The Constitution means exactly what it says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Damocles said:
You do understand what "The People" means, right? In this case it gives a reason (A Well regulated militia being necessary...) that they are limiting government from infringing the rights of individuals (The right of the People..... ). It's silly to suggest that "The People" means something different here than it means in every other portion of the constitution.
Click to expand...



Is it silly to say the second amendment is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms?
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
Is it silly to say the second amendment is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

Not particularly, if you've ever read the Federalist Papers you would know that many of the founders didn't want specific delineated rights as they feared that the government would take it as a full list (hence Amendment 9). Basically they argued that rights were everything that we didn't give up to the government while listing their limited powers.

They argued that the people already had these rights and it was redundant and possibly limiting if there was a specific list.

Abatis' argument is a valid one, rights do not come from the government, that was the basis on which the US was founded. You can find out where they thought rights came from if you read such documents as the Declaration of Independence...
 
Thank GOD the Founders did not play entirely with that logic, as the left takes the complete opposite stance. Hell, this is what Chosen was all about in his brief foray into these forums.
 
Damocles said:
Not particularly, if you've ever read the Federalist Papers you would know that many of the founders didn't want specific delineated rights as they feared that the government would take it as a full list (hence Amendment 9). Basically they argued that rights were everything that we didn't give up to the government while listing their limited powers. They argued that the people already had these rights and it was redundant and possibly limiting if there was a specific list. Abatis' argument is a valid one, rights do not come from the government, that was the basis on which the US was founded. You can find out where they thought rights came from if you read such documents as the Declaration of Independence...
Click to expand...



Is the Declaration of Independence America's supreme law, or is it the Constitution?
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
Is the Declaration of Independence America's supreme law, or is it the Constitution?
Click to expand...

What has that to do with the price of rice in China? It was mentioned as a resource to find out where they thought rights came from, not as a "supreme law". Much like the Federalist Papers aren't the constitution, just an explanation of it from the men who wrote it.
 
Threedee said:
Thank GOD the Founders did not play entirely with that logic, as the left takes the complete opposite stance. Hell, this is what Chosen was all about in his brief foray into these forums.
Click to expand...

I'm just glad they included the 9th in order to get those people to vote for them as you are right. Too many people think that the only rights we have are the ones that are listed, and seek every opportunity to work around those limitations and limit even those listed rights.
 
Damocles said:
What has that to do with the price of rice in China? It was mentioned as a resource to find out where they thought rights came from, not as a "supreme law". Much like the Federalist Papers aren't the constitution, just an explanation of it from the men who wrote it.
Click to expand...

So whence derives the citizens right to keep and bear arms?
 
Damocles said:
What has that to do with the price of rice in China? It was mentioned as a resource to find out where they thought rights came from, not as a "supreme law". Much like the Federalist Papers aren't the constitution, just an explanation of it from the men who wrote it.
Click to expand...
Gee, shouldn't we be looking at European laws to interpret our own? After all, they are older, and thus a more advanced society.
 
Damocles said:
I'm just glad they included the 9th in order to get those people to vote for them as you are right. Too many people think that the only rights we have are the ones that are listed, and seek every opportunity to work around those limitations and limit even those listed rights.
Click to expand...



Like the folks who claim we shouldn't have certain federal agencies because there's no specific authority for them in the Constitution?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Gee, shouldn't we be looking at European laws to interpret our own? After all, they are older, and thus a more advanced society.
Click to expand...


Maybe we should ask the Pope. Isn't He the infallible earthly representative of God?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Rights come from God, Dumbass.

DY

:)
Click to expand...

It's really not necessary to sign your replies. As I mentioned, I recognize your replies without your assortment of appellations.



Where did God codify the right of American citizens to bear arms?



Is it graven on a stone, somewhere?
 
You seemed confused earlier that a comma near the end of a sentence followed by the word Dumbass was somehow a sign-off, so I posted the correct way that sign-offs are given in the hope of you getting a clue how to correctly comprehend the written word. Since you failed again, my assertion that you are a dumbass was spot-on. :)

God didn't need to codify rights, as they are self-evident, Dumbass.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
Does this mean that all those paeans of praise to the second amendment I've seen for years are completely misplaced?
Click to expand...

Well just like all the other liberties secured by the Bill of Rights they sometimes acquire as a monicker, the number of the provision securing it. So unless it becomes worship-like adoration I would say no.

Just calling it, "my 2nd Amendment right" is not necessarily a definitive statement of one's opinion of the origin of the right.

\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
Is it silly to say the second amendment is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...


That the right is not dependent upon the Amendment for its existence doesn't mean the Amendment is irrelevant. The Amendment, like the others in the Biil of Rights has become the legal vehicle for an individual to seek redress and / or to challenge a law they believe exceeds the expressly defined and thus strictly limited powers of the Congress (and now, after McDonald v Chicago, the state and municipal legislatures).

As others have said above, one could, if being true to the founding principles, argue that the Bill of Rights is redundant. As the Federalists said, in arguing against adding a bill of rights to our Constitution:

  • "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. . . the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, . . . " -- Federalist No. 84
The 2nd Amendment has but one purpose and action; to redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

-----

Think of the Constitution and Bill of Rights this way . . .

You are a wealthy landowner and you own a wide range of properties. You decide to lease a few and contract for the care and upkeep of them to a outside agent. The contract is drawn up and the specifics of each property and the duties of the caretaker on each are precisely defined.

You have reservations about the caretakers, you hear they like to assume that you want them to care for everything and then send you a big bill that exceeds the original contract. You decide to write an addendum to the contract where you list some of the more important properties that you retain full and complete ownership of and thus confer no interest in them to the caretaker. You also declare that just because you list a few important properties for direct exclusion there are many more that are not included in the original contract.

Many years later the caretaker is telling you that not only do they own the properties in the original contract the caretaker shall now decide how you can use the properties that were held out of the contract.

Since you have the original right to rescind the contract for its violation what would you do with that contract and caretaker?


 
Damn Yankee said:
You seemed confused earlier that a comma near the end of a sentence followed by the word Dumbass was somehow a sign-off, so I posted the correct way that sign-offs are given in the hope of you getting a clue how to correctly comprehend the written word. Since you failed again, my assertion that you are a dumbass was spot-on. :)

God didn't need to codify rights, as they are self-evident, Dumbass.
Click to expand...



You're signing your replies again, when according to your own post, you know the correct format. What's up with that?



If God gave American citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and God is omnipotent and omniscient, then why are gunlovers scared somebody will grab their guns?



Don't you trust and believe God? Does God need your help?



sneaky_med.gif
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top