"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 11
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. #101

    Arms bearing

    In the day of the forefathers the term arms applied to any male from 16 to 60 capable of useing them in defense of themselves and their country, who were the militia? They were the whole 'People'. Then and now, if you comitted a serious crime you lost the right to firearm ownership, that has not changed.

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by mshean View Post
    In the day of the forefathers the term arms applied to any male from 16 to 60 capable of useing them in defense of themselves and their country, who were the militia? They were the whole 'People'. Then and now, if you comitted a serious crime you lost the right to firearm ownership, that has not changed.
    You left out the main reason for a rifle in a home back then was to put food on the table. As the use for defense came in second to using it to hunt for food to feed the family. As for the ages their kids were taught how to use a rifle to hunt when they were big enough too so I am guessing around the age of 8. And back then when you committed a crime you did not lose your right to firearm ownership depending on the crime you lost your life or did your time and got out. Most crimes committed back then you lost your life for they did not believe in having to pay to keep a person who is a danger to the town alive.

  4. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Supreme Court Justice Breyer: Founders Were For Restricting Guns... Why Breyer is Wrong - Publius Forum

    Read this and decide if you trust the minds of the SCOTUS... At some point you need to draw a line and make a stand or comply and forget about liberty. By the time the liberal left is done with it, The Bill of Rights will be a non-functional document and mean nothing... The "Rights" do not come from government, the government does not posses them so they can't dispense them nor define them nor restrict them without expectation of resistance...

    Beware SCOTUS Justice Breyer, Constitutional Revisionist

    Even if Justice Breyer somehow divined Madison's motivation, it would not warrant judicial revision of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment means what it says, not what anyone might have wanted it to be. It is amendable in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, but it is not supposed to be repealed or amended under the guise of judicial interpretation.

    Stephen Breyer is one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States who describes the United States Constitution as a “living document.”

    That really means that he considers it a document that he can change because he thinks he can improve it.

    Last Sunday, on "Fox News Sunday," Justice Breyer, one of the four dissenters in the Heller decision that overturned the federal handgun ban in the District of Columbia, Justice Breyer claimed that James Madison included the right to bear arms in the Bill of rights reluctantly, as an inducement for the states to ratify the Constitution.

    Justice Breyer: Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison.”

    Justice Breyer justified his dissent in Heller with the dubious claim that Madison personally did not consider the right to bear arms an important check on federal power and reluctantly included it to appease the states into signing the Constitution.

    In Federalist 46, Madison surely seemed to recognize the importance of citizens bearing arms as a limitation on federal power:

    "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

    Assume arguendo that Justice Breyer discovered a Madison diary in which Madison explained his motivation exactly the way Justice Breyer does.

    The Second Amendment would still mean what it says.

    In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the United States Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Marshall, endorsed natural construction of the Constitution, since "the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said."

    Justice Breyer seems to prefer, at least as to the Second Amendment, the converse: those "enlightened patriots" did NOT "intend[] what they said.

    In Ogden v. Saunders (1827), the court, per Chief Justice Marshall, noted that "the intention of the instrument must prevail" and "be collected from its words," "its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended," and "its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them nor contemplated by its framers...."

    As to the Second Amendment, Justice Breyer would rather have ""its provisions ...restricted into insignificance."

    Even if Justice Breyer somehow divined Madison's motivation, it would not warrant judicial revision of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment means what it says, not what anyone might have wanted it to be. It is amendable in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, but it is not supposed to be repealed or amended under the guise of judicial interpretation.

    Author: Michael J. Gaynor
    Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
    Date: December 15, 2010
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  5. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Supreme Court Justice Breyer: Founders Were For Restricting Guns... Why Breyer is Wrong - Publius Forum

    Read this and decide if you trust the minds of the SCOTUS... At some point you need to draw a line and make a stand or comply and forget about liberty. By the time the liberal left is done with it, The Bill of Rights will be a non-functional document and mean nothing... The "Rights" do not come from government, the government does not posses them so they can't dispense them nor define them nor restrict them without expectation of resistance...

    Beware SCOTUS Justice Breyer, Constitutional Revisionist

    Even if Justice Breyer somehow divined Madison's motivation, it would not warrant judicial revision of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment means what it says, not what anyone might have wanted it to be. It is amendable in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, but it is not supposed to be repealed or amended under the guise of judicial interpretation.

