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.
As I stated in Post# 78, supra: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction taking up arms against the government; and even to advocate such action is punishable as a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation.
Not true.
Self defense is a fundamental human right, to the point it's not even ever questioned, the entire underpinning of every legal system in the world depends on the right of the individual to defend themselves against aggressors. Without this right there is no rationale that can explain why any legal or courts system needs to exist. It exists purely to protect the injured from unlawful injury regardless of the specific law that defines injury and injured. Hence why it's fundamental.
US v. Peterson (DC Circuit) determined that federally self defense is legal only responding to "An affirmative, unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences". In other state jurisdictions, the law of self defense varies, however most agree that lethal force may be used to defend against imminent threat of death or serious injury of self or others.
Therefore is the Federal Government commits unlawful acts that are reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or of fatal consequence, or acts in such a way to create an imminent threat of death or serious injury then being bound by the law, the federal government may be defended against. If this means taking up arms then that's what it means.
Moreover the discussion is pointless, taken to it's conclusion the US government is not legitimate, since British subjects took up arms against their lawfully constituted government without any right to do so. That being so then the product of that unlawful action is the US government and thus is not legitimate. By that definition, how can it be illegal to take up arms against an illegitimate government?
The ultimate arbiter of whether or not taking up arms against a government is whether the government suppresses that action, or whether the government is overthrown by that action. If the government suppresses the action it was illegal, if the government is overthrown, then the rebellion was legitimate. The winner decides, not the courts.
That is not the law. The right of self-defense is defined by law. And many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.
That is not the law. The right of self-defense is defined by law.
That's a circular argument.
What is the purpose of law if not to defend oneself, or ones possessions?
If the law defines self-defense, for what purpose other than a means of defending oneself was the law created?
If the purpose is that the law was created as a non-violent means of defending oneself in other than immediate circumstances, then it presumes that the right of self defense is pre-existent to law. Thus law cannot define the right of self defense, it may define when lethal force is permitted, it may define when legal recourse is allowed, it may define what injury is and provide guidance on just compensation. It cannot define self-defense if it depends upon it to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
And many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.
Sure people have been convicted, Peterson was convicted. I never said there was not a discrimination whether a self defense action was legal or illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Nor is your sedition sanctioned.
I'm not seditious, just a realist. All revolutions from the overthrow of King Lugal-anda in the City of Lagash Sumeria circa 2380 BCE to the current Ukraine conflict have all begun by sedition. Who determines the legitimacy is who wins the revolution, King Lugal-anda did not and Urukagina took the throne who is quite famous for his legal and government reforms. The US is perhaps the most famous seditious revolution in the history of the world.
You did not answer the question I asked.
Quote:
taken to it's conclusion the US government is not legitimate, since British subjects took up arms against their lawfully constituted government without any right to do so. That being so then the product of that unlawful action is the US government and thus is not legitimate. By that definition, how can it be illegal to take up arms against an illegitimate government?
No where does it state that the general population has any right to bear arms.
It all comes down to what the founding father's definition of "people" was when that amendment was adopted.
Well, the British Parliament was not going to supply us with weapons, to fight their control, oppression and tyranny. Just as the federal government that has gotten too big for their britches, would never give us weapons to fight them. There best measure and best interest would be to disarm the people of weapons, they could use to overthrow the control, oppression and tyranny they wish to impose on We The People.
A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. Nesbitt v. Lushington, 4 Term R. 783; U. S. v. Quincy, 0 Pet. 407, 8 L. Ed. 458; U. S. v. Trumbull (D. C.) 48 Fed. 99. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used In constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors. See Keller v. Hill, 00 Iowa, 543, 15 N. W. 009; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404, 15 L. Ed. 091; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sun. Ct. 375, 30 L. Ed. 103; Rogers v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 502, 11 S. W. 513; People v. Counts, 89 Cal. 15, 20 Pac. 012; Blair v. RIdgely, 41 Mo. 03, 97 Am. Dec. 248; Beverly v. Sabin, 20 111. 357; In re Incurring of State Debts, 19 R. I. 010, 37 Atl. 14. The word “people” may have various significations according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction as to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government. we are in fact speaking of that selected and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government. Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) p. 30.
Law Dictionary: What is PEOPLE? definition of PEOPLE (Black's Law Dictionary)
Bob, this is obviously regurgitated to an extent, but there is no mention of a militia bearing arms in the second amendment. The mention is of the people bearing arms (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). If you can't start with the foundation based on the facts of what the amendment actually says, then there really is no reason to engage in a conversation with you. You don't get to start with an interpretation and then twist the language. The language existed first and drives the discussion in an honest conversation, which is what you said you wanted in the OP.
