P
pnewton
Guest
The second phrase though is what is under discussion. You gave the goal. To that end the right of people (not the militia) to bear arms shall not be infringed. It stands grammatically as an independent clause.
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But don’t you have to change the normal rules of grammar to make that work? That change leaves open a portal for so much abuse based on an individuals right over the rights of others.
Imagine if a guy charged with causing his child injury being able to argue… ‘Parental discipline, being necessary for a well rounded child, the right to use corporal punishment shall not be infringed’. Now that sentence is a very sound one to live by but we can’t separate and isolate the parts to exclude the fundamental condition… ‘a well rounded child’… as being the primary source of its legitimacy.
The right to bear arms within the context of that sentence must be conditional upon the peoples capacity to be a ‘well regulated militia’ and its practical value to the security of the free state.
P
pnewton
Guest
You are giving the difference between a dependent and independent clause. You bring up an interesting fact though. The Constitution has in it an implied syllogism that may or may not be true. It would still need an amendment to change. As to the comparison to child abuse, one can limit the type or degree of punishment and not infringe on the right to punishment. Guns are regulated, after all. One can not carry a grenade launcher down the street. In some places, certain types of high capacity fire arms are also not allowable. In some states, permission to carry a gun concealed in public must be obtained.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
It would cost a lot less and do a lot more good than the Iraq war.There are, by some estimates, 300 million guns in the U.S.; if we guessed that the average value of each was $100 (which is ridiculously low), where do you suggest that the $30 billion come from, to pay for such a buy-back?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I don’t know why people use cars as an example because the laws and regulations pertaining to car use are piles high.Cars kill more people than guns, knives and other weapons so why not ban cars and go back to the horse and buggy. Oh forgot, they too killed people so we would have to ban them as well.
In the last few years we’ve got 3 kids their licenses. That involved 100 hours each of supervised driving time. Logging every lesson in a book for distance driven, start time and finish time, time of day, supervisors licence details and number plate of the car used.
Then the new license holder drives for one year on a provisional license displaying a red P on the front and back windows… cannot drive with more than one passenger between 11pm and 5am… can have no blood alcohol reading at all… has only 4 points compared to the 12 points of an open driver. Then after that they have two years on a lesser provisional license having to display a green P front and back, still only having 4 points to lose in demerits and still not allowed any blood alcohol at all.
How does that compared to a gun buyers requirements?
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Afternoon Diane: Actually, what I presented were facts in reply to your old-timey folk legends about the Holocaust possibly being averted if only 2% of the population of Germany and Poland had a gun, and the myth that a Japanese invasion of the US mainland was staved off by our great grandpappys sittin’ on the porch with their shotguns. Calling me a Marxist or a socialist doesn’t alter the facts. Did you have a reply to those facts? Do you have something to offer for a productive conversation?
Thank you,
Gary
D
DianePa
Guest
So this is where each person seems to offer a completely different explanation for the foundation of the the ‘right’. The right is founded on the need for a well armed militia to perform *national *defense in case of the foreign invasion? So it is not founded on the right of self defense. Those are two different things. One requires identifying wholely with the self the other requires identifying with the national interests… the common good.
NO, NO, NO! Any group of citizens can form a militia as was done by many BEFORE the Revolutionary War. It was never suggested it be something like the National Guard. The right to bear arms was retained by the people as an individual right.
So you are saying the right is a necessity for the common good. To that I ask, how then are the vulnerable like children, school students, mentally and physically disabled, elderly, foreign visitors etc … served by this ‘right’ since they are prevented form having a gun in a gun rich environment that is created by the right?
No, I am not saying that. I am saying the the right is kept by the individual and limited restrictive rights are granted to the government and given by the people to the government as codified in the constitution. This is after all a republic and not a democracy although some are confused on that matter.
“Created by the right”? No, created by the founding fathers and established in the constitution whereas the LEFT would post signs inviting killers into gun free and unprotected areas. There are a number of restrictions that apply to children, mentally ill as well as others such as being prohibited from driving an auto for an disabled elderly and they have nothing to do with weapons. Visitors are not citizens and as such are not eligible for the same rights as an actual citizen would be entitled to. Even ‘freedom of speech’ is not totally free as per the ‘yelling fire’ in a crowded public area.
