100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gun Control | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention) “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” -Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783 the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ... We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense. See, it doesn't matter what he wrote to someone else. It isn't worded in the amendment. Its validity is merely one citizen talking with another and we are doing that right here. We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense.
Thing is, who determines that common sense, the government or the citizens? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I am getting free water, I cant demand it be from the purest waterfall, those providing it decide that
that would be kind of silly no? you wouldn’t say that if you lived in Flint Michigan. If I am getting guns free, those providing them decide which guns
where do you get guns for free? Unless you join the police force or military. Nope, though we have the RIGHT to possess guns, they are still sold as PRODUCTS that go through regulations and have prices set as well as being subject to requirements.
Just because we have the right to possess arms that doesn’t mean it’s free, you don’t understand the difference between individual right and a government sponsored privilege. Individual rights are essential for freedom, but freedom has a price, nothing is free, if that was the case the government would supply us with guns and weapons and we wouldn’t need an army would we? Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS
in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention) “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” -Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783 the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ... We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense. I really don’t think you understand what you’re saying Ms.Harmony. First thing the language the founding father used isn’t the language we use today, A militia, a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms (fire arms) , the second amendment is pretty clear actually, it’s the interpretation of some that is in question and SCOTUS finally clarified, even Obama had to accept it. It’s like when the jokers ask, does the right to bear arms means I can have a nuclear warhead to protect myself? Duh A nuclear warhead isn’t designed to protect, its designed for total annihilation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Viper1j
on
Tue 05/22/18 05:45 PM
|
|
Does all this mean I CAN'T have my cruise missile? 
Go For It... 
Well, at least I can still have my grenades and my tank. 
You should get yerself a field and invest in a good quality flame thrower too. 
While I have a Star 30M 9mm, and 2 15 round clips, my weapon of choice for my home is quiet as a church mouse, and has no muzzle flash, and will still put just about anyone short of the Hulk down. 
The Cobra 80lb Tactical Pistol Crossbow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The vast majority of shooters have been found to have psychiatric problems though the news media never emphasis's this fact. All states have laws prohibiting these types of people from buying and owning weapons. How are they obtaining them? Why aren't the laws that are on the books being enforced?
2. Medical, law agencies and the military know of mentally ill people yet this information is not given over to agencies who do back ground checks. 3. BTW, the term ASSAULT RIFLE is a term that originated with the news media. Semi automatic weapons have never been marketed as assault weapons. 4. Earlier this afternoon I spent time viewing the history of mass shootings. They seem to have began in 1999 with Columbine High School. AR-15's have been around for a long time. What changed in our society that caused people to revert to this? 5. Most everyday shootings (more numerous that mass shootings) are caused by drug and gang wars. The vast majority of these weapons are purchased illegally. What will banning firearms do to slow down illegal weapons purchases? 6. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, their strict gun laws have not slowed gun violence. 7. Illegal drug use is against the law. How has stricter drug laws reduced illegal drug use? Our country needs to spend more time and money in finding these kinds of people and helping them. Ever increasingly stricter gun (and drug) laws are treating a symptom and not approaching the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assault rifle, which Im surprised the media uses, especially when it was Hitler who coined the term "assault rifle"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention) “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” -Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783 the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ... We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense. See, it doesn't matter what he wrote to someone else. It isn't worded in the amendment. Its validity is merely one citizen talking with another and we are doing that right here. We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense.
Thing is, who determines that common sense, the government or the citizens? Well now, thats where we disagree. I think it matters when we are trying to interpret the CONTEXT of something he helped author. every word deserves scrutiny, and because the words. 'well regulated militia' imply some form of scrutiny and not just a free for all 'every citizen' thing, I think it matters quite a bit the citizen and the government work together to determine laws , just like blind people not driving, or or children not engaging in sex with adults, these things are 'common sense' based on common social expectations and standards decided by both 'The People' and their government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I am getting free water, I cant demand it be from the purest waterfall, those providing it decide that
that would be kind of silly no? you wouldn’t say that if you lived in Flint Michigan. If I am getting guns free, those providing them decide which guns
where do you get guns for free? Unless you join the police force or military. Nope, though we have the RIGHT to possess guns, they are still sold as PRODUCTS that go through regulations and have prices set as well as being subject to requirements.
