Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 08-28-2008, 09:13 PM
 
Location: NY
2,011 posts, read 3,879,299 times
Reputation: 918

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashTheCash View Post
Most of the Senate wanted an unarmed militia.
SEPTEMBER 11, 1789 (Amendments)

A majority of the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms...

Source: John Randolph to St. George Tucker, 11 September 1789, St. George Tucker Papers, Library of Congress.
So what? The Bill of Rights is what we're talking about here and it says what it says, not what you want it to say
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2008, 06:10 AM
 
415 posts, read 611,013 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren View Post
In terms of consistency as well, hasn't it been established that all of the amendments were meant to RESTRICT the power of GOVERNMENT over the people's rights.

Wouldn't it seem strange (and of course, convenient for some of you) to interpret all but the second amendment as such, but that somehow the second amendment is different and restricts the right of the people.

Just inconsistent, is all.
The Second Amendment is inconsistent. It contains a proem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 06:13 AM
 
415 posts, read 611,013 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
So what? The Bill of Rights is what we're talking about here and it says what it says, not what you want it to say
Actually, it says whatever you get by applying the well established common law rules of construction that existed at the time the Constitution was made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,115,793 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashTheCash View Post
Actually, it says whatever you get by applying the well established common law rules of construction that existed at the time the Constitution was made.
LOL! You really can't write a post without using that phrase, can you? You're like an eight year old who just learned his new favorite word, and uses it at every possible opportunity.

Ok, flash. Apply your WECLROC to the following. Translate it into regular, modern day plain english for us. Tell us exactly what the founding fathers meant by it, according to your "rules of construction", since it apparently (according to you) doesn't mean what it says:

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 08:27 AM
 
415 posts, read 611,013 times
Reputation: 33
The States neglect their Militia.

--James Madison during the general convention of 1787 that drew up the U. S. Constitution
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 08:30 AM
 
415 posts, read 611,013 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
LOL! You really can't write a post without using that phrase, can you? You're like an eight year old who just learned his new favorite word, and uses it at every possible opportunity.

Ok, flash. Apply your WECLROC to the following. Translate it into regular, modern day plain english for us. Tell us exactly what the founding fathers meant by it, according to your "rules of construction", since it apparently (according to you) doesn't mean what it says:
Why don't you apply the rules and then publish your construction here. You need to learn the rules and need to practice applying them. Why don't you start with the words "right" and "people?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,115,793 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashTheCash View Post
Why don't you apply the rules and then publish your construction here. You need to learn the rules and need to practice applying them. Why don't you start with the words "right" and "people?"
No no no... YOU are the one hammering on this. I'm not going to let you get away with shifting goal posts or diverting the attention you've drawn to yourself. We all know you've backed yourself into a corner - it's up to you to get out of it.

Let's see your interpretation of the selection I quoted. Here it is again, so you don't have to go find it:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 09:45 AM
 
415 posts, read 611,013 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
No no no... YOU are the one hammering on this. I'm not going to let you get away with shifting goal posts or diverting the attention you've drawn to yourself. We all know you've backed yourself into a corner - it's up to you to get out of it.

Let's see your interpretation of the selection I quoted. Here it is again, so you don't have to go find it:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You're the one who wants it interpreted by applying the rules of construction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,115,793 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashTheCash View Post
You're the one who wants it interpreted by applying the rules of construction.
Wrong. I know what it says. You're claiming that it doesn't mean what it says. If you want to be taken seriously and your position to have any weight whatsoever, you have to validate it. Validate away...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2008, 11:09 AM
 
415 posts, read 611,013 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Wrong. I know what it says. You're claiming that it doesn't mean what it says. If you want to be taken seriously and your position to have any weight whatsoever, you have to validate it. Validate away...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We all know what it says, dude. The problem is figuring out what it means. How do you think we should go about ascertaining what it means? Should we apply an objective set of rules and principles or just let each person apply whatever method flies out of his butt?
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45 AM.

© 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