It Is Simple And Basic.


PDA






ConstitutionCowboy
April 5, 2006, 10:25 PM
The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power delegated to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not delegate power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is delegated to it by, and from, the people. In delegating power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.

Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply delegate some of that power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have delegated power to the government to have.

It follows, then, that should the government(by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way the fashion in which we so choose to bear our arms, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not delegate power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power delegated to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.

Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had(and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish(construct) the Constitution and ordain(to appoint) it as the foundation for our government. All power delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control how I choose to bear my arms. It is that simple.


Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "It Is Simple And Basic." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
April 6, 2006, 06:35 AM
You're preachin' to the choir, friend. The question is what are you gonna do about it?

Kodiaz
April 6, 2006, 06:58 AM
You preaching to the choir and we say AMEN!

RealGun
April 6, 2006, 09:31 AM
Gun control is partly an excuse for not using the death penalty aggressively and for turning violent felons out into the streets. Let's pretend we can prevent them from having guns.

antsi
April 6, 2006, 09:52 AM
I always wonder about the "unlimited" interpretation of RKBA - the idea that it cannot be infringed ever, under any circumstances. What about someone who is in the act of committing a crime with a firearm? Surely that is a circumstance in which it is acceptable to disarm the individual. What about someone who is being incarcerated/punished for committing a violent crime? What about someone who is criminally insane?

It seems clear to me that there are some limits on the right to keep and bear arms. The limits I believe are very minimal (in other words, the right is very expansive), but surely there are some limits as suggested above. It would seem to me more helpful to define the actual boundaries, than to simply assert that they do not exist.

Maxwell
April 6, 2006, 10:41 AM
The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

You would think its that simple, woulndt you?
Whats happend is constitutional law became seen as outdated.
Never mind that its a law or that we cant get the votes to amend it, all we have to do is claim we are now advanced enough to know better!

Then people can say whatever they feel it should mean instead of whats actually on paper.
Hell, read it for yourself:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
The Second Amendment Today

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
-
-
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute.

Too bad I cant claim their right to free speech or owning property was not absolute, and go shoot a hole in their web server. The other funny thing is these are the same kind of people who say we can never win in Iraq because of... well... their militia.

Sad fact is they dont have to change the constitution. They just need to write enough smaller laws and override it. Take their reasoning on limiting free speech for example.
The old "what do you do if someone shouts fire in a crowded theater?" scenario.

Instead of jailing the miscreant for a false alarm, enciting panic or public disturbance (any of which can get you a reasonable chill out session in the slammer), you jail them for shouting "Fire!" because then you can write a law overriding free speech.
From there you just claim that if that argument works for fire, it can work on every other word. Its the same thing they do to firearms. Dont bother to punish people for their crimes, punish everyone else for having a freedom.

What about someone who is in the act of committing a crime with a firearm?

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

\\...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If their obviously commiting a crime, shoot them.
If their guilty, prove them guilty.
If someone has committed a crime with a firearm then prosecute them for the crime.
Dont threaten me, the innocent citizen, with legal action because I want to own a gun.

I believe in the original rkba within reason because things seemed to be doing just fine before we all got "smart" and started to turn someones unproven theory into laws we never asked for.

bigj8550
April 6, 2006, 01:04 PM
AMEN
You're preachin' to the choir, friend. The question is what are you gonna do about it?


What to do about it start off by getting a small law suite going in a small community that has a gun ban or license law, on the grounds of unconstitutional. Spend about ten years and close to somewhere around ten million in lawyer fees :banghead: to get it to the supreme court. Which if they interpret the law the way you do then you now have precedence to go after the larger laws. It can happen if you have enough people and enough money behind the action. I myself would start it but I don't have the money or the law degree to do it. I will however support anyone who will try.

Second just to play devils advocate. If I read what you typed correctly. Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47:what: I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? How do we take care of that?

Alex45ACP
April 6, 2006, 01:16 PM
I always wonder about the "unlimited" interpretation of RKBA - the idea that it cannot be infringed ever, under any circumstances. What about someone who is in the act of committing a crime with a firearm? Surely that is a circumstance in which it is acceptable to disarm the individual. What about someone who is being incarcerated/punished for committing a violent crime? What about someone who is criminally insane?

It seems clear to me that there are some limits on the right to keep and bear arms. The limits I believe are very minimal (in other words, the right is very expansive), but surely there are some limits as suggested above. It would seem to me more helpful to define the actual boundaries, than to simply assert that they do not exist.

Philosophy of rights is that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights. So as soon as you use your RKBA to infringe on someone else's rights, you lose your RKBA.

LeoC
April 6, 2006, 01:20 PM
Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47 I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? How do we take care of that?
Mutually-Assured Destruction :D

antsi
April 6, 2006, 02:10 PM
--------quote-----------
Philosophy of rights is that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights. So as soon as you use your RKBA to infringe on someone else's rights, you lose your RKBA.
-------------------------

Personally, I think this is reasonable. However, it becomes a big debate when you ask exactly how long one loses one's RKBA after violating someone else's rights.

Another limitation I would consider is people who are mentally ill to the point that they have been legally declared to be not responsible for their own actions. It seems that with any RKBA, you have to be talking about competent adults.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 7, 2006, 01:16 AM
You wrote:

"Second just to play devils advocate. If I read what you typed correctly. Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47 I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? How do we take care of that?"

Our biggest potential enemy, those of us in our governemnt, have already escallated the level of arms to the nuclear stage(and who knows to what level beyond!).

Your neighbor is not the entity to be feared. He is most likely your ally. Foreigners and your own government elected officials, minions, and bureaucrats are the ones to be feared and prepared to defend against.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
April 7, 2006, 01:32 AM
You wrote:

"You're preachin' to the choir, friend. The question is what are you gonna do about it?"

I'm doing a little bit more than preaching to the choir. I'm adding a tune for them to sing to the congregation.

I'm also arming myself to the point of being a deterrent to those in government who would further attempt to disarm the militia or refuse to uninfringe our rights. Those in government need to know We the People can reach them beyond the protections of their minions and jack-booted thugs. Those in government, or who would like to serve in government, must be made aware there is no place to hide nor anyone to hide behind if they choose to run afoul of their bounds or fail to remove the unconstitutional bounds placed upon our rights by their predecessors. There is no "compelling government interest" beyond securing our rights, freedoms, and personal sovereignty. It's their job. The government is not there to serve itself or for us to serve it.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

beerslurpy
April 7, 2006, 01:42 AM
Woodcdi, I think your view is a little simplistic and probably under-informed as well.