Why aren’t all schools for example provided with armed boundary defense since they are vulnerable targets of shooters? Are rights really legitimate if they seriously disadvantage a large section of the population? That sounds more like survival of the fittest that a human right.
Perhaps you can show me where one single member of such groups as the NRA shot up a school or public area. From my read most of those loonies were mentally ill and usually politically left wing which as I see it is a mental illness to begin with.
You seem to be so focused on social rights where none actually exist and mix and match them with unalienable rights which do exist, at least in our constitution.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
As I explained before…the Militia is made up of “the People”. I-N-D-I-V-D-U-A-L-S
NOT the collective.
If you wanted a “collective right” for the Second Amendment it would read like this:
“A well regulated state military force, being necessary to the security of a state, the state shall issues arms to selected citizens only when deemed necessary by the state.”
The term “The People” appears in the First, Second and Tenth Amendments. It should be pretty clear to anyone that these are INDIVIDUAL rights.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
“Participating in a gun buy back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.”
Regards,
Clint Eastwood
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Evening Gorgias: Thank you for bringing up the cost. Gun violence cost $174 billion in 2010 alone. At your estimate, my program would pay for itself in 2 months. If the focus is budgetary, it seems we should start right away.There are, by some estimates, 300 million guns in the U.S.; if we guessed that the average value of each was $100 (which is ridiculously low), where do you suggest that the $30 billion come from, to pay for such a buy-back?
Thank you
Gary
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Well, I don’t get around that much, and I don’t think any of the neighbors kids are mine.
Thank you,
Gary
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But what is the point of even using the word militia if it doesn’t signify a common goal that unites in some way? An ‘army’ of some sort?
You seem to be saying that just the fact of owning a gun for self defense constitutes your part in the ‘militia’. Is shooting your neighbour in self defense a militia act? Is it possible that this right to bear arms could even mean modern civil war between two opposing American outlooks? Can the ‘militia’ in the constitution, justify raising arms against each other in defense of your individual rights? Or worse still, could those arms be turned on anyone opposing the right to carry arms around?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
When the Constitution was written, Americans had a deep fear of a standing army. We did not want one. The thought of a tyrannical government controlling an army was repulsive. Since we were not “imperialistic” and had no intentions of invading other countries, we didn’t need an army or navy. Being freedom loving rugged individualists we believed, then, that we could handle anything with a militia made up of “the people”.
There was never question of “individual” self defense. Individuals were expected to defend themselves.
The idea of shooting a neighbor is abhorrent. But in those days, if the “neighbor” was a savage Indian bent on killing you and burning down your log cabin…that would be a justified act of self defense. Not a militia act.
“Can the ‘militia’ in the constitution, justify raising arms against each other in defense of your individual rights?”
Very good question.
If an individual, group or even a government authority was violating the rights of another individual, or group of citizens, then that individual or group is OBLIGATED to defend the Constitution. This is done everyday in courts all over the country. “I’ll sue you…you violated my rights”.
However, when rights are violated we are justified in defending our rights with force if necessary.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Ar ar - a little CAF humor.
Good one, Gary…good one.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I can sort of understand how that dynamic could come about in a world that was basically the rest of the world against Imperialist England… but in the US today, the sheer diversity of cultures, origins, beliefs etc… how is there going to be a situtation where one group gains power to dictate life, that would inspire all ‘the people’ to come together against them. Or if you are saying that ‘the people’ would all be acting independently against this group in individual self defense… there is going to be chaos. The chances are that many of ‘the people’ actually support the dictating group, perhaps coming from a similar culture to that group.
The fact of a militia in todays USA, is a myth. There can be no concept of a common good to trust in if the state itself has no authority to effect it. The militia isn’t going to come to a consensus amongst itself out of the blue. Guns will inevitably be turned on each other in a totally chaotic way.
The myth continues to make people see ‘defending the Constitution’ more important than ‘defense of the common good’, the Founding Fathers holding the keys to salvation in the way the Wizard of Oz held the keys to Dorothy’s problem.
M
migueltojose
Guest
From another thread… similar but different…
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton View Post
Just to clarify, what is the definition of “self-regulation” and how does it differ from vigilante and anarchy.
It’s at the root of the “Great American Experiment”. The framers of the constitution understood that freedom is not free. It requires a populace that is engaged, educated, responsible AND virtuous.
