO state representation in the happenings of the Federal Gov't, hence the tremendous whithering of [u]states rights[/u]. Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)] More political whoring for votes. All-in-all, the Constitution is still pretty damn good - the problem lies in the people.
View Quote
excellent points. i hadn't thought about those things.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 9:41:46 PM EDT
2 things that caused the failure of the Republic. 1. Political expediency by elected representatives who don't give a shit about their oath of office. 2. Apathy for the Constitution which created sheeple who encourage #1.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 9:42:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2002 9:43:15 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]
... We could completely dissect the [b]Constitution[/b] just as we do the [b]Bible[/b] on this website. However, the main and fundamental reason for my post was that the people retain the right to keep and bear arms. As a last resort, is to [u]protect themselves against tyranny in government[/u] (the revolt word). Supposedly it's a guarantee in the the [b]US Constitution[/b]. ... I thought that was the theme of the topic of my referenced thread here. (fixed HTML tags)
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 10:30:35 PM EDT
There is no guarantee at all in the Constitution about keeping and bearing arms and the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. That is what the the Attorney General said and if you disagree with that you are a terrorist.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 10:45:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: There is no guarantee at all in the Constitution about keeping and bearing arms and the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. That is what the the Attorney General said and if you disagree with that you are a terrorist.
View Quote
I certainly DO agree. So there - so I'm not a terrorist. [:P] So name ONE "absolute" right that was EVER stated, protected or mentioned in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 11:12:22 PM EDT
Interesting post. Goods points The Mcallan.Specially bout the Senate.That is a paradigm shift in priorities. I always thought a big difference in our time was politics as a career. I understand that our government was meant to be manned by citizens.Perhaps a couplea terms in the house.Maybe a single term in the senate,but not for twenty, thirty years.These people are supposed to serve the public for a short time and then go back to their lives and let a fresh perspective have a shot. A couple of problems arise when this model is not followed. First of all,how are you supposed to be governed "by the people"when these peolpe havn't actually been among them for twenty years?These pro politicians haven't a clue what the public wants or needs after they've been in the government all that time.It becomes government for the sake of.........government. Secondly,obviously when their in the government over that long time it affords the opportunity for outside interests (financial backers,ect...) to have undue and permanent lines of influence on the government.It also sets up unproductive (IMO)alliances within government amongst these pro politicians.Again,these alliances dilute local concerns and accentuate screwball,federal level thinking and government protectionism of itself. We're also not governed by local leadership anymore,for the most part.Regualar folks from many differnt walks of life and with many different life experiences.All these lawyers.Its like one class speaking for all.A very narrow perspective/point of view and way of thinking and tackling a problem as compared to society as a whole.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 5:46:35 AM EDT
This is good. Looks like there's some pretty good discussion coming out of this thread. One thing I'd like to re-iterate here, and that is I didn't write start this thread to convince people one way or the other about the Constitution. I wrote it to pique people's curiosity enough to read the book I suggested. I don't really expect to change any opinions here. I do hope, and expect that a few people who read this who would like to broaden their understanding of the Constitution will read _Hologram of Liberty_ and decide for themselves. If you do read the book and your opinions are still unchanged after you honestly evaluate it, then more power to you. I'm just saying that Royce brings several arguments into the mix that I haven't seen voiced anywhere else.
Originally by KBaker What the Founders failed to do was recognize that regardless of the checks and balances the tripartite government had in place, the power they granted to Congress and the courts ensured that those safeguards could eventually be worked around. Hell, perhaps they didn't fail to recognize it - they did, eventually, add the Second Amendment to ensure the People had sufficient werewithal to resist a tyrannical government.
View Quote
The thesis of the book is that the founders (Especially Hamilton and Madison) DID intend for a strong central government to emerge. In fact, they didn't even want to include the Bill of Rights, but HAD TO include it because too many states were suspicious of the new Constitution and wouldn't ratify it without the Bill of Rights in place.
From AR Lady... and finally, a question (or two) for you: are you suggesting that the Constitution sucks? do you have any better ideas? not flaming, just always a bit curious when people start shitting on things that benefit them and history has shown no better altervative for it.