Consider this: if you do not have the stomach for politics, what makes you think you have the stomach for guerilla war? If you are willing to risk your life fighting a guerilla war against your own government for presumably political ends, why arent you willing to expend a 10th of that effort towards influencing society and governent in more effective ways?

Also, if you study guerilla war, you will learn that it is just politics with slightly more killing than usual. There is a huge overlap in characteristics between a successful political movement and a successful guerilla movement. If you cant succeed at ordinary american politics (where there is even the quaint notion of playing fair), you sure as hell arent going to judo-flip the entire system by violence. More likely, you would just end up alienating the public and get labeled as a terrorist.

RealGun
April 7, 2006, 07:20 AM
There is a huge overlap in characteristics between a successful political movement and a successful guerilla movement.

Armed revolts are followed by dictatorships. George Washington graciously declined to be King.

Molon Labe
April 7, 2006, 08:12 AM
Consider this: if you do not have the stomach for politics, what makes you think you have the stomach for guerilla war? If you are willing to risk your life fighting a guerilla war against your own government for presumably political ends, why arent you willing to expend a 10th of that effort towards influencing society and governent in more effective ways?Can't speak for woodcdi, but I've done my share of politics. Used to be very active with helping candidates - been there, done that. But I came to my senses and realized it's a big waste of time. I now operate a very active militia group, and we focus on training and perpetration. Trust me, I have the stomach for guerrilla warfare.

Also, if you study guerilla war, you will learn that it is just politics with slightly more killing than usual. There is a huge overlap in characteristics between a successful political movement and a successful guerilla movement. If you cant succeed at ordinary american politics (where there is even the quaint notion of playing fair), you sure as hell arent going to judo-flip the entire system by violence. More likely, you would just end up alienating the public and get labeled as a terrorist.I look at it another way... if you're unsuccessful in the arena of "normal" politics, then it is time to move on to radical politics. ;)

Maxwell
April 7, 2006, 08:50 AM
If you do not have the stomach for politics, what makes you think you have the stomach for guerilla war?

It works both ways.
Those involved deeply in politics often cannot stand the sight of blood.

We dont need our weapons for armed revolt so much as the realistic threat of armed revolt. Enough guns, heavy weapons, and ammunition in the public hands that military planners simply scratch their heads and admonish the leadership against trying to win their way by force.
As a side bonus, it prevents other natiosn from planning invasions and helps people feel more secure in their homes.

The goal of armed revolt shouldnt be revolution so much as restoration. Taking an unwanted leadership out of power and bringing the nation back to something more like the original outline.
Its the backup plan to insure a change in leadership if the government decides to stop counting votes.

RealGun
April 7, 2006, 09:35 AM
Taking an unwanted leadership out of power and bringing the nation back to something more like the original outline.

The US is better off now than it used to be. Only the anarchists, bigots, and other little dictators, pretending to be patriots, are unhappy. There is no reason why any needed changes can't be done by voting. If there are essential problems, it is ignorant or emotion based voters and a steady stream of leftist propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, cyberpunks, and educators. We have not yet learned to deal with mass media, but I think internet forums and bloggers will make a difference. But if everyone gets caught up in negativism and political polarity, ignoring reasons for their prosperity, nothing good will come of it.

bigj8550
April 7, 2006, 11:10 AM
The US is better off now than it used to be. Only the anarchists, bigots, and other little dictators, pretending to be patriots, are unhappy.
No, I do not belive this to be correct. Am I ready to thow away all the good leadgeslation that we have at an armed attempt at getting rid of the bad? No!! That is like tearing down a house to fix a leaky faucet! I am not an Anarcist, bigot, or other little dictator. But I cannot belive that with the current goverment is not without problems. Can this large over complicated goverment be fix with out scraping the whole thing? I believe yes!!!!

With the use of the court system to suspend laws that conflict with the bill of rights and constuition we can eventully get there from here with dilegents and support. Some days it can feel like it will never happen :banghead: but it can work with the support of the American People AND THAT MEANS YOU. I am not saying hey run for president eventhough if we could get a pro gunner in the oval office that would be great. But look at things in the perspective of a horse fly. If you bite the big horse in the a#@#$% enough times it will have to do something about it swat it's tail or whatever. With enough flys biting one horse you can get the horse to move where you want it to.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 8, 2006, 12:10 AM
My, My! Where have I written that I don't have the stomach for politics? To date, 99.99% of all my efforts to unfetter our rights have been in the political arena, education, and the arena of ideas and inspiration. And, the poor prospects of a guerrilla war against the most powerful government and military in the world is not the way to secure our rights. Our problem is not our system of government. It is with those of us who have led it astray and with those who have failed to repair the damage. It is a matter of those in government, not the government itself. These people need to be voted out and constitutionalists voted in.


But, seeing as how our government is overrun with these anti-constitutionalists for the time being, until we do educate the electorate in the ways of the Constitution, those anti-constitutionalists still there in our government need to be put on notice. The limits placed upon the government have been exceeded and every law abiding citizen in this country has been stripped of a great deal of power to defend themselves and the nation. We will not suffer any more degradation of our rightful powers without resistance. We must not suffer any more degradation of our rightful powers without resistance. If it takes saber rattling to get the point across, so be it. RATTLE, RATTLE, RATTLE!


There are those in government capable of issuing orders to jack-booted thugs of the like who raided Waco, Randy Weaver, and "Poor Little Elian". None of these people who were raided raised an arm to the government. The government raised arms against them. No trial. No conviction. No "due process" at all! Just orders from the Geheime Staatspolizei. And, when that same gestapo-like action is ordered against the likes of me because I point out the unconstitutional actions of those in government, I'm gonna' shoot back! I'm not going to go after them like a bloodthirsty, indignant, militant assassin. They will have to show their hand and come after me.

On that same token, though, should it become necessary to implement a military movement in this country to the end of re securing our rights and setting the course of this country back to strict constitutional adherence, I'll be there. In my opinion, we are not far from that at all. Look at the resistance of everyone in our government to secure our borders! Why? Does it make any sense to you? They want our guns, but won't stop the flow of foreign nationals crashing our borders! We fight a war against terrorists, and yet half of those in our government want us to quit! We have the forces and resources necessary to secure our borders, yet no one will give the command. Are they waiting for the next Santana Anna? The next Napoleon? Hitler? The likes of you and I can't take that chance. We are (or will be) on the front lines, poorly armed. If it will take killing my fellow countrymen who are limiting my access to the means of defense, so be it.

