This is why we need to ban guns!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

It depends on your idea of what "well-regulated militia" means. My personal view is that everyone can be called upon to create a militia, which simply defends their community. The well regulated part falls in line with current gun control regulations IMO.

---

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
-George Washington

“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

“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
way to enslave them.”
― 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.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”
― George Washington

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
― Richard Henry Lee

See, when I read these things, it makes me believe that the intention was for every citizen to be armed without regulation, and have access to the same arms that the government does.

I reject the notion that the framers couldn't possibly conceive modern military technology...these were not stupid men. Although they certainly couldn't foresee the exact advancements, they certainly could look at history and see the evolution of the catapult to the cannon and be very safe in the assumption that technology would continue to move forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

The anti Bill of Rights Libertarian. Wow. I thought I'd heard everything.

---

Federalist 81? 84? I forget.

Basically, Hamilton's main argument was that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Government wasn't allowed to do anything that wasn't expressly granted in the Constitution. His fear was that if we enumerated certain rights, and tried to define them, the government would eventually find ways to work around them and minimize them.

Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Except that it's not a break with the Constitution at all...it's what it the Constitution says. I know you're not an English professor, Latrin, but even you can't argue any other interpretation of that sentence..."the people" is quite clearly the "militia".

---

Who's talking about English? I'm talking about the law.

Quote:

---

See, back then, people were more afraid of their government than they were of their fellow citizens.

---

One of the drawbacks of living before the Information Age.

Quote:

---

Ever notice how almost the entire document is about what things the government can't do to it's people? "...shall make no law..." "...shall not be infringed..." "No soldier shall..." "...shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue..."

They had a damn good reason, and we're idiots for trying to undermine it in some ignorant attempt to protect us from ourselves.

---

The first Amendments to stray from the tradition (which you describe very accurately) are the 13th-15th. That seems a pretty successful attempt at protecting us from ourselves, no?

Quote:

---

Federalist 81? 84? I forget.

Basically, Hamilton's main argument was that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Government wasn't allowed to do anything that wasn't expressly granted in the Constitution. His fear was that if we enumerated certain rights, and tried to define them, the government would eventually find ways to work around them and minimize them.

Hmm.

---

It's fascinating to see all the places people of your ilk read the word "expressly" where it does not exist. First the Tenth Amendment, now Fed. 84. This one is especially so because it was written by the man who personally created the legal argument for implied powers in the Constitution:

"But how much is delegated in each case, is a question of fact, to be made out by fair reasoning and construction, upon the particular provisions of the Constitution, taking as guides the general principles and general ends of governments. It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter."

You want to be a literalist, okay, but Hamilton is not your guy. Right now you're Ronald Reagan singing Born in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

The first Amendments to stray from the tradition (which you describe very accurately) are the 13th-15th. That seems a pretty successful attempt at protecting us from ourselves, no?

---

the "protecting us from ourselves" comment was meant in the context of undermining the 2nd amendment, specifically. The part about how the Bill of Rights was written as a whole was to illustrate the previous statement.

Quote:

---

You want to be a literalist, okay, but Hamilton is not your guy. Right now you're Ronald Reagan singing Born in the USA.

---

While I won't re-post all of fed. 84, I will post the two paragraphs of it that most directly pertain to this:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."

And, later, even better:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in 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 which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable 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 pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Hamilton is most certainly my guy.

edit: bolded some things for the tl;dr crowd.

What about our 3rd amendment rights?! Next time you get pulled over make sure you mention that you don't want the 3rd infringed upon just to fuck with the officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnticorRifling

What about our 3rd amendment rights?! Next time you get pulled over make sure you mention that you don't want the 3rd infringed upon just to fuck with the officer.

---

Yeah, cause THAT will help with not getting a ticket.

Latrinsorm is using the word "ilk" again. Things just got serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

the "protecting us from ourselves" comment was meant in the context of undermining the 2nd amendment, specifically. The part about how the Bill of Rights was written as a whole was to illustrate the previous statement.




While I won't re-post all of fed. 84, I will post the two paragraphs of it that most directly pertain to this:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."

And, later, even better:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in 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 which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable 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 pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Hamilton is most certainly my guy.

edit: bolded some things for the tl;dr crowd.

---

If one were to look to one written work to attempt to justify one's belief you could certainly attempt to make that point. It was hardly all he said about power/powers. You didn't even really appropriately address what Latrin said, merely going to illustrate that yes he did not feel a Bill of Rights necessary in an attempt to dodge ratification by libertarians. Hamilton hardly wrote only one document about power.

Signs prohibiting any kind of behavior in a business are usually so the owner cannot be sued if someone is hurt while engaging in one of the prohibited behaviors. It's about the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

If one were to look to one written work to attempt to justify one's belief you could certainly attempt to make that point. It was hardly all he said about power/powers. You didn't even really appropriately address what Latrin said, merely going to illustrate that yes he did not feel a Bill of Rights necessary in an attempt to dodge ratification by libertarians. Hamilton hardly wrote only one document about power.

---

All I said was Hamilton was against a Bill of Rights. Ya'll are the ones trying to make some argument about other powers.