U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-16-2009, 12:30 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,202,467 times
Reputation: 8988

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
No, this would mark the U.S. becoming a country of slaves, in contrast to the Kings we were intended by our forefathers to be. You see, in the beginning, a Citizen of the United States was a Sovereign; he had the same rights as a King.
Sirrah! Desist in your foolish prattle.
A citizen, by definition is a subject.
You may be referring to the fact that American PEOPLE are sovereign. But if they exercise political liberty (vote and hold public office) they must drop in status, lest the servant becomes the master.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary,Sixth Ed. p.244
"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

Citizen = subject

In contrast:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]

REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,....
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
In a republican form of government, the people are sovereign. The servant government, and its subject citizens, are delegated certain powers to secure the rights of the sovereign people.
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
"...In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people."
Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)
People (American) are sovereigns. They enjoy a republican form of government. However, they can consent to join the democratic form, vote and hold public office, accept the duties of citizenship (jury duty, militia duty, etc.).

If all Americans were citizens (subjects) at birth, the civic duties would amount to involuntary servitude - which is unconstitutional - as well as a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights (life, liberty, absolute ownership). But government can compel the militia to fight - and die - on command. Such a duty must be consensual, otherwise it would be a violation of the founding compacts that created these united States.

Do not confuse the subject citizens of the democracy with the sovereign people of the republican form.

 
Old 05-16-2009, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,202,467 times
Reputation: 8988
Do not make the common mistake of mixing 'republic' and a 'republican form'.
REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302
A republic is not synonymous with a republican form of government. The People's Republic of China is a republic but not a republican form.
"GOVERNMENT (Republican Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
In contrast:
"DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432
(I will omit a treatise on the myriad uses of "or" in legal jargon, to lessen confusion.)

Restating
Democratic Form: Whole Body of Citizens indirectly exercise sovereignty (absolute power) through their representative legislators, who in turn, delegate authority to the executive branch to execute the laws.

Republican Form: Individual people directly exercise sovereignty. They may delegate certain powers - via petition - to the servant government. Example - when making a criminal complaint, the sheriff becomes their representative. Or in a foreign country, petitioning the ambassador for assistance.

To rebut any presumption that "citizens" are "collectively sovereign" let us remember the following facts:
1. Citizens are obligated to perform civic duties (militia, jury duty, paying taxes, etc)
2. Sovereigns are not obligated to perform civic duties.

People have the RIGHT to bear arms.
Militia have the DUTY to bear arms - or be denied that privilege, as the commander sees fit.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/8744657-post263.html
 
Old 05-16-2009, 12:46 AM
 
30 posts, read 47,065 times
Reputation: 25
It is better to be feared than loved and a unarmed man is much more easily despised. Still reigns true today, don't you think?
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:39 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,319,821 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
No, you said they did not allow people to take their guns into a closed building packed full of people in a chaotic situation. Like Yankee Stadium when the Red Sox are in town. You classified that as confiscating guns and illegally denying the citrizens their second amendment rights. What is wrong with that?

The implication of your New Orleans post was to fan the flames of the gun nuts who keep insisting that every time somebody is disarmed trying to take am assault weapon along on a guided tour of the White House, it is further "proof" that every liberal wants to take every gun away from every civilian, ,even though, showing amazing restraint, you did not say that in your New Orleans post.

You are funny. Nobody said EVERY liberal wants to take EVERYBODIES gun. We are & have been saying that the top liberal democrats want to disarm normal civilians & its true. Of course some will still be armed, after all these despots need armed security dont they. What I & many others find repulsive is that its ok to take even SOME guns away from SOME people. You seem ok with tyranny as long as it only happens to a few ot as long as its not you thats being deprived of coivil rights.
Personally I dont see anything justifying disarming people in DC, theres plenty of paid armed people there. If My paid demployees can go armed so should I be able to. There are still thousands of guns not returned in New Orleans, they cant even keep track of who they took them from & you *******s dont care eough about the injustice to do a damn thing about the stealing of private property.

