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.
I have to admit that I am troubled by the use of the matriarchal, or patriarchal use of the words such as troubling and troubled. I loved and respected my parents, but progressive liberals are not my parents. Far from loving them, I certainly do not in toto, respect politicians. What is most troubling is they try to pass off this swill as leadership. Worse yet, they know not of which they speak.
SMH in a troubled way.
EF
Last edited by earthlyfather; 07-04-2017 at 04:42 PM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
(yawn)
Wrong as usual....
How many of them did you actually ask?
The majority here leave out the militia part, so I dont have to ask, their words speak for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A
And what was the original intent?
Read the Federalist Papers 29 and 46.
The Federalist Papers were written by
John Jay(the first Chief Justice of the United States)
Alexander Hamilton( Commander of the Army, 1st Treasury Secretary)
James Madison ( 4th President)
The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution and used to promote their passage among the common people.
Those 2 papers I listed, specifically spell out what the second amendment is, and why "militia" is included.
There is not a conservative on this site that wants that.
Try reading Federalist #87. The Constitution imposes certain restrictions on the Congress designed to protect individual liberties, but unless the courts are independent and have the power to declare laws in violation of the Constitution null and void, those protections amount to nothing. He argues contrary to what most people think the Constitution is fundamental law. Alex. Hamilton is the author of this particular and many other of the Federalist papers.
Also consult #78 and #81 for more on the role, function, structure and interaction of the federal court system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Why is there a process for amendment? Hell, why are there judges? If it's so obvious, then that whole branch of the government is obsolete, isn't it?
Ben Franklin had some words that might help you, if you will quieten your mind.
Quote:
"The taxes are indeed very heavy ... but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly."
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
As a citizen without property, I consider the Constitution a morally illegitimate document imposed on landless citizens without their advice or consent.
If you can tell us when landless citizens consented to be governed by the Constitution, I'd love to see it.
Nonsense. The mention of a militia in the 2nd, is merely to explain WHY the right shall not be infringed. It was not to mandate a militia, or provide for a militia.
“A well regulated Militia” is the subject. A well regulated militia, in the minds of the framers, is necessary to “the security of a free state.” A well regulated militia is the framer’s fulfillment of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” And this right, to a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed. It is the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms; it is a collective reference. It does not say it is the right of individuals.
It was an established practice for communities to “keep…arms” locked up in armories until times of crisis, then handed out to volunteer fighters to “bear” in battle and return afterward. This was common–and necessary–in the 18th century and well into the 19th century (long after and in spite of the Militia Acts) because, contrary to popular belief, most Americans did not own firearms. They were costly and not manufactured in most areas. Even on the frontier, many were farmers, not hunters.
The majority here leave out the militia part, so I dont have to ask, their words speak for them.
Read the Federalist Papers 29 and 46.
The Federalist Papers were written by
John Jay(the first Chief Justice of the United States)
Alexander Hamilton( Commander of the Army, 1st Treasury Secretary)
James Madison ( 4th President)
The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution and used to promote their passage among the common people.
Those 2 papers I listed, specifically spell out what the second amendment is, and why "militia" is included.
There is not a conservative on this site that wants that.
What was the original intent of the constitutional [2nd] amendment? To provide for a volunteer militia.
December 15, 1791
Amendment II
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.
From whence does this ignorance come?
If the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd to apply only to the militia, why then did the Congress and State legislatures not immediately move to outlaw firearms except in the hands of the militia?
Come on, people! You are certainly entitled to believe that originalism is not the best approach to interpreting the Constitution, but, you are not entitled to revise history.
“A well regulated Militia” is the subject. A well regulated militia, in the minds of the framers, is necessary to “the security of a free state.” A well regulated militia is the framer’s fulfillment of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” And this right, to a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed. It is the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms; it is a collective reference. It does not say it is the right of individuals.
It was an established practice for communities to “keep…arms” locked up in armories until times of crisis, then handed out to volunteer fighters to “bear” in battle and return afterward. This was common–and necessary–in the 18th century and well into the 19th century (long after and in spite of the Militia Acts) because, contrary to popular belief, most Americans did not own firearms. They were costly and not manufactured in most areas. Even on the frontier, many were farmers, not hunters.
Evidence?
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.