No, we must not relinquish another iota of our rightful powers. Should we do or allow that, then WE are to blame. Do not capitulate to any more infringements. Do not accept any placations. Support only like-minded politicians. Make enough noise to attract like-minded politicians. Encourage like-minded politicians to run for office! Support individuals fighting infringements in court.

Writing your Congress critters is a good way to express your desires and to threaten to pull your support if they run afoul of your rights, but it is a far better thing to support someone who actually runs on a platform that coincides with your rights and the Constitution. If the guy or gal there now must be persuaded, their mindset is in the wrong place to begin with. Most likely, they misrepresented themselves to get elected. As a consequence, they misrepresent you in Congress. They took and oath. Hold them to it.

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it, it is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

Maxwell
April 8, 2006, 09:41 AM
The US is better off now than it used to be.

What happens when it gets alot worse than it is?
Words on paper, without enforcement, will burn easily. We see examples of that all the time. It would be pretty foolish to think the US is immune from an internal takeover.

The constitution has a gun to enforce itself, your gun. If the law is successfully taking that away then its a short step to everything else.

I would agree that the second best protection is to only elect those who are for enforcing the constitution and your right to bear above everything else.
If they arnt for the basic law of the land, they are unusable no matter what other view they might have.
The root of our troubles has been electing politicians based on lesser issues. Food stamps and immigration over rkba and your basic freedom.

It dosnt matter if someone holds a view of abortion that agrees with yours. If their for creating tyranny then all these other issues wont mean a damn thing.
If they can get your vote by misleading you into thinking some other issue is more important than constitutional rights, I guess its our own fault what happens.

Art Eatman
April 8, 2006, 10:11 AM
"The right itself is without limit."

No.

The people who argued that there should be a Bill of Rights didn't see it that way, and wrote to the contrary.

See The anti-Federalist Papers.

Art

ConstitutionCowboy
April 8, 2006, 11:31 AM
Specify for me what you would consider a legitimate limit, or limits, on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Secondly, please point out in the Constitution where any such power to place any such limit has been granted to the government.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

Molon Labe
April 8, 2006, 07:16 PM
The people who argued that there should be a Bill of Rights didn't see it that way, and wrote to the contrary.So what? I really don't give a crap what Hamilton, Jay, and Madison have to say about my inalienable rights. They are not the source of my rights, nor do they define them.

RealGun
April 9, 2006, 06:58 AM
So what? I really don't give a crap what Hamilton, Jay, and Madison have to say about my inalienable rights. They are not the source of my rights, nor do they define them. - Molon Labe

Take your little militia to Canada, England, or Australia and see what happens.

hugh damright
April 9, 2006, 12:37 PM
If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not delegate power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. A people have a collective right to defend their free State, and this power is delegated to a military which has nukes. But that does not mean that every individual must have a right to bear nukes before we could delegate such a power. Nukes are owned collectively, not individually.

In the days of muskets, if everybody had a musket, then everyone was equal and collective rights were secured. But if somebody has a nuke, that does not make everyone equal, it makes one person equal to many, and that is not necessary to the security of free government, it is a threat to free government.

WE ordained and WE established the Constitution.
Yes, We the States. The US Constitution is a compact between the States. No individual has the power/right to ordain and establish a Constitution (unless of course he is the King). This, like the right to bear nukes, is a collective right.

Maxwell
April 9, 2006, 03:18 PM
A people have a collective right to defend their free State, and this power is delegated to a military which has nukes.

A collective right to defend means little if their collective weapons are locked up in a cabinet, off fighting someplace else when we need them, or kept from doing their job by corrupt politicians.

I dont see what nukes have to do with anything.
1) 99% of civilians have budget limits. We just couldnt afford a nuke or other large weapons we rarely use. Yes a few might own artillery or tanks, but so few that its not a serious threat to the military or the population.

2) Those who can afford it will buy it anyway. Its possible for private companies to "own" fighter jets, tanks, ships, and all manner of heavy weaponry with the right paperwork. Infringing the average mans right to a short barrel shotgun does not prevent a privately owned nuke.

The bill of rights does not "give" rights, it spells out the fact that we have rights that cannot be taken away without due process.

Its not my burden to prove myself innocent unless youve got a charge to file. Im not supposed to be part of some dragnet to go fishing for evidence to a future crime.
The government should not be botherd with registration and limitation, its focus should be on finding those who've done something wrong and punishing them before citizens take justice into their own hands.
Law or not, they will.

Art Eatman
April 9, 2006, 06:38 PM
In the Anti-Federalist Papers, a proponent of the BOR stated that the right to be armed would not extend to "the insane and those of ill repute". I take this latter to mean what we today label "felons".

The Pennsylvania Minority Report of 1787 stated that no citizen could be disarmed "...unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

My take is that honest people have certain rights which are denied to a limited few; denied for cause.

My view of "rights" is that they are unlimited in the philosophic sense, but individuals can behave in ways that bring about the loss of some certain right.

Generally, the Federalists were comfortable with a standing army and absolute Congressional control over the militia. This whole idea was anathema to the Anti-Federalists; they wanted an armed citizenry which could be called up as any need arose. The Pennsylvania Minority included self defense and hunting as part of the justification for individual ownership of firearms.

For context, remember that the population was then only some three million, and think of the time lag for any foreign enemy to be able to get here and attack.

Art

ConstitutionCowboy
April 10, 2006, 12:34 AM
Quote:

If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not delegate power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation.
A people have a collective right to defend their free State, and this power is delegated to a military which has nukes. But that does not mean that every individual must have a right to bear nukes before we could delegate such a power. Nukes are owned collectively, not individually.

Hugh, that "collective" you write of is what we call "the state". The "collective", or the state, does not have rights. Only people have rights. People will delegate power to the "collective", or the state, as a derivative of their rights.

In the days of muskets, if everybody had a musket, then everyone was equal and collective rights were secured. But if somebody has a nuke, that does not make everyone equal, it makes one person equal to many, and that is not necessary to the security of free government, it is a threat to free government.

