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.
It never says that anywhere in the Constitution. You're pulling that out of thin air.
I should also argue that if you're going to debate the meaning of "regulated", I could also debate the meaning of "arms" to be more extension than simply "guns". Surely non-lethal weapons are still armaments?
As are you. The courts have repeatedly gone against your lame interpretation. The government did not need to grant themselves the right to bear arms as the second amendment to their newly passed constitution.
Proper education can only be demonstrated by willingness to engage and make points on any subject. One-liners like these don't cut it. Is there something specific you might want to highlight that illustrates your "education"?
It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference. (Spock is so cool!)
It is more worthwhile to teach someone to do something, than to do something for them. Hence, my referral to the Federalist Papers. But, if you want a fish:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
-Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers No. 29)
Regulated meant working, Well regulated meant well working.
Regulate has had contextual meanings but ultimately implies: control. For example (also from the US Constitution):
1- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof
2- To regulate Commerce 3- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
In other words, establish guidelines, laws, monitor, execute...
Now, don't come back and provide your limited idea of what "execute" meant.
*The Constitution supports gun control. Amendment II is not about protecting hobbyists. Nor is it even about allowing people to fortify their castle and protect their family, at least not primarily so.
Something does not primarily have to be so, to be so. The right to privacy certainly wasn't about the right to an abortion primarily was it?
I completely disagree with your reading here but I will go with this.
I can now count myself among the 18-33% of Americans who have actually read the entire document.
Some interesting observations:
*The Constitution supports gun control. Amendment II is not about protecting hobbyists. Nor is it even about allowing people to fortify their castle and protect their family, at least not primarily so.
The exact wording of the amendment is "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."
This isn't saying there should be a firearms free for all and that a citizen should be able to own any type of weapon they want no matter what. What it's saying is that the state shouldn't have a monopoly on fire power because there needs to be a check against tyranny.
Uh, yes. It doesn't say people should own guns as a hobby, it says people should own guns to protect their freedom from tyranny. I don't understand your point. It says people should be able to own guns.
Quote:
*The Constitution supports socialism. Quote: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to Posterity..."
There is zero support for socialism there.
Quote:
This is specifically stating that the government of this country has some duty to create a safety net for the less fortunate. The framers would be found the idea of a socially Darwinian laissez-faire economy to be disagreeable if not downright deplorable.
It "specifically" states nothing of the kind. That's just you personally interpreting what "general welfare" means and then saying the constitution specifically states it. It does not. It specifically states general welfare. It does not specifically state safety net. This is what Madison said about general welfare: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." He also said this: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." And a third quote: "what is of most importance is the high sanction given to a latitude in expounding the Constitution which seems to break down the landmarks intended by a specification of the Powers of Congress, and to substitute for a definite connection between means and ends, a Legislative discretion as to the former to which no practical limit can be assigned." Note a "high sanction" given to "expounding the constitution" to "substitute for a definite connection between means and ends, a legislative discretion". That is exactly what you are doing - substituting discretion for what was supposed to be specific, a discretion for which there is no practical limit.
General welfare meant the enumerated powers of the government taken as a whole. It simply means that in order to effect the powers that government has, it is granted authority to levy such taxes as are required to do so. The "general welfare" refers the whole of the enumerated powers. It is incorrect to try to take that phrase to somehow mean that the government can spend money on whatever it wants. The guy who actually wrote "general welfare" specifically explained what he meant by it and that explanation specifically refutes what big government liberals say. If you read the whole constitution then that is also immediately obvious based on where the general welfare clause is. It is in the section which grants the government to raise money. It simply says why they can levy taxes. It does not say what they can do with them. It is similar to your note about the 2nd amendment - the 2nd amendment does not establish a militia, it simply says that since a well regulated militia is advisable, the people can keep and bear arms. It's interesting how you interpret the 2nd amendment but then when it comes to the general welfare clause you go completely in the opposite direction.
Quote:
*In order for a state to secede, according to the Articles of Confederation, not only would its exit have to be approved by Congress, it would have to be approved by every single other state. Personally I disagree with this because in my opinion it makes the idea that a state is a sovereign entity void and meaningless, but this is what the Articles of Confederation say. It would take an alteration of the document or a nationwide loss of faith in the Union for secession of a state to be a realistic possibility.
No, it wouldn't. The state either needs the permission of all other states or it needs to be protecting itself from tyranny. This is again specifically stated: "The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government." Note the words "or absolved by an intolerable abuse of power".
Something does not primarily have to be so, to be so. The right to privacy certainly wasn't about the right to an abortion primarily was it?
I completely disagree with your reading here but I will go with this.
I disagree with Roe v Wade actually, I think it's a ridiculous leap of logic to say not allowing abortion is a violation of one's right to privacy.
There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the right to bear arms has anything to do with home defense let alone protecting a hobby. The right it references is the right for civilians to form their own militias in case the government becomes tyrannical, so that they have a fighting chance of re-securing their liberty.
It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference. (Spock is so cool!)
It is more worthwhile to teach someone to do something, than to do something for them. Hence, my referral to the Federalist Papers. But, if you want a fish:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
-Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers No. 29)
Now go beyond quotations and try to explain the part in red, as it also relates to the second amendment. I will look forward to it. Or are you trying to relate this quotation to the following clause from the US Constitution:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Your baseline, and "explanation" is rather vague, especially when you go chest thumping to educate others.
It never says that anywhere in the Constitution. You're pulling that out of thin air.
I should also argue that if you're going to debate the meaning of "regulated", I could also debate the meaning of "arms" to be more extension than simply "guns". Surely non-lethal weapons are still armaments?
Or you could literally mean your arms only!
There was never to be a standing army, in the beginning.
Yes many private citizens had the same weapons as citizens in other states. I still have the 24" cannon that protected the property that has been handed down generations.
I have the fully automatic guns, that have been handed down generations.
I have everything to make one hell of an explosion, from the knowledge handed down from my father.
I disagree with Roe v Wade actually, I think it's a ridiculous leap of logic to say not allowing abortion is a violation of one's right to privacy.
There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the right to bear arms has anything to do with home defense let alone protecting a hobby. The right it references is the right for civilians to form their own militias in case the government becomes tyrannical, so that they have a fighting chance of re-securing their liberty.
Then I can only guess that you didn't actually read it despite saying that you did. What exactly would the people be protecting?
You aren't thinking through your position very well. So the people should give up their rights to own weapons and if they decide that the government is being tyrannical they should just ask for them back?
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.
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.