Just because we have the right to possess arms that doesn’t mean it’s free, you don’t understand the difference between individual right and a government sponsored privilege. Individual rights are essential for freedom, but freedom has a price, nothing is free, if that was the case the government would supply us with guns and weapons and we wouldn’t need an army would we? Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS
in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention) “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” -Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783 the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ... We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense. I really don’t think you understand what you’re saying Ms.Harmony. First thing the language the founding father used isn’t the language we use today, A militia, a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms (fire arms) , the second amendment is pretty clear actually, it’s the interpretation of some that is in question and SCOTUS finally clarified, even Obama had to accept it. It’s like when the jokers ask, does the right to bear arms means I can have a nuclear warhead to protect myself? Duh A nuclear warhead isn’t designed to protect, its designed for total annihilation I think I understand in any language that there is a difference between just saying 'a militia of every citizen' and a 'well regulated militia' in any time, then and now. There are several such adjectives that distinguish an ABSOLUTE from a general statement. words like WELL REGULATED and ABLE BODIED and specific ages, indicate its not an ABSOLUTE and free for all meant to automatically include all citizens in all circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assault rifle, which Im surprised the media uses, especially when it was Hitler who coined the term "assault rifle" The Sturmgewehr 44 was listed as an assault rifle because it had an automatic mode. Companies that manufacture semiautomatic rifles have never used the term assault rifle because it implies the weapon has an automatic mode. Automatic weapons are illegal for the USA citizen. One has to apply for a special license from the federal govenment to purchase one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, the constitution was written as much to limit our government and not just it's citizens. Because of the Supreme Courts of the 50'and 60's the trend is now to make it a document to mostly limit citizens. The original founders knew that the tendency is for big government to take advantage of it's citizenry and they tried to place limits of government. The constitution is being seen as an obstacle to the plans of some politicians (both parties) and big time finance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 05/22/18 06:18 PM
|
|
1. The vast majority of shooters have been found to have psychiatric problems though the news media never emphasis's this fact. All states have laws prohibiting these types of people from buying and owning weapons. How are they obtaining them? Why aren't the laws that are on the books being enforced? 2. Medical, law agencies and the military know of mentally ill people yet this information is not given over to agencies who do back ground checks. 3. BTW, the term ASSAULT RIFLE is a term that originated with the news media. Semi automatic weapons have never been marketed as assault weapons. 4. Earlier this afternoon I spent time viewing the history of mass shootings. They seem to have began in 1999 with Columbine High School. AR-15's have been around for a long time. What changed in our society that caused people to revert to this? 5. Most everyday shootings (more numerous that mass shootings) are caused by drug and gang wars. The vast majority of these weapons are purchased illegally. What will banning firearms do to slow down illegal weapons purchases? 6. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, their strict gun laws have not slowed gun violence. 7. Illegal drug use is against the law. How has stricter drug laws reduced illegal drug use? Our country needs to spend more time and money in finding these kinds of people and helping them. Ever increasingly stricter gun (and drug) laws are treating a symptom and not approaching the problem. 1. People are being left to volunteer information instead of being vetted thoroughly. 2.They do need to have better coordination between those who check these things and the expectation from those who have the information to provide. 3.Semantics, its how language is constantly evolving. 4.Colt began selling Ar-15 to the public in '63. We averaged at least one mass shooting a year from that time until '99. It is anyone's guess how the culture deteriorated to one with so many more devaluing life. Maybe its the lax manner in which families started raising and coddling their children instead of arming them with coping skills? The drugs were around for a long time too. But somewhere the culture sent the message that it was okay not to value others ... 5. one problem at a time, its like asking what will curing one disease do to cure another. There are two different issues based in two different cultures. these mass killings are done, indirectly, with the assistance of laws that hand certain guns over to certain individuals. that is an easy one to address. Urban and street violence is done without the assistance of law but correlates to impoverishment and desperation, and is probably not simple to address, but would need to be approached from the angle of opportunity, economy, and education. 6. That is true, because interstate commerce and travel is a real thing. 7.That one is actually a catch 22, because the only thing that makes the drug illegal is the LAW. so the law doesnt stop illegal drug use, but it helps to identify some as 'criminals' and help the system prosecute them for their 'crime'. Now what laws are doing to curb drug use in general, we may never know, because its hard to tell how much worse it MIGHT be if not for the laws. we definitely need to do more to help each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 05/22/18 06:19 PM