There is no such thing as a "free government", nor should there ever be. Such a construct would be dictatorial and most likely tyrannical and despotic in nature. As it is the intent of the Second Amendment's protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to keep the government in check, at least one person in the country should be equally or better armed than the government. That is well within the scope of the Second Amendment and the remainder of the Constitution as well. Maxwell has it right. Your only limit is your pocket book(or what you are personally comfortable with).


Quote:

WE ordained and WE established the Constitution.
Yes, We the States. The US Constitution is a compact between the States. No individual has the power/right to ordain and establish a Constitution (unless of course he is the King). This, like the right to bear nukes, is a collective right.

Yes and no. Yes, the Constitution is an agreement between the states to establish a central government called the "United States of America". However, it was drafted by representatives of the people of twelve of the thirteen states and not the state governments. (Rhode Island did not participate in the convention.) If it had been drafted by representatives of the state governments, ratification would not have been necessary. It would have become official right then and there upon it's signing by the representatives. It was drafted by "We the People", precisely as the preamble states. And, in truth, the Constitution creates a "union" and not necessarily a government, or the government. It is, however, the top level of government for all the states, having supreme authority over the states where its specified powers are concerned.

In the Anti-Federalist Papers, a proponent of the BOR stated that the right to be armed would not extend to "the insane and those of ill repute". I take this latter to mean what we today label "felons".

The Pennsylvania Minority Report of 1787 stated that no citizen could be disarmed "...unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

My take is that honest people have certain rights which are denied to a limited few; denied for cause.

My view of "rights" is that they are unlimited in the philosophic sense, but individuals can behave in ways that bring about the loss of some certain right.

Generally, the Federalists were comfortable with a standing army and absolute Congressional control over the militia. This whole idea was anathema to the Anti-Federalists; they wanted an armed citizenry which could be called up as any need arose. The Pennsylvania Minority included self defense and hunting as part of the justification for individual ownership of firearms.

For context, remember that the population was then only some three million, and think of the time lag for any foreign enemy to be able to get here and attack.

Art

Art, you are talking mostly about the USES of arms, and not the keeping and bearing thereof. Since the RKBA is as inalienable as the right to a trial by jury, or the right to council, or not be a witness against one's self, or to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, no person can be stripped of their arms. If there is such a person with such a violent nature that they cannot be trusted with arms, that person should be executed, or kept in jail, an institution, or in the custody of a guardian. An individual does not lose their right to council, or their right to a trial - ever! They don't lose the right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, either.

The only legitimate way to deny a person their arms is by a physical barrier such as prison, after a conviction upon due process. Once that person has "done his time", that person is released from prison and has each and every right any of the rest of us have. There is no provision in the Constitution that will enable government to deny any free person any right.

As for the "Anti-Federalist" or the "Federalist", it doesn't matter what they wrote about if it didn't make it into the Constitution. All that matters is what did make it into the Constitution.

Casingpoint, Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

Z_Infidel
April 10, 2006, 02:21 PM
As for the "Anti-Federalist" or the "Federalist", it doesn't matter what they wrote about if it didn't make it into the Constitution. All that matters is what did make it into the Constitution.

I disagree. The writings and communications of those involved matter a great deal when it comes to understanding the context of the BoR and what their intentions were. For instance, there are several writings by Jefferson and others that greatly support the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee to be applied to individuals as well as the militia.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 10, 2006, 03:21 PM
Quote:
As for the "Anti-Federalist" or the "Federalist", it doesn't matter what they wrote about if it didn't make it into the Constitution. All that matters is what did make it into the Constitution.


I disagree. The writings and communications of those involved matter a great deal when it comes to understanding the context of the BoR and what their intentions were. For instance, there are several writings by Jefferson and others that greatly support the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee to be applied to individuals as well as the militia.

You are right - for the stuff that made it into the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights". Defending something that didn't make it in is nothing more than an academic exercise. Now, if one would like to amend the Constitution along the lines of something that didn't make it in before, it would then become relevant. Agree?

I do understand how the discussion of both sides of the issues is relevant in a quest to follow the logic of which conclusions were arrived at and which conclusion was adopted. But, when discussing an aspect of the Constitution or one of its amendments as far as applying the clause or amendment as law, the logic behind the adopted conclusion is all that is needed. In truth, obedience to the clause or amendment is all that is needed. For anything else desired, amendment is required. As George Washington said in his farewell address, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.


Woody

"For every power usurped by government, the People lose a right." B.E.Wood

hugh damright
April 10, 2006, 06:17 PM
Hugh, that "collective" you write of is what we call "the state". The "collective", or the state, does not have rights. Only people have rights. People will delegate power to the "collective", or the state, as a derivative of their rights.
I disagree. That is such a strained and narrow construction that it would mean that if we are attacked then we have a collective power to defend ourselves but no collective right to do so. I reckon a people have a collective right to defend themselves, just as they have a collective right to govern themselves. It is a very narrow, strained, and closed circle logic that tries to say that every collective right is a "power".


There is no such thing as a "free government", nor should there ever be. Such a construct would be dictatorial and most likely tyrannical and despotic in nature. As it is the intent of the Second Amendment's protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to keep the government in check, at least one person in the country should be equally or better armed than the government. That is well within the scope of the Second Amendment and the remainder of the Constitution as well. Maxwell has it right. Your only limit is your pocket book(or what you are personally comfortable with).
The entire American experiment is about free government. The 1776 Maryland Constitution declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of free government. Such a construct as free government would be dictatorial and tyrannical and despotic? Certainly you aren't thinking that "free government" is where the government is uncontrolled?

And there is no individual right to keep government in check, I think what you envision is terrorism, where an individual uses force to bend government to his will. The right to keep and bear arms as a check on government, the right to alter or to abolish government, is a collective right.

I'm curious though, if you think that the Second Amendment protects your personal right to use nuclear weapons against government, do you think you have a right to take over just your own State, or the whole US, or the whole world?

ConstitutionCowboy
April 11, 2006, 12:15 AM
Quote:

Hugh, that "collective" you write of is what we call "the state". The "collective", or the state, does not have rights. Only people have rights. People will delegate power to the "collective", or the state, as a derivative of their rights.
I disagree. That is such a strained and narrow construction that it would mean that if we are attacked then we have a collective power to defend ourselves but no collective right to do so. I reckon a people have a collective right to defend themselves, just as they have a collective right to govern themselves. It is a very narrow, strained, and closed circle logic that tries to say that every collective right is a "power".

