D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We're not talking about anything else but this though.

I'm saying on controversial issues, even if it appears to be cut and dry people will make up or find a gray area to debate it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I thought he was asking about how it pertains to Roe V Wade?

And btw, Roe v Wade was based on a right to privacy, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...."

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am not going to bother to post all the shit I can that says exactly opposite of this...there is no cut and dry answer. Stop pretending like there is. You post your scholars...I post mine...you post your rulings...I post mine. Fruitless. If it were cut and dry there wouldn't be any debate.

Um.. he didn't post a scholar's quote.... he posted the law of the United States of America.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We're not talking about anything else but this though.

Suggest some wording that woudl not be open for debate.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

And btw, Roe v Wade was based on a right to privacy, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...."

And my statement to him was in regards to that. I don't agree with that application.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

Suggest some wording that woudl not be open for debate.

<insert wording here> no matter what I type you'll do this and that to discredit it. But I will say wording can be devised in a way that only a small minority of nutcases can call it into question. If you claim otherwise, oh well.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Um.. he didn't post a scholar's quote.... he posted the law of the United States of America.

I know what he posted, please read my entire statement.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And my statement to him was in regards to that. I don't agree with that application.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...." does *not* mean that the govt should keep their laws off someone's body?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm saying on controversial issues, even if it appears to be cut and dry people will make up or find a gray area to debate it.

But let's look at something like "age of the earth". Sure, it's "open" for debate but the people that are claiming it's 8000 years old aren't valid. So is it really "open?"

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

<insert wording here> no matter what I type you'll do this and that to discredit it. But I will say wording can be devised in a way that only a small minority of nutcases can call it into question. If you claim otherwise, oh well.

you're passing up a prime opportunity.

write something up and when I question it you can call me a nutcase. really, it should only take a few minutes to think up. rather than bitch about the problem how about telling us how it should be fixed?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...." does *not* mean that the govt should keep their laws off someone's body?

First off, not the right thread for this. Second, I don't see it as a federal issue to begin with.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

you're passing up a prime opportunity.

write something up and when I question it you can call me a nutcase. really, it should only take a few minutes to think up. rather than bitch about the problem how about telling us how it should be fixed?

How about YOU tell us how it should be fixed? Not a single person has done that...even when I asked before. I have stated I don't know how it should be fixed. I have suggestions but whether they work or not is unknown. And it's flattering you think I have the mental capacity to come up with an all encompassing Constitutional statement...but I probably don't. There are smarter people than I that can do it though.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

How about YOU tell us how it should be fixed?

I don't believe it needs to be fixed. I believe they need to read it and abide why what it says........and what it says was "don't fuck with the people's right to have/own guns."



And since a lot of this argument goes back to "what they meant" here you go:

• "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
  
• "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
  
• "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" Samuel Adams
  
• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

Oh, and one more for good measure. Here's a non-vague definition of the militia:

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." George Mason

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't believe it needs to be fixed. I believe they need to read it and abide why what it says........and what it says was "don't fuck with the people's right to have/own guns."



And since a lot of this argument goes back to "what they meant" here you go:

• "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
  
• "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
  
• "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" Samuel Adams
  
• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

Oh, and one more for good measure. Here's a non-vague definition of the militia:

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." George Mason

i would give you positive rep for this post, were I allowed to.

[Thorgrim]

Quotes != a good argument

The fact the founders wrote so much about so many issues, and you can find a few lines, that, only in your context, supports your position, actually is a pretty weak argument

Out of everything James Madison wrote, you can't find one document where he is advocating people who refuse to serve in the militia can keep a firearm for home protection against fellow citizens/patriots...in fact I don't think you can find anyone who ever said that

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Out of everything James Madison wrote, you can't find one document where he is advocating people who refuse to serve in the militia can keep a firearm for home protection against fellow citizens/patriots...in fact I don't think you can find anyone who ever said that

and? Militias are unorganized by design.

[Rigged_Game]

The city's lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right

This issue is being framed in the wrong way. The city in this specific regard is actually right, but for the wrong reasons. The 2nd ammendment does not 'give us rights'; our rights, including the right to bear arms, are inherent, and are not 'given to us' or 'provided', as a privilege, by the bill of rights. the BOR limits govt. You know this, of course, but it should be repeated to the general public; this is an opportunity for people to learn about our rights and ther purpose of the BOR.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Rigged_Game

This issue is being framed in the wrong way. The city in this specific regard is actually right, but for the wrong reasons. The 2nd ammendment does not 'give us rights'; our rights, including the right to bear arms, are inherent, and are not 'given to us' or 'provided', as a privilege, by the bill of rights. the BOR limits govt. You know this, of course, but it should be repeated to the general public; this is an opportunity for people to learn about our rights and ther purpose of the BOR.

what you're saying is philosophy, it is not recognized law

also I find it intellectually dishonest (not you in particular) to say rights are inherent...how can that be? If you moved to Tibet, there would be no question among most people that you have "a right not to be raped" yet a soldier can take you, rape you, and lock you up in a prison cell until you die

He has fundamentally taken away your "right"...and if it can be taken away, well that it just doesn't fit the definition OR general meaning of the word "inherent"

[Rigged_Game]

A rape would be a violation of the victim's rights; Aside from Tibet, since we are talking about America, the point is that the bill of rights specifically limits the power of govt, they do not 'grant us rights' as if they are privileges. I contend that that is indeed law, (albeit the courts in 2008 do not respect and uphold many of our rights), it is outlined in the DOI, that our rights are granted by our Creator. and if you read the bill of rights specifically, it applies to government power and what government can not do. The BOR does enumerate (not grant) some of our rights, but is by no means a complete list.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Quotes != a good argument

The fact the founders wrote so much about so many issues, and you can find a few lines, that, only in your context, supports your position, actually is a pretty weak argument

Out of everything James Madison wrote, you can't find one document where he is advocating people who refuse to serve in the militia can keep a firearm for home protection against fellow citizens/patriots...in fact I don't think you can find anyone who ever said that

In Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book", he quoted Marquis of Beccaria Cesare's "On Crimes and Punishment":

'False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.' - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, 1764

The though of someone 'refusing' militia service is a non-sequitur since membership is automatic. Even so, Hamilton suggested that we cannot expect every person to be actively training for militia duty because the expectation was unreasonable. To ensure that the militia is well regulated (well equiped and ready), they should be assembled once or twice a year. Federalist #29

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet 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. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. 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."