    Stephen Breyer is one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States who describes the United States Constitution as a “living document.”

    That really means that he considers it a document that he can change because he thinks he can improve it.

    Last Sunday, on "Fox News Sunday," Justice Breyer, one of the four dissenters in the Heller decision that overturned the federal handgun ban in the District of Columbia, Justice Breyer claimed that James Madison included the right to bear arms in the Bill of rights reluctantly, as an inducement for the states to ratify the Constitution.

    Justice Breyer: Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison.”

    Justice Breyer justified his dissent in Heller with the dubious claim that Madison personally did not consider the right to bear arms an important check on federal power and reluctantly included it to appease the states into signing the Constitution.

    In Federalist 46, Madison surely seemed to recognize the importance of citizens bearing arms as a limitation on federal power:

    "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made...
    Ouch...

  6. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    You left out the main reason for a rifle in a home back then was to put food on the table. As the use for defense came in second to using it to hunt for food to feed the family. As for the ages their kids were taught how to use a rifle to hunt when they were big enough too so I am guessing around the age of 8. And back then when you committed a crime you did not lose your right to firearm ownership depending on the crime you lost your life or did your time and got out. Most crimes committed back then you lost your life for they did not believe in having to pay to keep a person who is a danger to the town alive.
    +1

    Once society then (vs. now) had deemed you fit to return to society, you also were allowed to to defend your life by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against you...

    There are some great early prison records showing property being returned to released prisoners, that included firearms...

    Although, I would qualify that Jefferson and others clearly wrote verbosely that one of the key tenets of the Second Amendment was to resist tyranny in government...

    As I have said many times... Without the "Unabridged Second Amendment" WE THE PEOPLE have no effective way to remove/replace/resist a tyrannical government...

    I would highly recommend to anybody questioning the validity of the "Unabridged Second Amendment" (a fundamental pre-existing right) to re-read the Declaration of Independence for starters, then commence on the Federalist Papers...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    +1

    Once society then (vs. now) had deemed you fit to return to society, you also were allowed to allowed to defend your life by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against you...

    There are some great early prison records showing property being returned to released prisoners, that included firearms...

    Although, I would qualify that Jefferson and others clearly wrote verbosely that one of the key tenets of the Second Amendment was to resist tyranny in government...

    As I have said many times... Without the "Unabridged Second Amendment" WE THE PEOPLE have no effective way to remove/replace/resist a tyrannical government...

    I would highly recommend to anybody questioning the validity of the "Unabridged Second Amendment" (a fundamental pre-existing right) to re-read the Declaration of Independence for starters, then commence on the Federalist Papers...
    +1 Amen...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    You left out the main reason for a rifle in a home back then was to put food on the table. As the use for defense came in second to using it to hunt for food to feed the family. As for the ages their kids were taught how to use a rifle to hunt when they were big enough too so I am guessing around the age of 8. And back then when you committed a crime you did not lose your right to firearm ownership depending on the crime you lost your life or did your time and got out. Most crimes committed back then you lost your life for they did not believe in having to pay to keep a person who is a danger to the town alive.
    There were severe punishments for crimes then. Real crimes; not 7 years in jail for possession of legally owned firearms as brought to us by NJ...

    There was a greater emphasis placed on responsibility then. Character was a defining trait... Justice was often swift and administered at the moment of the offense as they were not restricted, regulated, nor refused the use of arms...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  9. #108
    I am against the current classification of some crimes being a felony and some a misdomeanor. I am also against the restrictions that after being conviceted of a felony that you should lose all or certain rights from then on. However I am for the judge to be able at the time of sentencing to declare that you shall lose your certain rights such as gun, or voting etc. for some time, unrelated to the amount of prison time, up to and including forever. Right now our justice system is based almost soley on prison time and I would like for judges to be given much more leeway in sentencing criminals to actually make the punishment fit the crime. I aslo think this stuff about if a person can be trusted to be out of jail then they should have any restrictions is a bunch of horse hockey. This in one of the reasons our jails are running over.