In another post you say taking guns would be as useless as confiscating marijuana, guess what genius, marijuana is confiscated every day. Your rational for things seems pretty irrational. Its very easy to see by your posts that you are more concerned with word games & symantics than with the reality that you are not concerned with the things that matter in the US "Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" Rather you are concerned with decieve deprive & ridicule. YOU want to ban guns & wont say it any louder than your representative repressors. Banning one gun from one person is as wrong as banning all guns from everyone if you happen to be that guy.
But its ok, because since you dont own guns it wont be you eh?
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRefileric View Post
It is better to be feared than loved and a unarmed man is much more easily despised. Still reigns true today, don't you think?
So,. when you have a gun, it is the purpose of your posture and behavior to instill fear, rather than love, in the rest of us? Wow. Sure glad you have the right to bear arms.

Thank you for telling us that Machiavelli would be an improvement on the US Constitution, and you will bear arms if necessary to bring Machiavelli back to our philosophy of governance. Now we know to watch our backs.

Since Machiavelli wrote those words as advice to a Prince, are we all to bow down at your feet, your highness, and acknowledge that we fear you?

You have to watch what you say here. This is the Great Debates forum, and you're not just scattering your pearls among swine, as you believe you are.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-16-2009 at 07:07 AM..
 
Old 05-16-2009, 08:49 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,902,291 times
Reputation: 12285
'A vote is like a rifle, it's worth is dependent on the character of the person behind it'. Teddy Roosevelt. I always liked that one. Makes a lot of sense. Many shrill liberals just love to stereotype firearms owners into a very narrow corridor of their perception, all the while claiming lofty broad mindedness. Arguing with these types is comparable to wrestling a pig in the mud. After a short while you realize that the pig is enjoying it. . Thus , I believe I will leave the swine to wallow in their pen, unmolested, and take my son shooting. Somewhere far from the strident squealing and unpleasant odors. The sound of steel plates falling and the smell of burning powder is a far more pleasant thing.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
liberals just love to stereotype firearms owners .
A liberal knows the difference between a "firearms owner" and a "gun nut". Do you? You don't even kow the difference between a liberal who owns a gun and one who doesn't. Unlike gun nuts, liberals are not all clones of the same parrot, and neither are firearms owners.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:25 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,902,291 times
Reputation: 12285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
A liberal knows the difference between a "firearms owner" and a "gun nut". Do you? You don't even kow the difference between a liberal who owns a gun and one who doesn't. Unlike gun nuts, liberals are not all clones of the same parrot, and neither are firearms owners.
AH HAH! LMAO. Well, perhaps I have underestimated you. In which case I offer my apologies.. Nevertheless, I hear the term 'gun nut' aimed my way far to often to completely reverse myself. I am very enthusiastic about my chosen sport, and take it very seriously, but 'nut' is a bit extreme. Well, I must go, the wifes garden must be attended to before my son and I can go to the range and practice. . Such are lifes little inconveiniences. As an aside, I have seen no 'liberals' in attendance at any of the numerous competitions that we attend. Rest assured politics are left at the sign up table at these events. We studiously avoid such discussion, and it's even written in some clubs rules of competition. Perhaps 'liberal gun owners' would like to attend these events, but fear the atmosphere would not be condusive to their views? Fear not. Steel challenge is a far cry from a GOA convention. We 'conservitave gun owners' often lament that more support for our sport would happen if a wider section of gun owners attended our competitions and saw the environment for themselves. Lol, as I said, we don't generally discuss personal politics on the fireing line.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
We 'conservitave gun owners' often lament that more support for our sport would happen if a wider section of gun owners attended our competitions and saw the environment for themselves..
Maybe they associate your sport with what they see on line from "gun nuts" and have no wish to be in the same room with them. The NRA and their radical spawn would be well-advised to tone down the rhetoric.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 02:04 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,119,545 times
Reputation: 5171
Sirrah! Desist in your foolish prattle.
A citizen, by definition is a subject.


That depends on whether you at talking about a citizen under the 14th amendment which created the freed slave, a subject of the United States, and derives their rights from the government, Or a Sovereign Citizen of the State in which you have acquired "bona fide" residence, in which case you are a Sovereign protected under the first 12 amendments to the Constitution, and your rights are unalienable and derived from God. There is a difference, and that is clearly stated in The Slaughterhouse Case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top