We are bantering with semantics here, Hugh. We have every right as a people to defend our nation. We delegate power to the state(or federal government, if you will) to that end. Our right to govern or defend ourselves is not a collective right. We can govern and defend ourselves as individuals, too. Coming together as a collective does not change or add rights we have as individuals, nor does it increase or create rights because it is a collective. You are taking this argument backward. Our power comes from our right to defend ourselves. When we pool that power, we have no less of a right to defend our selves. We don't have, nor do we need to have, a collective right to defend ourselves because we have that right as individuals. We simply delegate some of that defensive power to the government. We can, and have, delegated power to decide when to go to war to the government.

We did not give our right to go to war to the government, however. We can't. As with any right, it is inalienable.

The entire American experiment is about free government. The 1776 Maryland Constitution declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of free government. Such a construct as free government would be dictatorial and tyrannical and despotic? Certainly you aren't thinking that "free government" is where the government is uncontrolled?

You are talking about Maryland and not the United States. And the Constitution of Maryland you referenced says something different than what you quoted. It says, " XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government." It says nothing about the militia being necessary. It says it is proper. So does the current Constitution of Maryland. To wit: "Art. 28. That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government."

Tie that with these clauses from the 1867 Constitution of Maryland:

"Art. 1. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient."

"Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"Art. 4. That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State."

The government of Maryland is only as "free" as the people of Maryland allow it to be. Freedom is about people, not governments. Taken in context with the whole Constitution of Maryland, that is what it says. I threw Article 2 in because it subordinates the Maryland constitution to the US Constitution. The Second Amendment would definitely be applicable in Maryland by its own inclusion of the US Constitution. Besides, what force of law does this statement: "That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government. " have? None! "Twelve O'Clock is the proper and natural time to eat lunch." What would happen if the federal government defended Maryland with the regular Army? Nothing worse than if I ate lunch at Eleven.

But, back on track:

And there is no individual right to keep government in check, I think what you envision is terrorism, where an individual uses force to bend government to his will.

Nope, not what I said or implied. When the government jack-booted thugs come to my door to disarm me for no just cause, I have the right to resist, to keep government in check where I'm concerned. That is not terrorism nor bending the government to my will.

The right to keep and bear arms as a check on government, the right to alter or to abolish government, is a collective right.

The right of the people to alter or abolish their forms of government is a right of the people. That is accomplished by vote. There is no such thing as a "collective" vote. It isn't necessary to use arms to alter or abolish our forms of government.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is the right of each and every individual. Whether that right is for keeping a check upon government or not, it is an individual right. The only "collective" we have here are the different levels of government. The state doesn't protect us from itself. I can protect myself from the government if it runs foul. I don't need to consult x number of fellow citizens looking for an affirmative consensus. If those in government need to be removed by force for whatever transgressions, I have the right to gather fellow citizens to that end. I have the right to join the throng if someone else gathers. I have the right to accomplish it on my own. I can also be held accountable for my actions if I lose or am among the losers. That doesn't alter my right, though. Don't try to extrapolate anything further from this. I have been very specific with each scenario and my rights are no less than, nor no more than I have described.

None of this is the overthrow of the government. No one has that right.

I'm curious though, if you think that the Second Amendment protects your personal right to use nuclear weapons against government, do you think you have a right to take over just your own State, or the whole US, or the whole world?

The Second Amendment protects the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. The Second Amendment does not protect any right of the people to use arms. No one has the right to take over anything carte blanc. Many men have tried, and many men have died.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.

Art Eatman
April 11, 2006, 12:23 AM
"The only legitimate way to deny a person their arms is by a physical barrier such as prison, after a conviction upon due process."

That's your view. Even you are limiting "person" to a sane adult...

"Once that person has "done his time", that person is released from prison and has each and every right any of the rest of us have. There is no provision in the Constitution that will enable government to deny any free person any right."

Now you're headed to an argument over the definition "free person". Parolee? Probationer? The trouble with all of this is the hair-splitting over word meanings, which is what's brought about all these arguments about rights.

"As for the "Anti-Federalist" or the "Federalist", it doesn't matter what they wrote about if it didn't make it into the Constitution. All that matters is what did make it into the Constitution."

That's your opinion. My opinion is that when there are disagreements over the meaning of something like the Second Amendment, the opinions of the writers and/or the proponents should be considered. Who knew better than they what was intended?

I'm reminded of the story of the US Rep whose income-tax deduction was disallowed by IRS. "I know that deduction is legal! I wrote the legislation!" Response: "I'm sorry sir, we don't interpret it that way."

Art

hugh damright
April 11, 2006, 12:50 PM
Our right to govern or defend ourselves is not a collective right.
You seem to miss the whole point of free government. No individual has a right to govern Virginia, it is a collective right of Virginians. And no individual has a right to keep a military force, it is a collective right. You are simply stuck in denial about collective rights.

The right of the people to alter or abolish their forms of government is a right of the people. That is accomplished by vote. There is no such thing as a "collective" vote.
The representative is elected by the people. No individual has a right to elect a representative. The individual vote is the method the collective uses to exercise their collective right to choose a representative.

By the way, my Virginia State Bill of Rights specifically declares that the majority of Virginians have an inalienable right to alter or to abolish our government. Of course voting is one way to accomplish this. But if the ballot box fails then free government is founded upon the collective right of a people to take control of their government by force. Again, I want to make this very clear - the right to alter or to abolish government is a collective right, and to claim it is an individual right is to advocate terrorism.

(edit) There's no such thing as a collective vote?? I reckon there is no other kind of vote BUT a collective vote. I mean, if it was up to one individual, then what would be the point of voting?

ConstitutionCowboy
April 12, 2006, 02:13 AM
You seem to miss the whole point of free government. No individual has a right to govern Virginia, it is a collective right of Virginians. And no individual has a right to keep a military force, it is a collective right. You are simply stuck in denial about collective rights.

I can see you are stuck on this "collective" thing. The only form of government I know of having anything to do with a "collective" is communism. And I can see you are stuck on this "free government". What you have going here is a "category error". Mislabeling. If an individual owned Virginia, that person would have the right to govern it. I own my yard. I govern it. Again, there is no such thing as a collective right. People have the right to elect leaders. We don't collectively cast one ballot, we cast individual ballots, the ballots are tallied, and that is how it is done. The leaders have power delegated to them by the people. You're mis-characterizing majority rule by labeling it a "collective right". There is not now nor has there ever been any such thing as a "collective" right.