View Quote
I'm not saying that the Constitution "sucks." I'm saying that it doesn't do the job of limiting the power of government that most people around here think it ought to. The Constitution is OK, but it could be better. As for better ideas, yes, I have several better ideas, but that's another topic, and again, my intention here is only to persuade people to open their minds enough to look at another piece of the story that most folks haven't heard yet. And I agree with The_Macallan's statements, regarding the more onerous ammendments that have passed. If we had had a better Constitution, they would not have passed. I believe it was designed to allow such things as that. I could go on all day, but once again, _Hologram of Liberty_ explains it better than I could and supplies the documents to back up its thesis. Happy reading, and thanks for the good discussion! -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 8:45:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2002 8:46:53 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Post from Imbroglio -
There is no guarantee at all in the Constitution about keeping and bearing arms and the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions.
View Quote
There is no mention in the Bill of Rights that the Freedom of Expression is subject to any reasonable restrictions...but you are not going to argue your right to shout 'fire' in a crowd? Or your right to slander a private citizen, are you?
That is what the the Attorney General said and if you disagree with that you are a terrorist.
View Quote
Nonsense, Mr. Ashcroft never said any such thing. Why the hyperbole? These issues are serious enough to excite anyone's temper; there's no need to throw gasoline on a burning House! Some of you desire a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter description of our rights, our duties, and how laws should be interpreted. You will never get it on this earth. Don't stop trying, but let me warn you beforehand, if you are looking for perfection in a humanly drafted document, you [u]will[/u] be disappointed! The only perfect law, is the Law given by Jesus. And [u]that[/u] law most of you reject. You are still trying to build a Tower of Babel that will incorporate nothing but divine laws, without any mention of the Creator! That is like trying to build an automobile without reference to the manufacturer's blue prints and manuals. The Founding Fathers had it right. You lay down the great principals, and, if the land is righteous, the laws will work. If the land is [u]not[/u] righteous, then no amount of great principals and good laws will work. Well, boys and girls, we took the wrong path years ago. In the War Between The States, when Lincoln decided that a 'marriage' enforced at gun point was still a 'marriage' nevertheless. In the days of Wilsonian 'Internationalism', when we thought it prudent for our nation to become involved in drawing the maps of Europe and elsewhere. And, most recently, when FDR's New Deal brought true class warfare, class envy, and socialism into the mix of American political science. Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 10:56:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2002 10:58:02 AM EDT by Imbroglio]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from Imbroglio -
There is no guarantee at all in the Constitution about keeping and bearing arms and the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions.
View Quote
There is no mention in the Bill of Rights that the Freedom of Expression is subject to any reasonable restrictions...but you are not going to argue your right to shout 'fire' in a crowd? Or your right to slander a private citizen, are you?
View Quote
If there is a fire then by all means someone should yell fire. There is no right to commit slander as it harms someone in the process. Explain to me how reasonable "reasonable restrictions" are when they create VICTIMLESS CRIMES? From the Ashcroft Justice Dept letter to the Supreme Court: “[The 2nd Amendment is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or [b]to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.[/b]” "Reasonable regulations regarding the ownership of weapons are appropriate"- May 2002 John Ashcroft on Larry King Live Is the ban on "assault weapons" reasonable? Is the ban on possesion of post 94 manufacture or importation of standard capacity magazines reasonable? Is closing the "gun show loophole" reasonable? It appears that these are "reasonable" to the blind supporters of the current regime.
That is what the the Attorney General said and if you disagree with that you are a terrorist.
View Quote
Nonsense, Mr. Ashcroft never said any such thing.
View Quote
"...to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." - John Ashcroft before the Senate Judiciary Comittee December 2001
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 11:26:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By N_Viejo: If we had had a better Constitution, they would not have passed. I believe it was designed to allow such things as that.
View Quote
elaborate, please. i fail to see how anyone could have created a document that did all the Constitution did and still allow for things that the FF hadn't/couldn't have thought of. seriously, it would take the entire lifetime of the U.S. to think of every possible aspect of government that would need to be addressed specifically in the Constitution to avoid needing amendments to address them. ridiculous! and hardly practical. i also disagree that the FF created the Constitution so that government could grow. while i haven't read your book, i have read others, and there are several other sources that point to the fear the FF had of an overzealous government too big for its own britches. the Constitution is just fine. it's the "interpretations" of the people who live under it that are the problem. face value is just that. there is no room for interpreting. period. remove that aspect of "Constitution-ism" and i dare say we'd be a fair sight better than we are now.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 12:10:11 PM EDT
Post from Imbroglio -
'Your tactics only aid terrorists.' - John Ashcroft....
