Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2015, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,971,301 times
Reputation: 21237

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
The Second Amendment is the foundation on which the entire Constitution, and Bill of Rights, rests. Without the right of the citizens to bear arms, government can ignore, revoke, or change any of your "rights" with impunity.
So then by your reasoning, the authors of the second amendment included it in the Constitution for the purpose of encouraging armed rebellion against the government which they were creating?

Then, just to confuse us, they added the part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." making it appear that what they had in mind was actually national defense, which of course would include defense against internal armed rebellion.

You however have seen through that bogus addition and recognized that the true purpose was having citizens well armed enough so that they could threaten their elected officials with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2015, 06:24 PM
 
4,152 posts, read 4,391,967 times
Reputation: 10031
Schoolhouse Rock is ringing in my brain.....We the People in order to form a more perfect union...

Establish Justice; NOT Fairness
Insure Domestic Tranquility; NOT foster and foment controversy [mass media and marketers love it though!]
Provide for the COMMON Defense; NOT a military Industrial complex
Promote the General Welfare; NOT subsidize it [to create government dependent voting blocs]
Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity; NOT to those who do not value it

18th Amendment, because once the government powers realized they would lose out on taxes on an item the general population still would consume, they figured, well, 'why let organized crime take our gain$, we need to bring this line of business back under our control'.

George Mason's eloquently written Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments which became a foundation to the great experiment of self government. I often wonder if they knew what type of technology would become available, how the electoral process would evolve and how corruption could become so institutionalized, whether they would have included a few other stipulations.

Last edited by ciceropolo; 02-16-2015 at 06:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,971,301 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciceropolo View Post
I often wonder if they knew what type of technology would become available, how the electoral process would evolve and how corruption could become so institutionalized, whether they would have included a few other stipulations.
They were smart enough to recognize that it was not possible to anticipate how society would change in the future. That is why they added the element of flexibility, the amending process, so that those sorts of decisions could be made by the people who were actually dealing with the circumstances.

And institutionalized corruption has been around as long as there have been institutions, that would not have been news to those attending the Constitutional Convention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 07:20 PM
 
4,152 posts, read 4,391,967 times
Reputation: 10031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
They were smart enough to recognize that it was not possible to anticipate how society would change in the future. That is why they added the element of flexibility, the amending process, so that those sorts of decisions could be made by the people who were actually dealing with the circumstances.

And institutionalized corruption has been around as long as there have been institutions, that would not have been news to those attending the Constitutional Convention.
Yes, so true, you are correct sir.

What kind of reaction would they have had to 'representatives' voting something into law that they had not read?

Or an administration declaring a 'war on drugs' yet, letting them proliferate while armed soldiers of the realm guard the growing fields?

Thanks for the correction, you made me recall James Madison's words of April 20, 1795
He was very accurate, don't you think?

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument of bringing the many under the domination of the few. In War, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect of republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war... and the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No Nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 07:50 PM
 
14,304 posts, read 14,099,588 times
Reputation: 45436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
So then by your reasoning, the authors of the second amendment included it in the Constitution for the purpose of encouraging armed rebellion against the government which they were creating?

Then, just to confuse us, they added the part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." making it appear that what they had in mind was actually national defense, which of course would include defense against internal armed rebellion.

You however have seen through that bogus addition and recognized that the true purpose was having citizens well armed enough so that they could threaten their elected officials with them.
The right wing loves to leave out the "well-regulated militia" language when they talk about the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. I personally think the only right that was being extended was for the right of men of a certain age who would be part of the militia in different colonies to own a gun for that purpose. If "well regulated" meant nothing, my question is why did the Founding Fathers include it within the text of the Second Amendment? It must mean something.

I think the idea that the Second Amendment was put in place to encourage people to revolt against their own government is laughable. Those trying to sell me on the right to keep and bear arms would do well to focus on threats from petty criminals and alike. That argument I can at least understand.

A couple of other points. When the Framers wrote the second amendment, America was a mostly rural country and hunting for food was critical for a portion of the population. The technology of the time had produced only single shot weapons. The idea that these same rules must absolutely apply to Glock semi automatic pistols that hold 30 rounds of ammunition baffles me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 08:23 PM
 
Location: NW Indiana
1,492 posts, read 1,607,281 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePage View Post
1.Why did it take more than 200 years to ratify the 27th Amendment?