Fact of what the amendment actually says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" That is a fact of what the amendment says, that you need to acknowledge before you engage in the conversation.
Of course it is the people bearing arms. What else would it be? The people of the Militia bearing arms.
The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction taking up arms against our government. That's simple nonsense. Even to advocate such action is a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. The surest and swiftest way to lose your right to have a gun protected by the Second Amendment is to point it at your government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
As I stated in Post# 78, supra: The
Second Amendment was never intended to sanction taking up arms against the
government; and even to advocate such action is punishable as a federal offense
under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. The argument that we, as citizens, have a
constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government
is without any foundation.
You can keep saying it all you want, that doesn't make it any more true:
*************************************
""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.
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, Federalist 29
************************************* """No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."""
-Thomas Jefferson.
*************************************
"""Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops."""
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
***********************************
"""What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."""
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
*************************************
"""If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."""
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 *********************************** """The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"""
Thomas Jefferson
********************************** """That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"""
Who better would understand the minds of the founders than the founders themselves? I think I'll draw from their words rather than your speculation. It's pretty clear that the founders knew full well, that a duly elected government could in fact turn tyrannical, and in that instance, it was the Right of the people to take up arms against it. If that is not the case, than how do you explain these quotes? Were theyjust kid'n around? I think not.
Quote:
Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the
founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of
our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War,
was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution
that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be
the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President
Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed
insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in
1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion
and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their
citizens.
It's true that the founders didn't give us much incite in to when it would actually be appropriate for the people to take up arms against their own government. I trust that they assumed we would know ourselves if that time ever came, but they didn't leave us completely in the dark on the subject.....
************************
"""Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"""
Fact of what the amendment actually says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" That is a fact of what the amendment says, that you need to acknowledge before you engage in the conversation.
Of course it is the people bearing arms. What else would it be? The people of the Militia bearing arms.
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a balanced diet, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed"
So who has the Right to keep and eat food? The breakfast? Or the people?
We do acknowledge the first part of the amendment, just like we acknowledge the second clause. The difference is, we understand that the first clause denotes a PURPOSE, not a qualifier, and thus, is irrelevant when discussing the Right enshrined in the second clause, because the purpose outlined in the first clause neither expands nor does it limit the Right denoted in the Second clause.
The people have the Right to keep and bear arms, because a well-regulated militia, made up of the people themselves, ALL people, is necessary to the security of a free state.
Frankly I'm really tired of telling you guys how wrong your theories are. You never seem to listen. You just go on believing whatever it is you believed in the first place facts be damned, ignoring that you are proven wrong time and time again. So why exert the energy? Why exert the brainpower, if you aren't truly here to test and challenge what you already believe? You won't acknowledge the truth, because you don't like what the truth is, so you pretend it's something else.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-14-2015 at 01:44 AM..
More hogwash from the revisionists who claim to be able to read the minds of the founding fathers without ever researching them. Here's a clue to the OP and other Carnacs out there ...
I just finished watching , for a second time, "The History of Us", which was on the history channel last year.
Not only is it interesting, but a tremendous learning experience.
After watching it, I decided to look at the amendments to the constitution, and stopped at the second, to ponder the true intention of that amendment.
This subject has been posted so many times, it almost feels like beating a dead horse, but my own personal belief of what the founding fathers had in mind was, not the general population being armed, but those "people" who would make up a state's militia.
Remember,the population in the state of Massachusetts where the revolutionary war had it beginning, was made up of farmers, business men, young men, who would one day, form a militia to take on, and defend against the the British.
These were ordinary people who volunteered themselves to fight the British.
Most importantly, these were(I believe) the people that the founding fathers had in mind when they adopted this amendment stating "the right of the" people" to bear arms.
Understand, these men and boys were the "people" that fought for independence.
You will also notice in that amendment that it states, "a well regulated militia".
The founding fathers knew what a militia was.
It was a group of citizens that formed, and armed themselves against the British, and the founding fathers by adopting the second amendment assured future people who formed a militia to defend against any and all invasions, would have the right to bear arms.
No where does it state that the general population has any right to bear arms.
It all comes down to what the founding father's definition of "people" was when that amendment was adopted.
The people had just conducted a bloody war against the British, and the founding fathers felt, and wrote, that their (the people who were then a militia) right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I absolutely do not believer the intention was ever to arm the general population.
Through the years this has been debated, and somehow it usually winds up that many believe the amendment was directed at the general public.
I disagree with that finding.
After watching America, the story of us, one can't help but know the intent of the second amendment was aimed at a militia, made up of ordinary people, not people who comprise the general population.
Bob.
Clearly you see it as it was intended to be seen, not the abortion that the RW gun nuts want it to be seen.
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.