I can keep a military force. Congress can form a military force. Power for Congress to do that has been granted to it in Article I, section 8. Power has been denied the several states to keep a military force in Article I, Section 10. By virtue of that power not denied me in the Constitution, I have that power secured to me in the Tenth Amendment.

Nothing in a democratic republic can be considered "collective" because not everyone thinks or chooses identically. The majority decision rules. Each individual only profits from his own labors. In a collective, such as a farming collective, everyone pools their lands and chattel, supposedly has an equal responsibility in the labors, and each benefits equally from the produce. Communism, plain and simple.

One way to define a collective is to understand that everyone is a slave to the collective. Even in a bee colony, the queen bee is a slave to the colony. All the bees have specific functions essential to the survival of the colony. All the bees survive because of the colony. Remove one group of bees, their essential contribution to the colony leaves with them, and the colony collapses. They all die because they no longer have the colony to support them.

Now, I'll admonish you to use the words and language of, and in, the Constitution - if you wish to support it and defend our rights. Using anything other than the words in the Constitution to describe that which is in the Constitution is diversionary, and attempts to remove it from the scrutiny of the Constitution. Labeling a power that has been delegated to the government as a "collective right" diminishes the value of what a right is, and elevates the value of a power to something it is not. It is mis-characterization. It is misconstrual. It is deception. It is what "political correctness" is all about.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
April 12, 2006, 02:32 AM
I addressed discussion of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers in my April 10. 2006, 02:21 PM comment. I think you'll find I'm essentially in agreement with you, with the caveat that what is actually in the Constitution is the overriding factor.

That "Physical Barrier" I speak of is all encompassing, whether it be for anyone not able to be trusted with arms, or for lacking the mental capacity. That physical barrier can be a guardian - it need not necessarily be a prison or institution.

Regardless of any law, any criminal or mentally incapable person can and will obtain a weapon if that person so desires. That physical barrier is the only effective preventative.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

hugh damright
April 12, 2006, 11:49 AM
I can see you are stuck on this "collective" thing. The only form of government I know of having anything to do with a "collective" is communism. And I can see you are stuck on this "free government". What you have going here is a "category error". Mislabeling.No, the error is yours. All forms of government regard a collective, because that is what is governed. How exactly would you have a government with no collective? What would the governor be called, the "Governor of No State"?

And you are the one who is confused about categories and labels. I get my definition of "free government" from a dictionary, and also from our historical documents (i.e. the federalist/antifederalist papers, the State Constitutions, and so on).

I can keep a military force ... I have that power secured to me in the Tenth Amendment.No, you do not have a right to keep a military force, that is a collective right. Next you will be telling me that you have a right to print money and to make treaties.

Nothing in a democratic republic can be considered "collective" because not everyone thinks or chooses identically. The majority decision rules. Each individual only profits from his own labors. In a collective, such as a farming collective, everyone pools their lands and chattel, supposedly has an equal responsibility in the labors, and each benefits equally from the produce. Communism, plain and simple.
No, everything about republican or free government can be considered collective. That is the whole point of it. Nobody is talking about pooling our land and chattel. In a free State, the people pool their sovereignty, such that the collective is sovereign. That is free government - the sovereign or ultimate authority resides in the body of people, the collective, rather than in a small body of men or an individual (King).

One way to define a collective is to understand that everyone is a slave to the collective.
No, one of the principles of free government is the individual right to expatriation - the right to move to another State. So no, a free State is not slavery.

And by the way, expatriation is your individual right to check government. You do not have an individual right to nuke the people's government, but you do have a right to move out from under that government.

Now, I'll admonish you to use the words and language of, and in, the Constitution - if you wish to support it and defend our rights. Using anything other than the words in the Constitution to describe that which is in the Constitution is diversionary, and attempts to remove it from the scrutiny of the Constitution. Labeling a power that has been delegated to the government as a "collective right" diminishes the value of what a right is, and elevates the value of a power to something it is not. It is mis-characterization. It is misconstrual. It is deception. It is what "political correctness" is all about.
No, I prefer to study things like the Debates of the Constitutional Convention, the Records of the State Ratification Conventions, The Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, and all the other wealth of information that is available to help a person gain a deeper understanding of what the US Constitution is.

Of course, it would be a lot easier to just read the Constitution and emote all the answers, to think I understood it all, as if it was all so simple and basic.


By the way, the Second Amendment's term "free State" is a reference to "free government" ... I have already explained this but it didn't seem to "take". A "free State" is a body of people under a free government. Again, I pulled that definition from a dictionary. So if you are going to limit your view to the actual phrases used in the Constitution, you might at least learn what they mean.

evan price
April 13, 2006, 12:10 AM
The purpose of the militia is to defend ourselves from foriegn invaders who somehow conquer the central government establishment (IE, mass assassinations? Invasions?) Or Else, if the government attempts to take total control of the citizens.


Second just to play devils advocate. If I read what you typed correctly. Then i could have a howitzer in my front yard and it would be legal. So that begs to have this question asked if our rights to bear arms are "unlimited" then what do you do about arms escalation in neighborhoods? You know ,hey my Neighbor has a fully automatic AK-47 I now need a m-50 all the way up to nukes??? ripple the central government, such as, mass assassinations. Or else, when our own government attempts to become a totalitarian regime we use our weapons to defend our freedom.

Is there any reason why I should not own a Ma Deuce? If a responsible and competent person can be trusted with modern firearms, why is it that people just assume the same safe law abiding gun owner, when in possession of a full-auto weapon, will become John Dillinger?

IMHO, centerfire semi automatic or single shot weapons should be purchaseable immediately after a phone call to a central database. Inability to get through in a reasonable time period or inability to find a problem in background check means sale is automatic. Fully automatic weapons require only a paper background check that shall be limited to only a maximum of 14 days time. Noncompletion of paperwork means sale goes through automatically.

Military grade hardware such as:

A: Crew served weapons such as AA guns or mortars
B: Any type of weapon that uses an explosive projectile as its primary warhead (Such as, rifle grenades, Stinger missiles, bazookas, etc)
C: Modern motorized or self propelled field equipment such as tanks, howitzers, etc
D: Explosive devices such as hand grenades, claymores, land mines, etc.
E: Modern military aircraft
F: Modern Naval vessels

Will require a full background check and a license similar to a modern FFL. These items are available for ownership ONLY to those individuals who are members of a well-regulated militia organized independantly at state level. The item will be permanently marked or serial numbered and transactions in which it is transferred to another owner must be registered at the state level. You will be required to have insurance to cover any potential misuse of the item if it is lost or stolen or used improperly. A comission of any crime that is a felony in nature will result in automatic cancellation of the license pending review. If the item is used in comission of a crime resulting in death the charge will automatically be upgraded to first degree murder with capital specifications as allowed by individual states.