2. Which part of the constitution do you like the most? tell why.

References
1. List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
I am not sure why the specific interest in the 27th amendment. While it was originally proposed by James Madison in the late 1700's, it never seemed to have much momentum.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

I guess people finally decided they wanted to put some sort of control on our elected representatives giving themselves pay raises. Personally, I wish the amendment only addressed pay raises and left it open to give them pay decreases. The way our government has been behaving, some pay cuts seem pretty deserved!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 10:51 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 11 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,440 posts, read 16,527,546 times
Reputation: 29611
The Sixth Amendment, hands down, is my favorite. The right to a fair trial and representation by counsel ensures an adversarial process. This in turn is the best guarantee of rights of an individual. The right to be represented and to have a neutral judge and jury between the government and the accused are fundamental.

As to the 27th Amendment there was and is no urgency on the subject. Since it had no "fuse" it ratified when 34 states got around to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2015, 05:08 AM
 
4,586 posts, read 5,577,929 times
Reputation: 4369
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePage View Post
1.Why did it take more than 200 years to ratify the 27th Amendment?

2. Which part of the constitution do you like the most? tell why.

References
1. List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
That whole thing is so outdated that its embarrassing to the times we live in. We really need to update it to MATCH the times we're in.

Please don't ask "why" or "why did it take this long"...the Gov is not here to be proactive, it is here to delay PROGRESS! Change it before it's too late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2015, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Maine
22,836 posts, read 28,060,928 times
Reputation: 30997
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciceropolo View Post
Establish Justice; NOT Fairness
How are you splitting that particular hair? I'm curious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2015, 09:07 AM
 
14,986 posts, read 23,761,138 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The right wing loves to leave out the "well-regulated militia" language when they talk about the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. I personally think the only right that was being extended was for the right of men of a certain age who would be part of the militia in different colonies to own a gun for that purpose. If "well regulated" meant nothing, my question is why did the Founding Fathers include it within the text of the Second Amendment? It must mean something.

I think the idea that the Second Amendment was put in place to encourage people to revolt against their own government is laughable. Those trying to sell me on the right to keep and bear arms would do well to focus on threats from petty criminals and alike. That argument I can at least understand.

A couple of other points. When the Framers wrote the second amendment, America was a mostly rural country and hunting for food was critical for a portion of the population. The technology of the time had produced only single shot weapons. The idea that these same rules must absolutely apply to Glock semi automatic pistols that hold 30 rounds of ammunition baffles me.
The "well regulated militia" clause is so misunderstood, that it took a Supreme Court decision in the 20th century to define it. They defined the 2nd as an individual, not collective, right. Your "right wing" has it right to essentially ignore it as irrelevant. As far as the Glock semi automatic pistol argument goes - private citizens of that time were theoretically allowed to own (and did own) ships of war, capable of demolishing port cities. Same with cannon. There was not limitation set on the lethality of a weapon, otherwise it would have been included, although there are now restrictions in place for some weapons.

But, at the risk of derailing this topic into a 2nd amendment topic (which deserves it's own thread). I have copied and pasted a good explanation to you from a previous thread. I think the below does not discuss the other complex reason for the "militia" clause and that's the debate between the Federalist and states rights factions among the founding fathers. I will let someone else tackle that:

One small note - people often give a modern misintepretion to the "militia" phrase and think it's intended for a state organzied body of troops. That is not correct. Militia as used then is individual, it is not refering to a "state militia" but essentially every man out there. Essentially, everyman is a militia. It has nothing to do with what one today perceives as the national guard or anything like that, the supreme court realizes that and has agreed with the individual rights interpretation.
Also the fact that they are in the same sentence does not mean they are talking about the same related concept. Such was the writing style of that century. The 'militia" clause is giving a reason (private citizens need a weapon for emergencie, in today's semantics it would be a seperate sentance), the second clause gives that doctrine (the right to own a weapon will not be infringed upon, which again would be a seperate sentence and concept).

and...

As I have alreaady explained (and I really hate repeating myself) - you should not confuse the "militia" statement into the right to bear arms. The original concept, the original "text" if you will, was much different then what you have above.
The constitution went through several re-writes of course, as my post above explains the "militia" comment was added in seperate from the right to bear arms. James Monroe first proposed the "right to keep and bear arms" in a rough list of basic human rights. No mention of militia was in it.
Samual Adams then proposed this, a combination of basic rights which later became at least 3 seperate ammendments:
"Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."
Note that the right to bear arms, and the right to maintain a standing army (militia, if you will) are distinctly seperate, and it includes other basic rights.
By the time of the first voting, that became ammended to the below:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"
Note again the seperation between militia and the right. Also note the interesting clause of the right not to serve in the military - 3 concepts here.
From this it got whittled down to the current ammendment.
If that doesn't convince you - then try to understand what The Bill of Rights, the first 10 ammendments to the US Constituion, represent. Are they individual rights or collective rights - once you understand that, the 2nd ammendment becomes clear, and there should be no further need for discussion.

Last edited by Dd714; 02-17-2015 at 09:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top