View Quote
That is a [u]far[/u] cry from saying that you are a 'terrorist', isn't it? A little hyperbole, perhaps? Eric The(NonHyperbolic)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 12:16:04 PM EDT
Post from Imbroglio -
Is the ban on "assault weapons" reasonable? Is the ban on possesion of post 94 manufacture or importation of standard capacity magazines reasonable? Is closing the "gun show loophole" reasonable? It appears that these are "reasonable" to the blind supporters of the current regime.
View Quote
If those items are what the 'current regime' desires, then why hasn't the 'gun show loophole' been closed already? Surely the DEMOS are not to blame for the continuation of the so-called 'gun show loophole' are they? And the other items were passed and signed into law by a Democratic Congress and a DEMO President, not by Republicans! So get your facts right, first! Did you ever look to see what the percentages of GOP votes [u]for[/u] the AWB were, as opposed to DEMO votes [u]against[/u] the AWB? Now, just who are the friends of the RKBA in Congress, eh? Eric The(IKnowTheAnswer)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 12:40:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 3:02:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now, just who are the friends of the RKBA in Congress, eh? Eric The(IKnowTheAnswer)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about congress.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 3:22:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: So name ONE "absolute" right that was EVER stated, protected or mentioned in the Constitution.
View Quote
"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty absolute to me. Or how about "Congress shall make no law." The world "shall" implies an ABSOLUTE, unless my reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 3:26:43 PM EDT
Post from Imbroglio -
Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about congress.
View Quote
Well, Son, seriously, if you are talking about what may or may not constitute 'reasonable restrictions' and then you mention three specific items that either the past DEMO-controlled Congress had passed or was considering, and yet you 'say nothing about Congress', then someone [u]should[/u] put words in your mouth! Otherwise, your tirade is empty and meaningless, IMHO! By the way, you [u]said[/u] those three items appeared [u]reasonable[/u] to the 'blind supporters' of the current regime. Since I maybe one of those 'blind supporters', can you give me any quotes that I've made that suggest that those three items are reasonable? I mean, [u]you[/u] said it. Please back it up with some quotes! Eric The(BlindSupporterOfBush)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 4:17:20 PM EDT
Hologram of Liberty by Boston T. Party And when you get done with that scholarly tome you can check out Arming America by Michael A. Bellesiles.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 8:19:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: . . . . I'd also like to add that the current thing we call the "Consititution" is not the same one that was written in 1789. Many changes were made since then, and several of them have directly led to the growth of this behemoth Federal Gov't and to the installation of even more self-serving political hacks. Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)] Nuf said. Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)] Senators were originally elected by [u]state legislatures[/u] to represent purely STATE interests, as opposed to the popularly elected House of Representatives. Nowadays, there's NO state representation in the happenings of the Federal Gov't, hence the tremendous whithering of [u]states rights[/u]. Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)] More political whoring for votes. All-in-all, the Constitution is still pretty damn good - the problem lies in the people.
View Quote
I agree with the above. The income tax in particular made it possible to create a very large central government. That, and the fact that we are not on a gold standard, and the government can run up a debt to "pay" for current spending.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 8:35:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2002 8:37:09 PM EDT by libertyof76]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: There is no guarantee at all in the Constitution about keeping and bearing arms and the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. That is what the the Attorney General said and if you disagree with that you are a terrorist.
View Quote
I certainly DO agree. So there - so I'm not a terrorist. [:P] So name ONE "absolute" right that was EVER stated, protected or mentioned in the Constitution.
View Quote
Amendment One: Congress [red]shall make no law[/red] 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. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [red]shall not be infringed.[/red] Pretty clear to me.
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from Imbroglio -
There is no guarantee at all in the Constitution about keeping and bearing arms and the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions.
View Quote
There is no mention in the Bill of Rights that the Freedom of Expression is subject to any reasonable restrictions...but you are not going to argue your right to shout 'fire' in a crowd? Or your right to slander a private citizen, are you?