Strategic weapons such as nukes, bio warfare agents, chemical weapons, WMD's of any kind, etc. shall remain the sole purview of nation-states acting under governmental authority. Under no circumstances shall private ownership of strategic weapons be allowed.




How's that for a Second Amendment stand?

antarti
April 13, 2006, 12:49 AM
A people have a collective right to defend their free State, and this power is delegated to a military which has nukes.

What one has the right to delegate, one doesn't have the power to excercise on their own?

But that does not mean that every individual must have a right to bear nukes before we could delegate such a power. Nukes are owned collectively, not individually.

How do even 100,000,000,000,000 people who do not possess a right individually delegate it as a power?

What about the corollary? Isn't it the case that I can't confer or delegate the power of theft, kidnapping, rape to the government, because I myself do not have that right? Would you argue that a "collective" matters in this point?

ConstitutionCowboy
April 13, 2006, 01:00 AM
OK, Let's see;

Collective adj viewed as a whole, taken as one; combined, common; (grammar) used in the singular to express a multitude.
noun a collective enterprise, as a farm.


The "Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus" definition of "collective" doesn't fit your use of the word. It can be used to express a multitude of people or a multitude of rights. It is improper to use it to describe a multitude of people who would have a right as a multitude. Does a mob have rights? Is it permissable to lynch someone simply because a mob wants to? No. Is it permissable for a mob to overthrow a despotic government? Yes, because the individuals in the mob have that right. Each individual in the mob adds power to the mob. The right is there because each individual has the right, but the right does not multiply or become valid or more valid in the mob. Only the power increases as the mob grows. Same thing for a lunching. The inception and growth of the lynch mob gains power with each new person added, but since none of the individuals in the mob have the right to lynch, there is only power for the mob to lynch.

Scenario: A throng is marching down the street carrying arms. You ask what they are up to, and one of them says they are going to remove the governor because he refused to step down after loosing the election. Since you have the right, and the rest of the people in the throng have the right, you join and go with them to remove the errant governor. You add power - one more man with a gun. Another throng is marching down the street carrying arms. You ask what they are up to, and one of them says they are going down to the supermarket to get groceries with their arms because the prices are too high. You don't have the right to hold up the market. No one in the throng has the right to hold up the market. Therefore, all you would do if you joined the throng is to increase its power. All that the mob or the throng or the collective is, is power.


A state is not a collective except in a communist society. In a communist society, you have collectivism, and "Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus" definition of "collectivism" is:

noun the political or economic theory of collective ownership of the means of production and distribution by the state or people.

This country is a democratic republic with a capitolistic economy. There is nothing collective about our country.

"Free government". No government in this country is free. Each and every government in this country is limited by the constitutions which create them.

Quote:

I can keep a military force ... I have that power secured to me in the Tenth Amendment.
No, you do not have a right to keep a military force, that is a collective right. Next you will be telling me that you have a right to print money and to make treaties.

First, I'll requote the whole of what I said since you chose to abridge what I wrote:

"I can keep a military force. Congress can form a military force. Power for Congress to do that has been granted to it in Article I, Section 8. Power has been denied the several states to keep a military force in Article I, Section 10. By virtue of that power not denied me in the Constitution, I have that power secured to me in the Tenth Amendment."

It can't be more plain than that! Verb and verse from the Constitution! I have that power by right, my friend. Our history is replete with small militias amd militaristic units. The most noteable, in my opinion, would be the privateers.

Congress has been granted power to coin money. The states have been forbidden to coin money. Nothing in the Constitution forbids me to coin money. By virtue of the Tenth Amendment, I can coin money. Congress has power to regulate the value of whatever I coin, same as it has the power to regulate the value of foreign coin. In the absence of Congress regulating anything I coin, you and I can decide what value it has between us for barter. I would not counterfit US coin because Congress can provide for punishment of that act. I would have you note the nuance of this clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause (6). It grants power to Congress to provide punishment for counterfiting money. It does not forbid it. Congress can, if it deems it necessary and proper, limit or forbid me to coin money. But, everyone can write a promissary note, can't they. It's called "writing a check!" And yes, I know the difference. A check is not legal tender. It is only an authorization for the banking system to transfer money from my account to whomever's account I specify.

You made the following statement: "Of course, it would be a lot easier to just read the Constitution and emote all the answers, to think I understood it all, as if it was all so simple and basic."

Well, the Constitution is, and was meant to be, simple and basic. But please tell me, what would be the point to display emotion theatrically? You use that word "emote". I don't think it means what you think it means. But then again, you use a lot of words that don't mean what you think they mean.

More tomorrow.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

hugh damright
April 13, 2006, 01:32 PM
Woodci, I did not see your last post, because I have put you on my ignore list. I will not associate with people who think they have an individual right to destroy our government and an individual right to possess nuclear weapons to accomplish their task of terrorism.

Normally I would respect that this is your thread and back off, but not this time.

...

What one has the right to delegate, one doesn't have the power to excercise on their own?ONE does not delegate the right to have an army, there is no individual right to have an army, it is a collective right, it is delegated by the collective.

How do even 100,000,000,000,000 people who do not possess a right individually delegate it as a power?That is simply not how government is empowered. The people of a free State empower their government in the sense that the individual has sovereignty and the people pool their sovereignty such that the collective is sovereign. And then the sovereign collective has unenumerable rights that the individual does not possess. The clearest example of this, I think, is the right to alter or to abolish government.


What about the corollary? Isn't it the case that I can't confer or delegate the power of theft, kidnapping, rape to the government, because I myself do not have that right? Would you argue that a "collective" matters in this point?A free government is not empowered to rape and steal. Free government embraces the idea that there are certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life and property. So no, when I say that there are collective rights that do not come directly from an individual right, I do not mean to say that the collective has all rights regardless of any individual rights.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 13, 2006, 06:04 PM
Woodci, I did not see your last post, because I have put you on my ignore list. I will not associate with people who think they have an individual right to destroy our government and an individual right to possess nuclear weapons to accomplish their task of terrorism.


