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.
Of course. He was referrng to ANY government that does what he described.
Lol. At the time he wrote that there were not any other governments but monarchies. We were the first contemporary democracy, remember? Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Or do you have some reason to think that he meant that, while the British government is not allowed to continuously abuse and usurp the people and reduce them to absolute despotism, if a democratically elected government starts to continuously abuse and usurp its people and reduces them to abolute despotism, that's OK with him?
Democratically elected governments do exactly what the citizens want them to do, hence abuse is not possible.
The British government Jefferson described was a monarchy where citizens, or rather royal subjects, had no input on on the government policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
P.S. "lol" is not a reason. And it seems to be all you can come up with, in lieu of actual thought.
Is it my fault that your comments are so naive and ignorant that they are simply amusing? Lol
In return though, you must comply with my proposal, that the 1st Amendment only protects quill pens and parchment paper in the context of free speech. That means no more cell phones, no more landline phones, no more text messaging, no more facebook, no more blogs, no more City-Data Forum, no more internet, period. No more TV or radio either. Any attempts to exercise speech through these mediums must be thoroughly vetted by the government first.
Why? Even in XVIII century "speech" was understood as much more than written word, most significantly the act of "speaking".
Second amendment was meant to allow for forming militias consisting of people possessing arms that were common at the battlefields of XVIII century and not hand grenades, blocks or ar-15s.
Even the most aggressive gun-nuts don't argue a need to RPGs or ballistic nuclear weapons by the general public.
Can anyone come up with anything besides, "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" as their example? Surely if there many restrictions, we can show more than one.
If you make a statement that can be interpreted as threatening the President or advocating a violent overthrow of the government. The key phrase here is "be interpreted". Bundy's supporters being called terrorists is a recent example.
Second amendment was meant to allow for forming militias consisting of people possessing arms that were common at the battlefields of XVIII century and not hand grenades, blocks or ar-15s.
It is meant to arm citizens so they can resist a tyranical government. A tyranical government today does not have muskets. FYI Armies of the 18th Century had cannons, rockets, mortars and grenades.
Absolutely not. The Federal Government doesn't have property rights, nor do state and local governments. That property belongs to We The People. The Federal Government is not a private entity, they are an agent of and for the people, therefore they can only enact laws restricting firearm possession on public lands through We The People or through our duly elected representatives.
I tend to disagree. I think that some government land is dedicated to public use, or limited public use (like parks or streets), while other government land is not (like military bases and office buildings). The 1st Amendment is subject to different rules where the government acts as a property owner, with different restrictions permissible depending on the extent to which the property is dedicated to public use.
When you say the government can only restrict firearms through the People or our elected representatives, are you saying that a law prohibiting weapons in a park is Constitutional? I think that's a tough question, though I would probably agree with that interpretation.
It is meant to arm citizens so they can resist a tyranical government.
Yes, it was the British tyrannical government that was supposed to be resisted not the democratically elected government for the people by the people. How can a democracy be tyrannical if you get to vote your government in?
Why? Even in XVIII century "speech" was understood as much more than written word, most significantly the act of "speaking".
Second amendment was meant to allow for forming militias consisting of people possessing arms that were common at the battlefields of XVIII century and not hand grenades, blocks or ar-15s.
Even the most aggressive gun-nuts don't argue a need to RPGs or ballistic nuclear weapons by the general public.
No it allow for individuals to bear arms of their choice regardless what time or era they live in, Glock and M4s today or Plasma pistols and Rail Gun Rifles tomorrow.
RPG, maybe given the militarization of the police..Nukes, Too big, to expensive and when do you pick the right time and place to set them off?
Last edited by gunlover; 05-08-2014 at 09:08 PM..
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.