View Quote
A- Those are both state crimes, both which are dealt on the state level. B- You do have a right to shout fire, if there is a fire. If you do shout fire, and there isn't one, and it cause mob panic, THEN, you can be prosecuted for inciting a riot or whatever. The government doesn't duct tape everybody's mouth when they walk into a building because they MIGHT yell fire. The same thing applies to slander. --- As far as the Constitution goes, I would have preferred that we had stayed with the Articles of Confederation. We might not have the Tyranny that we have now.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 9:04:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2002 9:08:43 PM EDT by smarty_pants]
Are we rally talking about this? has everybody gone nuts!?! "the Constitution was DESIGNED to allow a strong Central government to emerge" So everthing the founders said was a lie and after over 200 years you buddy finds them out[rolleyes] Look if this guy want s to rehash history fine! So dose every other pin-head but if you play along your a dumb ass! There is no such thing as "Constitution Worship" there is a love of Liberty and the Constitution lays our liberties out point by point so people respect it but not worship. "Constitution Worship" is just a chicken shit tag line for pin head commie to use insted of making a point. "I'll ask one question that boils down the whole argument: If the Constitution is such a great document guaranteeing that we can live our lives without undue interference from Uncle Sam, then how in the world did we get into the mess we're in today?" Easy! The Constitution waas put in place at the head of a sys of SELF GOVNERMENT! Americans don't do that any more,ever time people need something they call out for Uncle Sam to fix it. So the Constitution is fine and will work if people don't side step it. Anyway,just what would you put in it's place? "efore I go on too long, I'll conclude: Read _Hologram of Liberty_ and give it a fair shot. You won't be sorry" You have and I am. BTW:libertyof76,stop with the truth stuff ok,yer gon'a make somebody feel bad.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 9:29:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2002 9:32:28 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: So name ONE "absolute" right that was EVER stated, protected or mentioned in the Constitution.
View Quote
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [red]shall not be infringed.[/red] Pretty clear to me.
View Quote
I disagree. The 2nd Amendment is NOT absolute. [b]First[/b] of all, if it were, what's the purpose of including the context-setting preface of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," if not to imply there's a specific and demarcated intention (and thus an inherent reasonable limit) for the subsequent statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."? [b]Second[/b] of all, do you really think the FFs intended that convicted murders in prison still have a right to keep and bear arms? What provision of the Constitution allows to Gov't to disarm convicted prisoners without violating their "absolute" 2nd Amendment rights? Or defendants on trial? Or suspects under arrest? Or anyone else? [b]Thirdly[/b], for a more specific example of the Gov't having the Constitutional authority to restrict one's possession of arms: [u]Amendment IV[/u] - [i]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [b]unreasonable searches and seizures[/b], 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. [/i] This implies there are "reasonable" searches and seizure of property, [red]including the contents of your gun case[/red], and describes one manner in which you may be lawfully and Constitutionally disarmed. Article I Section 8 provides the Congress the power to pass all laws necessary to implement the provisions of the Consitution, including the 4th Amendment. So the Constitution provides Congress the power to pass laws governing "reasonable" searches and seizures of property, [red]including arms.[/red]
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 9:57:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: First of all, if it were, what's the purpose of including the context-setting preface of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," if not to imply there's a specific and demarcated intention (and thus an inherent reasonable limit) for the subsequent statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."?
View Quote
The Founders did not see a "regulated militia" in the same way as you do. The part you did not post says the a regulated militia is every man. The Fouders idea of a militia was to made up of everyday folks and so they would be able to do this with out the Feds getting in it they could own weapons. The militia was not to be the Army and the Army (or any part of it) was not to be the militia,the Founders knew we would need a militia would not be the only power. The Fouders knew that the right to say what you want and to be free to fight for you self and your rights were the keys to freedon and that way there are fist in the Bill of Rights. As for "reasonable searches and seizures of property" people that brake the law or who are in prison have never had the same rights as everybody eles. This is a sys. of self govnerment if you stop the rules change. Thats what reasonable searches and seizures are all about. in the case that the Feds have real proof of a crime or act to stop a crime them you may ne the subject of a search,if you cross the line the rules cheange. But Amendment IV does not meat that the people at large don't have rights. In fact the Bill of Righjts was pined to clear just that up once and for all. Some of the Founders could see something like what we have today,with govnerment totaly out of hand to see to it that people would still be able to fight back if need be and fix thing the set up the bill of Rights. Some the Bill of Rights is proof that Kenneth Royce is worng. If the Fouders wanted Government to be this way why did the set up the Bill of Rights? Like I said there is nothing worng with the Constitution as long as we don't side step it.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 10:47:55 PM EDT
Smarty-pants, you AMAZE me! I totally agree.Couldn't a said it better myself.[beer]
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 11:04:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2002 11:07:14 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By smarty_pants:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: First of all, if it were, what's the purpose of including the context-setting preface of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," if not to imply there's a specific and demarcated intention (and thus an inherent reasonable limit) for the subsequent statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."?