|
|
1. The vast majority of shooters have been found to have psychiatric problems though the news media never emphasis's this fact. All states have laws prohibiting these types of people from buying and owning weapons. How are they obtaining them? Why aren't the laws that are on the books being enforced? 2. Medical, law agencies and the military know of mentally ill people yet this information is not given over to agencies who do back ground checks. 3. BTW, the term ASSAULT RIFLE is a term that originated with the news media. Semi automatic weapons have never been marketed as assault weapons. 4. Earlier this afternoon I spent time viewing the history of mass shootings. They seem to have began in 1999 with Columbine High School. AR-15's have been around for a long time. What changed in our society that caused people to revert to this? 5. Most everyday shootings (more numerous that mass shootings) are caused by drug and gang wars. The vast majority of these weapons are purchased illegally. What will banning firearms do to slow down illegal weapons purchases? 6. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, their strict gun laws have not slowed gun violence. 7. Illegal drug use is against the law. How has stricter drug laws reduced illegal drug use? Our country needs to spend more time and money in finding these kinds of people and helping them. Ever increasingly stricter gun (and drug) laws are treating a symptom and not approaching the problem. double post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I understand in any language that there is a difference between just saying 'a militia of every citizen' and a 'well regulated militia' in any time, then and now. There are several such adjectives that distinguish an ABSOLUTE from a general statement. words like WELL REGULATED and ABLE BODIED and specific ages, indicate its not an ABSOLUTE and free for all meant to automatically include all citizens in all circumstances. Im surprised your historian buddy hasn't made his presence felt in this thread, he might tell you that the term " well regulated " was a common term used back then. It meant something that was properly working functioning as expected Sir Francis Bacon famous quotes " If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial , taken from the book "exercises of the globe " by William Butler. most people who fight in war are usually MEN and between a certain age, why the founders chose 45 as the tail end I dont know, the average man lived to 35 and if you made it to 50 you were considered lucky but OLD. Language differs if you havent noticed, imagine if the founding fathers time traveled today and heard the language of today, they would run back to time machine and said get me back to our time. I can just imagine George Washington saying to Martha, " Martha, Im know im in a war but Im stopping in for a booty call" Or Thomas Jefferson explaining to the delegates what a transgendered person is or the other 59 different genders. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes. language involves. and Im sure the people then and now defined what made a militia 'function properly' besides killing or being killed. the did set a distinction in any case and not being able to come to consensus of what those distinctions were then, is not reason, IMHO, to not make any distinctions of our own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of very sensible points being made by both sides of this argument/discussion.
Many points that are already on peoples minds as we encounter renewed need for a solution from every shooting. The restrictions hold back any change at all is the wording of the amendment because it it so vague. If taken at word value, even with consideration of the time it was written, it is still vague. One very important intent is the fact that our forefathers saw a future where our citizens would need to bear arms against our own government. Its worded to give citizens the freedom to be prepared to over-throw an aggressive government. There is nothing unarmed citizens can do if the government calls for police forces to seize your property and detain you. Except, if they are armed. Likewise, if the military is called upon to do so, police will have little power. All it takes is martial law. Martial law that is not voted on by the citizens involved. With citizens armed, those situations are not viable and the fact that the citizens are armed, helps prevent loss of free state. on the flip-side, someone that is insane or temporarily insane is regulated and prevented from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. That person was prevented his/her rights as a citizen. That is revoking their citizenship because if we take their rights, we deem them unfit for citizenship. Exactly what the forefathers predicted and prepared for by writing the amendments and the constitution. What's next, nobody that rents their home can keep and bear arms? People with handicaps can not keep and bear arms? It sets a precedence that opens the door for more and more restrictions against citizen rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 05/23/18 12:11 AM
|
|
I repeat, there was not an all inclusive proposition