I do not want to give up on that experiment. But our current path has threatened it. Both the Government and the citizenry are responsible. The citizenry in that we are not engaged, educated, responsible enough (arguably) and virtuous enough to govern ourselves. As a result the central government has for decades eroded the rights of private citizens. The government, on the other hand, could have done a better job of governing their governance. But like I said before, control is like a drug. And they are hooked. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. By nature governments proliferate. They will continue to usurp power and justify it because we are, in there estimation, incapable of governing ourselves. It’s quite a conundrum.
I would error on the side of caution. Restrict government. Minimize government. The purpose of our government is to defend and protect the borders, develop infrastructure and look out for the welfare of the citizenry. They have overstepped their bounds long ago and most egregiously since FDR. My fear is… it is out of control.
Most Catholics disagree with the idea of libertarianism… but… my Catholic view of it is that people are free to choose… and because they are engaged, educated, responsible and virtuous… they choose correctly (or at least a critical mass does). Which is where I think we were 240 years ago. We need to get back there… and again… I will not give up on the initial goal that was laid out for us. That we can handle freedom… and pass it on to the rest of the world…
I believe, in one sense, God is libertarian. He gives us free will and we must choose the right path. I believe the constitution was written with the same idea in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton View Post
Just to clarify, what is the definition of “self-regulation” and how does it differ from vigilante and anarchy.
It’s at the root of the “Great American Experiment”. The framers of the constitution understood that freedom is not free. It requires a populace that is engaged, educated, responsible AND virtuous.
I do not want to give up on that experiment. But our current path has threatened it. Both the Government and the citizenry are responsible. The citizenry in that we are not engaged, educated, responsible enough (arguably) and virtuous enough to govern ourselves. As a result the central government has for decades eroded the rights of private citizens. The government, on the other hand, could have done a better job of governing their governance. But like I said before, control is like a drug. And they are hooked. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. By nature governments proliferate. They will continue to usurp power and justify it because we are, in there estimation, incapable of governing ourselves. It’s quite a conundrum.
I would error on the side of caution. Restrict government. Minimize government. The purpose of our government is to defend and protect the borders, develop infrastructure and look out for the welfare of the citizenry. They have overstepped their bounds long ago and most egregiously since FDR. My fear is… it is out of control.
Most Catholics disagree with the idea of libertarianism… but… my Catholic view of it is that people are free to choose… and because they are engaged, educated, responsible and virtuous… they choose correctly (or at least a critical mass does). Which is where I think we were 240 years ago. We need to get back there… and again… I will not give up on the initial goal that was laid out for us. That we can handle freedom… and pass it on to the rest of the world…
I believe, in one sense, God is libertarian. He gives us free will and we must choose the right path. I believe the constitution was written with the same idea in mind.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not really it comes back to the we the people part. For example when Congress is effectively used as intended then you have the people speaking, for example sending armed troops to Syria received a resounding NO-WAY.
Thats the individual safety part, and since we are freeing and arming terrorists now, and indeed have civil unrest in America safety is imperative.
If your neighbor is a terrorist with smoke grenades, shooting at your children I would say thats an affirmative, unfortunately.
Absolutely, its a historic fact, we should think of ourselves and the the modern evolution of man and technology as beyond being barbaric? Simply not true.
Isn’t this what Obama indeed exercised in DC after 911? Also both sides “militias” North and South-Civil War, issued an immediate call to forces from the militia, followed by the immediate awareness of an acute shortage of weapons.
Isn’t this done on the innocent in America and the rest of the world daily? Still there is no documented lasting period of world peace. Man kills for anything and for nothing at all, and as you see in last weeks news. Listen when you are arming the rebels, releasing terrorists, have americans running around acting as terrorists and killing the innocent for no apparent reason, then, you want the “good people” to have restrictions placed on them where none exist on the others? Thats democracy? Thats tyranny.
D
DianePa
Guest
I would let Thomas Jefferson (who has been mistaken for a progressive/liberal by one of the posters) speak for me:
“Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of **neighboring citizens **as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
G
Gorgias
Guest
Can you substantiate this figure, and expand on it so that it’s clear where that $174 billion comes from? Oh, and while you’re at it – you might want to remember that, as we’ve seen in gun control nations, where gun violence goes down, violence with other weapons steps in to take its place; so, you’ll want to reconsider the ROI to account for the fact that, once guns go away, violence and violent crime nevertheless stick around.
- Status