    Several years ago a judge in SC offered two fellows convicted of rape the choice of a long prison term or castration. Most people around wanted to castrate the judge for even thinking of such a terrible idea and violation of someones rights to even offer them such a terrible choice. This type of thinking is exactly what has got us to the point where we are now. I am not advocating cutting off the right hand of thiefs. But when someone breaks into your home, steals your Granddaddy's WW I medals along with that Fox shotgun that he handed down to you that you will never see again and is back out on the street in 14 months, tell me that it is fine with you that he now has all the rights to do anything he wants to include making sure you see his new Kimber 1911 when he passes you on the street.

  10. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I am against the current classification of some crimes being a felony and some a misdomeanor. I am also against the restrictions that after being conviceted of a felony that you should lose all or certain rights from then on. However I am for the judge to be able at the time of sentencing to declare that you shall lose your certain rights such as gun, or voting etc. for some time, unrelated to the amount of prison time, up to and including forever. Right now our justice system is based almost soley on prison time and I would like for judges to be given much more leeway in sentencing criminals to actually make the punishment fit the crime. I aslo think this stuff about if a person can be trusted to be out of jail then they should have any restrictions is a bunch of horse hockey. This in one of the reasons our jails are running over.

    Several years ago a judge in SC offered two fellows convicted of rape the choice of a long prison term or castration. Most people around wanted to castrate the judge for even thinking of such a terrible idea and violation of someones rights to even offer them such a terrible choice. This type of thinking is exactly what has got us to the point where we are now. I am not advocating cutting off the right hand of thiefs. But when someone breaks into your home, steals your Granddaddy's WW I medals along with that Fox shotgun that he handed down to you that you will never see again and is back out on the street in 14 months, tell me that it is fine with you that he now has all the rights to do anything he wants to include making sure you see his new Kimber 1911 when he passes you on the street.
    IMHO...

    Life trumps property...

    A paroled/released prisoner has a greater right to defend his life and that of his family, etc., than I do in restitution in spades for my family heirlooms...

    Notwithstanding, do you really want to treat the shoplifter of bubblegum the same as the purse snatcher?

    AND many of your arguments are the same the progressives make when they want to BAN a certain type/class of weapon for the so-called public good...
    OR they mean to otherwise infringe upon inalienable rights we were born with...

    If somebody is not taking 24x7 responsibility for your health, welfare and safety as in being incarcerated...

    Then you have to have the right to defend yourself...

    Giving Judges more power is not an solution either, this will expedite our road the progressives are already taking us down...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I am against the current classification of some crimes being a felony and some a misdomeanor. I am also against the restrictions that after being conviceted of a felony that you should lose all or certain rights from then on. However I am for the judge to be able at the time of sentencing to declare that you shall lose your certain rights such as gun, or voting etc. for some time, unrelated to the amount of prison time, up to and including forever. Right now our justice system is based almost soley on prison time and I would like for judges to be given much more leeway in sentencing criminals to actually make the punishment fit the crime. I aslo think this stuff about if a person can be trusted to be out of jail then they should have any restrictions is a bunch of horse hockey. This in one of the reasons our jails are running over.

    Several years ago a judge in SC offered two fellows convicted of rape the choice of a long prison term or castration. Most people around wanted to castrate the judge for even thinking of such a terrible idea and violation of someones rights to even offer them such a terrible choice. This type of thinking is exactly what has got us to the point where we are now. I am not advocating cutting off the right hand of thiefs. But when someone breaks into your home, steals your Granddaddy's WW I medals along with that Fox shotgun that he handed down to you that you will never see again and is back out on the street in 14 months, tell me that it is fine with you that he now has all the rights to do anything he wants to include making sure you see his new Kimber 1911 when he passes you on the street.
    Kind of in the realm of crime and punishment here... Punishment should fit the crime, I agree... The idea of the death penalty begins to look better and better.

    If law abiding citizens were allowed to be armed, most of the justice would be administered at the instant the infraction occurred. Not all, most...

    Trying to attain some crime free, sterile, non violent environment is impossible. There will always be those who prey on others. It is inherent behavior in the animal kingdom and we are part of it no matter how civilized we claim ourselves to be...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 06:57 PM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment extended to states and local governments
    By Stiofan in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 12:39 PM
  4. Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 08:37 PM
  5. Americans Say 2nd Amendment Is Individual Right
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 11:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast