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 01-30-2007, 10:30 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
So now show us where the Constitution explicitly defines Arms as the "weapon an average soldier of the nation would use to suppress Liberty and Freedom". You show me that, and I'll concede this argument. If you can't, then please don't sell your radical interpretation as law.
Here is another reference from the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. You will please note that they define the Militia as "every free able-bodied...male citizen....of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five..."

Also please note the extensive list of items that were expected to be held by the above people. These items are same kind of weapons and accessories that were supplied to the modern army of that time, not a "lesser" type of weapon.


"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,...........That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power;" The Uniform Militia Act of 1792
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2007, 10:51 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
So now show us where the Constitution explicitly defines Arms as the "weapon an average soldier of the nation would use to suppress Liberty and Freedom". You show me that, and I'll concede this argument. If you can't, then please don't sell your radical interpretation as law.
Here is a quote from Noah Webster (Founder). He surely could not have meant that "the whole body of the people are armed," with pitchforks, or with dung balls. He, as well as others who agree with him, surely understood, and meant that the "people are armed," in a manner that would actually allow them to "constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops". Thus the "people" would need the modern weapons of their time to do such a task.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
Noah Webster quotes (American Man of letter and lexicographer, known for his American Spelling Book and his American Dictionary of the English Language. 1758-1843)


These quotes should be sufficient to show that the Founders expected and desired that the average citizens would possess and be able to use the same weapons that the military had. If you deem it nessasary, I can take up more band width and space to give more. Perhaps our time might be better spent moving on to another concern that you have.

Last edited by funfaler; 01-30-2007 at 11:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2007, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 596,578 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
FFH, you like many libs try to sensationalise for some reason. I went back to 93 because thats where the FBI started and You started in 1995. There own words state a "slight increase" for 2005. Now as far as this 600,000 crimes? I dont know why you want to mislead this conversation.
Did you see the DOJ link I sent? First of all you haven't got your categories lined up. It was 600K handgun related crimes. It may or may not be violent crime (but there will always be a gun involved). The rate was 2 handgun-related crimes per 100,000. Take 300 million, divide by 100K, multiply by 2 = 600,000.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
FACT: in 2005 there were 477,040 victims of a violent crime, 9% were by use of a gun.
Thats 42,933 victims of violent crime with a gun involved. thats down from 132,000 violent crimes with a gun involved. Balance that with the FACT that gun ownership increased. The FBI lists ALL gun crimes as violent. so thats all folks! More people are killed every year in hospitals due to doctor "error" than gun crimes. Doctors are licensed and registered, alot of good that does.
I don't deny any of the numbers you cite above. In fact they don't do anything but reinforce my case. Look at that number: 477,040 victims of violent crime. 42,000 victims of gun crime. And that's meant to be an improvement?! *That* is astonishing.

All evidence that America is a violent society gradually eating itself up and guns are way too easy to access for criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2007, 11:26 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post

And which tyrant would this be, the one you elected president? And if you're so paranoid about your government, why on earth do you live there?
James Tucker (a Founder) in his Commentaries of the Constitution:

First note, he underscores that the "right to self defence is the first law of nature"

Second note: He points out that there is concern for governments to infringe upon this right, as best as they can. This further establishes our need to be concerned with over-reaching powers of government.

Third note: He points out that when there are standing armies, if the people's right to keep and bear arms or prohibited, then Liberty is already surrendered or soon will be.

Fourth note: At this time @ 1789, the people of England had been disarmed, under the guise of "preserving the game", or conservation of hunting animals. They "just wanted gun control for hunting reasons". They had established a "right to keep and bear arms" that was frought with restrictions that did not allow "but one man in five hundred" to have a gun. This sounds like quite a "regulated" right to me. Conditional Rights are not Rights.

"8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2007, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 596,578 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
These quotes should be sufficient to show that the Founders expected and desired that the average citizens would possess and be able to use the same weapons that the military had.
We'll see how far this goes before you get naughty again.

Read the phrase in bold above. Let's go back to our earlier discussion. What exactly do you propose here? The military has artillery, heavy automatic weapons, 15,000lb daisy cutters and much, much more.

Do you propose that the citizenry have access to these weapons? If so, do you believe it *actually* contributes to public safety to have these kinds of weapons in the hands of untrained and unaccountable civilians?

Or do you propose that the citizenry have access to the standard-issue weapons of the military? So pretty much the M-16, the SAW or some equivalent. If so, what good would that do against a military armed with advanced weapons as listed above?

You know, I can buy the argument of having guns for hunting or home defense. Nothing like a good 12 gauge for the job. But to rationalize one's access to firepower because you might need them one day to fight the government? The whole idea is teetering on sedition.

With apologies to Mr. Webster, it's one thing to live among anti-government radicals, it's quite another to agitate for their full and unrestricted self-arming. I hadn't really been aware until now how philosophically in tune the pro-gun lobby and the Black Panther Party are. Terrifying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2007, 11:43 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 596,578 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
FFH, do you really expect the Founders to explicitly define everything that they considered in the body of the Constitution?
If they don't, it's up to us interpret it. And you & I both know that can change with the political wind. So we're back to our old saw about what an "arm" is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2007, 11:54 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
All evidence that America is a violent society gradually eating itself up and guns are way too easy to access for criminals.

This is an extremely subjective statement. By far, the majority of Americans are not subjected to violent crimes and an extreme minority are ever subjected to violent crimes involving a firearm (let us not forget that these are acts of criminals, not the acts of the firearms). But let's assume that your extreme subjective statement was true (for the sake of illustration), what is the general population of America to do to defend themselves? Call 911? The best defense for the average citizen is to be able to adequately repel an attack. There is no better defensive weapon than a firearm.

Firearms are used many more times in the act of self-defense than they are used to commit a violent crime
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2007, 11:58 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
If they don't, it's up to us interpret it. And you & I both know that can change with the political wind. So we're back to our old saw about what an "arm" is.

I gave you the supporting information, that explicitly shows what the Founders meant by arms, where is your understanding lacking? or is it just selective ignorance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2007, 12:10 AM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27
[quote=FistFightingHairdresser;321399]
Read the phrase in bold above. Let's go back to our earlier discussion. What exactly do you propose here? The military has artillery, heavy automatic weapons, 15,000lb daisy cutters and much, much more.

Do you propose that the citizenry have access to these weapons? If so, do you believe it *actually* contributes to public safety to have these kinds of weapons in the hands of untrained and unaccountable civilians?

Or do you propose that the citizenry have access to the standard-issue weapons of the military? So pretty much the M-16, the SAW or some equivalent. If so, what good would that do against a military armed with advanced weapons as listed above?

QUOTE]


You seem to be the only person "advocating" the general issue of "artillery, heavy automatic weapons, 15,000lb daisy cutters and much, much more."

The Founders were very clear of what "arms" are and what "arms" that average citizen was to expected to possess.

The M-16 would be more than adequate for the average citizens of American to repel any military force. You make the mistake of assuming that the American citizens are going to be subjected to weapons of mass destruction by the government. On the other hand, the pure number of gun owners in American ( @80,000,000) would make it impossible for a standing army to overcome them if it came to that.

Your attempt to muddy the waters by being obviously sarcastic in your responses is a sad commentary to your attitude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2007, 12:16 AM
 
137 posts, read 166,340 times
Reputation: 27
FFH,

What is it about the People being in control of their government that agitates you so?

What is it about the People being able to defend themselves that upsets you?
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
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