Independents' thread for discussing gun issues


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Independents' thread for discussing gun issues

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1319413 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 20:17:28 UTC - in response to Message 1319410.

Hmmm. Maybe Glenn Beck can help me with the correct translations of late 18th century speech, instead? Certainly, this guy has it wrong. Right, rights?

Who here has alluded to this quote?


I have seen it "elsewhere".
We have seen several other quotes appearing "elsewhere" being repeated here.
So, when I debate "elsewhere", I tend to share the same information here.

ok, just trying to clarify the point you are trying to make.


This is an "independent" thread for discussion of the US gun issues, created after the locking of another, and before the creation of two other such threads.
The opening post is a response to something Gary Charpentier has brought up twice.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1319487 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 1:28:11 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2012, 1:59:44 UTC

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108505 Words from "conservative intelligentsia member" William F. Buckley, Jr.

William F. Buckley, Jr.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w...20020410.shtml
April 10, 2002

Exit gun control

News stories from around the nation identifying gun control as a trip-wire issue dividing conservatives and liberals don't surprise. The events of Sept. 11 have heightened the resolution of the "individual rights" interpreters of the Second Amendment. These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction. The former stare the language in the face and come away with a reading different from the collective crowd.

At issue is the interpretation of a single sentence: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons.


By contrast, of course, there are those (roughly speaking, the nation's intelligentsia) who insist that the Second Amendment goes no further than to say that Congress may not legislate against the right of individual states to organize militias of arms-bearing citizens.


The learned arguments go on and on. The gun-control lobby has suffered two severe blows in the recent period. One of them is that professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, much esteemed by American liberals in part because of his enthusiasm for abortion rights, having examined the historical documents, opines that indeed the people who framed the Bill of Rights intended to guarantee individual, not merely collective, gun-ownership rights. And the 5th Circuit ruled in the same direction in United States v. Emerson.


As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical: What did the framers intend? Another, more significant part, is political: What does the American public want? But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want?


It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified. It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership. A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding.


"What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"


"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."


The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths -- the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union -- is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. If you have the right to remain silent in all circumstances, then you can decline to give testimony vital to another citizen's freedom and rights. If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.


What ripened in the aftermath of Sept. 11 was a sensibility of the individual citizen's dependence, at the margin, on his own resources. George Will put it pithily (as ever), when he asked, Call for a cop, an ambulance and a pizza, and ask which is likelier to get to you first. A rifle in the closet wouldn't have been useful against the swooping 767s that struck the Twin Towers. But a sense of the implications of chaos and anarchy was sharpened. An analyst 20 years ago remarked that an 82-year-old couple living in an apartment in the Bronx, after twice being assaulted, found it possible to sleep at night only after acquiring a pistol and advertising its presence on a note pinned to the outside door.


Both sides will find it useful to temper extreme expressions of their positions. But it is certainly true that at this moment it is likelier that members of Congress running for election or re-election in November will not press the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment.


William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group.


There you have it. Debate against your guy.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319499 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 2:59:35 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2012, 3:02:22 UTC

It is NOT in any of his addresses.

I withdraw the quote.

I thank you for the correction.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319500 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 3:01:52 UTC

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson

This IS a correct quote and wording. It is verifiable.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319501 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 3:03:34 UTC

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

This IS a correct quote and wording. It is verifiable.

Message 1319519 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 4:23:03 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 18:51:52 UTC

--

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9086
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1319525 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 4:49:23 UTC - in response to Message 1319519.

... What does this indicate to you? That the people and the states are happy with his reelection? ...

They elected him. That is what an election is. By definition you got the president that most American's wanted.

If Americans didn't care enough to go out and vote in a presidential election, I can't see them caring enough to take up arms and start a revolution.

Anyone else just has a case of sour grapes and needs to get over it.

____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319533 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 5:35:42 UTC

I reckon we'll see if they try to take them away. LOL!

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,172
RAC: 8,672
United Kingdom
Message 1319540 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 6:21:08 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2012, 6:21:30 UTC

Questions.

Is it
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which means there could be more than one interpretation.

And is the plural militias or militiae? Bear in mind the Foundling Fathers knew their Latin. Because the meanings are not the same.

Just asking, not trying to stir up trouble, this time.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319543 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 6:31:43 UTC

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9086
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1319551 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 7:04:47 UTC - in response to Message 1319543.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia

Well regulated.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,172
RAC: 8,672
United Kingdom
Message 1319560 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 7:20:51 UTC - in response to Message 1319543.

Text of the Second Amendment


The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.


Malitia. I asked for the plural, don't just assume that a "s" should be stuck on the end.

I personally would use malitiae, but that is probably because I was taught Latin. Even if I have forgotten most of it, but I still remember most of the rules for plurals.

If you look up the original Latin. which the foundling fathers were familiar with, you will find various plurals.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319622 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 14:28:22 UTC

Minutemen

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319628 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 14:54:09 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2012, 14:55:16 UTC

Law is based on intent---only. Nothing else matters.

If law is based on emotion, it is not intent.

If a judge interjects his biased opinion on a subject and their personality is interjected into a law, we have breach of contract.

If example they base law in international law, this is a breach of contract with our own rule of law the U.S. Constitution.

If law is based on opinion the opinion varies and after time, as we have now, intent is truly lost in time.

So, the plural would be in this case--Minutemen

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12995
Credit: 7,664,797
RAC: 6,729
United States
Message 1319638 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 16:08:15 UTC

Just love it, argue about a scriveners error before there even was a dictionary of American English and use rules invented after it was written to interpret it.

____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319639 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 16:21:03 UTC

That dictionary is second generation founder.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319641 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 16:29:18 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2012, 16:30:15 UTC

You also ignore that INTENT is LAW. The ONLY way we find intent is to look to the founders. As I said if we don't intent is lost in time. To do less is MAKING UP LAW along the way and a breach of contract, that contract being "The United States Constitution."

Message 1319677 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 18:35:58 UTC - in response to Message 1319551.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 18:49:42 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12995
Credit: 7,664,797
RAC: 6,729
United States
Message 1319679 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 18:44:30 UTC - in response to Message 1319677.

Well regulated.


By who?

Each of the governors of the 13 sovereign states.

____________

Message 1319718 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 21:24:26 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 18:49:32 UTC

--

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Independents' thread for discussing gun issues

Copyright © 2014 University of California