Normally I would respect that this is your thread and back off, but not this time.

Now you are accusing me of stuff I never said or implied. Not once did I mention destroying the government nor did I mention exacting any acts of terror. I will accept your retraction and apology when it is proffered.

...



ONE does not delegate the right to have an army, there is no individual right to have an army, it is a collective right, it is delegated by the collective.

Point this out in the Constitution, please. And again, your premise is bass ackwards. No one delegates right. One delegates power FROM a right.


Quote:
How do even 100,000,000,000,000 people who do not possess a right individually delegate it as a power?

That is simply not how government is empowered. The people of a free State empower their government in the sense that the individual has sovereignty and the people pool their sovereignty such that the collective is sovereign. And then the sovereign collective has unenumerable rights that the individual does not possess. The clearest example of this, I think, is the right to alter or to abolish government.

Clarification, please! "And then the sovereign collective has unenumerable rights that the individual does not possess." You have enumerated certain rights that you believe your "collective" has! You enumerated a right to alter or abolish government. You enumerated a right for your "collective" to have a military with nukes. You use that word "unenumerated". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Quote:
What about the corollary? Isn't it the case that I can't confer or delegate the power of theft, kidnapping, rape to the government, because I myself do not have that right? Would you argue that a "collective" matters in this point?

A free government is not empowered to rape and steal. Free government embraces the idea that there are certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life and property. So no, when I say that there are collective rights that do not come directly from an individual right, I do not mean to say that the collective has all rights regardless of any individual rights.

Man, I'm glad I don't live in your world! For the sake of that world you live in, I hope you are not a teacher, or in any level of government.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

bigj8550
April 14, 2006, 01:28 PM
HUGH DAMRIGHT
Woodci did not bring up nuclear weapons in his posts. I am the one who brought the subject to light, in response to "is the right to bear arms unlimited". Which was the subject of this thread to begin with. I think it has gotten a little off the path. Woodci and Hugh Damright seem to be stuck on the collective argument. So the question in my point of view is does one person have the same rights as every person in our nation as a whole. More simply does one person have the right to own a weapon that can possibly, if used could destroy the world??? That is an awful big question that can be debated for the rest of eternity. Going to the Constitution, bill of rights, or any other writings of that era will not answer that question. Because the FF never would have conceived the idea of the weapons that are in the world now.
So it all comes down to interpretation of the law. My moral stand point I believe the government only has the power delegated to it by an individuals rights. In the same token I believe NO ONE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN A WEAPON THAT CAN DESTROY THE WORLD.

Jeremy

bigj8550
April 14, 2006, 02:57 PM
After thinking about my last post I have came to a conclusion to a question I proposed in my last post.
More simply does one person have the right to own a weapon that can possibly, if used could destroy the world???
What I came up with is, In a collective every decision is made by the whole, not a rep. of the whole. And when a decision is made to drop a nuclear device on government do we as a nation post a vote on it. NO we do not! That is a responsibility and power under one man. The President of the United States. So if one man has the power to drop the bomb what is the difference if one man can own a bomb???

ConstitutionCowboy
April 14, 2006, 09:49 PM
The bottom line is it is a right to keep and bear, not use. The use of such a devise must be justified, as with any weapon. Unjustified use can get you fried. Sodamn Hinsane will fry for his misuse of WMDs against his own people. Hitler was defeated because of his misuse of Germany's might. Tim McVeigh got fried for his misuse of his bomb. Truman ordered the use of the A-Bombs and ended the war with Japan, saving many more lives ON BOTH SIDES than the use of those bombs took out. That was justified.

Keep and Bear? Absolute!

Use? Be damned careful!

I would, however, caution against carrying your nuke around in Thunderwear if you are still of the mind to have kids.

All jokes aside, history has proven that no matter what laws exist, evil people will obtain arms and deliver whatever mayhem they desire. Mutual Assured Destruction will never stop the likes of bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only thing that will stop the likes of them is to destroy them before they can carry out their promises. For us law abiding citizens, that means being armed in defense of yourself, family, neighborhood, city, state, and nation. Your only limit is your purse and your conscience. My only limit is my purse and my conscience. Your conscience does not affect me, or mine you - no more than my purse can affect you or your purse affect me.

If you got the money and are comfortable with what you can buy to keep and bear, no law should ever prevent or hinder you! Personally, though I'll never be able to afford a nuke, I wouldn't be comfortable having one around. I'm not too comfortable with knives, either. That said, I'll never forgo my RIGHT to keep and bear any weapon. I'll never ask you to forgo yours, either. There may come a time both of us might need a nuke. I may need a knife some day, too.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this nation; founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

another okie
April 15, 2006, 05:02 PM
There is a difference between the scope of a right, and the extent to which that right can be infringed. Much of the discussion above is two people talking past one another, because one is talking about the scope of the right, and one is talking about the extent to which the right, assumed to be unlimited, can be infringed.

The second amendment says the right cannot be infringed, but does not define the right or tell us what is included.

Is the right to keep and bear arms only for personal weapons, or does it include all the arms necessary to arm the militia, or does it include all weapons? Most people would look to the right as understood by the men who wrote the bill of rights to answer that question.

One common answer is that the second amendment only protects those weapons relevant to service in the militia, such as rifles, shotguns and pistols. Another answer is that militias did in fact own crew served weapons in 1776, so we should be able to today. But this debate over the scope of the right is different than the debate over whether that right can be infringed.

In the same way, did the right to keep and bear arms cover everyone in 1776? No. Insane people and criminals were not considered to covered by the right, so denying them weapons was not considered infringing on their rights. Many commentators in the early days of our Republic used the term "law-abiding citizens" when referring to those protected by the bill of rights.

Maxwell
April 15, 2006, 05:39 PM
The second amendment says the right cannot be infringed, but does not define the right or tell us what is included.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
It seemed pretty clear to me.

I think that the 2nd amendment, in context of the time it was written, remained broad for a reason. These men had just taken down a pro-military force with a bunch of militia on their own side.
Why would they write a right to protect their enemies right to the best weapons?

What has happend is instead of passing a proper amendment to block/modify our rights to weapons in the constitution, definatly something that could trigger a civil war, they've made an end run around it and just claimed it was legal.
How is that fair?

Why dont they want to be honest about what their doing?

If you enjoyed reading about "It Is Simple And Basic." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!