View Quote
The Founders did not see a "regulated militia" in the same way as you do. The part you did not post says the a regulated militia is every man.
View Quote
That sentiment is described in the Federalist Papers #23 and #46 and I understand part of what you're saying. But I disagree with you about the Founders not intending a "regulated militia" or saying it was "every man". Just one year after the 2nd Amendment was ratified, The Militia Act of 1792 (which was eventually repealed and replaced by the Militia Act of 1903) was passed that proscribed in detail exactly WHO the militia was:
[url=http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm]Militia Act of 1792[/url] I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, [red]That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia[/red], by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, [red]to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid[/red], and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock... That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state...
View Quote
There is no mention of an "unorganized militia" or any other militia in this Act. So within a year of the 2nd Amendment's ratification, Congress did not recognize an "unorganized militia" (that term came about in the 1903 Act) but rather a more narrow definition of what the "militia" was - all white males from 18-45yrs old - and how they were ALL to be "enrolled" (i.e. 'registered').
Originally Posted By smarty_pants: As for "reasonable searches and seizures of property" people that brake the law or who are in prison have never had the same rights as everybody eles.
View Quote
BINGO. Thank you. That's my point - There are NO "absolute" rights. [i]Originally Posted By The_Macallan: So name ONE "absolute" right that was EVER stated, protected or mentioned in the Constitution.[/i] [b]ALL rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions.[/b]
Originally Posted By smarty_pants: Like I said there is nothing worng with the Constitution as long as we don't side step it.
View Quote
And with that I also agree.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 5:46:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2002 6:05:02 AM EDT by Teltech]
Maybe this is a stupid question but I'll ask it anyway. If the founding fathers wanted the people to have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve itself against a tyrannical government, how on earth do you think that government is given the right to take away the arms of the citizens? And who is supposed to regulate the militia, the goverment? We live in a Representative Republic. Do you think that the goverment is representing the majority of the American People. If not then we have a tyrannical government. In my opinion all rights lie with the people first. Life, [b]Liberty[/b] and the pursuit of happiness. Am I missing something here?
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 1:06:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Teltech: Maybe this is a stupid question but I'll ask it anyway. If the founding fathers wanted the people to have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve itself against a tyrannical government, how on earth do you think that government is given the right to take away the arms of the citizens?
View Quote
By using "reasonable restrictions".
And who is supposed to regulate the militia, the goverment?
View Quote
The definition of "well regulated" as used during the time of the penning of the Bill of Rights was defined "as in a well functioning clock" not "well legislated" by rules or laws. In other words they wanted the militia to have the equipment and training to be capable of the security of a free state.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 1:48:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: The definition of "well regulated" as used during the time of the penning of the Bill of Rights was defined "as in a well functioning clock" not "well legislated" by rules or laws.
View Quote
Again, going back to the Militia Act of 1792, we see very clearly that the FFs intended that "well regulated" did indeed mean, well-stocked and enumerated. Given this, it seems that the "enrollment" and "inspection" by the Commanding Officer (directed by the state) as proscribed by that Act constituted a "registration" of all men and their arms with an authority (CO) who was answerable to the state.
the militia of the respective states shall be arranged... as the legislature of each state shall direct,
View Quote
So were the FFs by this Act in favor of state-sponsored "gun registration"?
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 4:54:04 PM EDT
Sounds like the FF's left that direction and comprehensiveness of coordination up to the states. I don't see the Militia Act as really a regulation of people and firearms-read restriction-more of a means to provide a certain level of performance and communication in the event the militia should be used or called to service. I've read many different opinions on the 2nd ammendment that suggest the first part(a well regulated militia ect...) is secondary to the second(right of the people to keep and bear arms ect...)I tend to agree.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 5:49:48 PM EDT
The_Macallan: It's not that I thing the Founders called for an unorganized militia it's who is to do the organizing. The Congress was to set guidelines but after that their role was over. "That's my point - There are NO "absolute" rights." We are miss'n each other here,my point was that in the Founders sys. a loss of rights was something you did to your self but if you live with in the law your rights are all absolute and are speelled out in the bill of rights.
Top Top