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. adjectives like 'able bodied' and 'male' and age restrictions, affirm that it was never meant as an ABSOLUTE place for any and all citizens were disabled not citizens and not therefore have rights? or people over the age of 54? I dont agree it defined citizenship, becuase many with citizenship were not eligible, meaning not having the right is not equivalent of being stripped of citizenship. the logic of women not serving was the culture of women needing to raise the children the logic of the very young or the very old was most likely a realization of how much less emotionally or physically apt they were to be able to not slow the others down there is no logic to not allowing homeowners bear guns similar to restricting children and the elderly, there is logic to not having those who are not 'able bodied' due to psychological illness retain weapons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I repeat, there was not an all inclusive proposition (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. adjectives like 'able bodied' and 'male' and age restrictions, affirm that it was never meant as an ABSOLUTE place for any and all citizens were disabled not citizens and not therefore have rights? or people over the age of 54? I dont agree it defined citizenship, becuase many with citizenship were not eligible, meaning not having the right is not equivalent of being stripped of citizenship. the logic of women not serving was the culture of women needing to raise the children the logic of the very young or the very old was most likely a realization of how much less emotionally or physically apt they were to be able to not slow the others down there is no logic to not allowing homeowners bear guns similar to restricting children and the elderly, there is logic to not having those who are not 'able bodied' due to psychological illness retain weapons. You do know that in 1700's things were different right? women, children, men, able bodied, senior citizens , things we know is true now , they didnt know back then . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I repeat, there was not an all inclusive proposition
I repeat, if you deny a constitutional right to any person they are not citizens. If you deny a citizen a constitutional right you are hostile to the free state. http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights Amendment I 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. 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, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV 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. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. ~Preamble to the Bill of Rights The Constitution might never have been ratified if the framers hadn't promised to add a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution gave citizens more confidence in the new government and contain many of today's Americans most valued freedoms. I'm not making this up - its written right on the government website. Nowhere is it written or implied that citizens are renounced or excepted and does, again and again, imply ALL the citizens (People of the United States) I see senseless things all thru the constitution when considering today's world but the constitution applies as long as we have this government based on it. Its written for unity of all citizens. At that time, visitors were not considered citizens. Slaves were not considered citizens. Children were not considered citizens. Sick and maimed people were still considered citizens and these rights still applied to them. If you became a criminal and were convicted and sent to jail, you lost your rights because you had your citizenship revoked. Once you paid your debt to society and were released, your rights were restored. Should we rewrite the constitution? Rewrite the bill of rights? Rewrite the laws to reflect those changes? If we do, Is this still going to be The United States of America? The United FREE States of America? As soon as you start to deny a citizen of their FREE STATE you are hostile to the freedom of all the citizens because we are supposed to be UNITED. It doesn't matter if I personally agree with the 2nd amendment or not. If someone is a citizen of the United States, that have the right to keep and bear arms, period. The only way to deny them that right is to take away their citizenship status. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 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.
It says We the People of the United States (citizens). It doesn't say We the People of the United States except crazy people, poor people, hate-filled people or any other exception. Its expressly written to include all people of the United States (citizens). At that time, Native Americans were not considered people of the United States. They were considered primitive savages. Non-citizens. Slaves were not considered people of the United States. They were considered primitive savages. Non-citizens. Children were not considered people of the United States. Too immature to vote. Non-citizens (citizenships status by association). Women were not considered people of the United States. Not intelligent enough to vote. Non-citizens (citizenships status by association). Foreign soldiers were not considered people of the United States. They were hostile to the Free State and were enemies. Non-citizens. Foreign visitors were not considered people of the United States. They were visitors. Non-Citizens. In today's world, we pick and choose parts of the constitution that a certain few want and impose those choices on all the other citizens. We write new laws and ignored basic freedoms. Very little of the constitution applies anymore until its convienent. If I write the rules for a game I created and people rewrite those rules its no longer the same game. My original rules are useless and insignificant. The only way the game can be played as intended is to use the original rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically after long deliberation,
There is f##k all anyone can or is willing to do about it! So, it'll just have to be accepted! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately mikey since most aren't willing to seek out actual problem and work on fixing it
|
|
|
|
|
