This is why we need to ban guns!

[Latrinsorm]

Hamilton is most certainly my guy.

I would like to remind you of a sentence you bolded, with additional emphasis mine:

"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."

Hamilton's argument wasn't that nothing was implied by the Constitution, it was that we had to be very considerate of what we added to the Constitution because inferences are valid. Please note how this explanation is coherent with his later (explicit) arguments for implied powers.

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

These are your words: "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." You have interpreted an argument that fits your overarching philosophy, even though this interpretation is directly contradicted by the man himself and that is why you are Ronald Reagan.

No one disagrees that Bruce says "Born in the USA!", the interpretation of that as a patriotic sentiment is what is incorrect. No one disagrees that Hamilton was anti Bill of Rights, the interpretation of that as strict constructionism is what is incorrect. How do we know this? Because they told us exactly that.

[cwolff]

Regulate, License and register to a point, I agree with. Limit.. not really.

The best part is.. Lefties like to mention that Militia part... but if you JOIN a militia.. you are a right wing nut.

Regulate, license, registration these are all limits. After all, convicted felons are limited from owning guns and I don't hear anyone arguing for their rights in this matter.

So, it is your belief that the Constitution only grants the right to bear arms for military groups and not for it's citizens?

I always read the part "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." as a prime example of why it's important to have the right to bear arms in the Constitution.

Actually that's not what I was getting at at all. But thanks for putting completely false words in my mouth.

I never said that the Second Amendment is carte blanche to own whatever guns we want. I merely pointed out that our Constitution explicitly states that every citizen has the right to own a gun but it is continuously infringed upon. I understand what the first part of the amendment says, but I also understand the rules of grammar and syntax and the comma that separates the "well regulated militia" and "right to keep and bear arms" clauses makes them two separate and distinct parts of the same amendment. Therefore I see it as a well regulated militia AND the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There's a reason for the right to keep and bear arms. That reason is for national security. It's been interpreted to mean other things like personal security, but that's really grasping. It's a fucked up sentence but at the time I'm sure it was no big deal. Many people had firearms and they were useful tools the way we have computers and cell phones today. As smart as those guys were they were completely unequipped to write something that can account for today's situation regarding gun ownership.

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.

This is a joke but you're actually hitting on something really important. We've given up or modified our other bill of rights rights. No one's really bitching about that except when it comes to the "War on Christmas" and displaying Christian icons. All those defenders of the Constitution can see the reasonableness of losing these other rights but freak out over curbing gun rights. There's a disconnect here.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

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.

Should put up a sign that says "No illegal activity, or suing"

[Jeril]

This is a joke but you're actually hitting on something really important. We've given up or modified our other bill of rights rights. No one's really bitching about that except when it comes to the "War on Christmas" and displaying Christian icons. All those defenders of the Constitution can see the reasonableness of losing these other rights but freak out over curbing gun rights. There's a disconnect here.

THE GREATER GOOD!

[Parkbandit]

There's a reason for the right to keep and bear arms. That reason is for national security. It's been interpreted to mean other things like personal security, but that's really grasping. It's a fucked up sentence but at the time I'm sure it was no big deal. Many people had firearms and they were useful tools the way we have computers and cell phones today. As smart as those guys were they were completely unequipped to write something that can account for today's situation regarding gun ownership.

It's a fucked up sentence, in your mind, because of the way you are interpreting it. And national security isn't the only reason for the 2nd amendment rights... in fact, they even gave you a reason in that "fucked up sentence".

[cwolff]

It's a fucked up sentence, in your mind, because of the way you are interpreting it. And national security isn't the only reason for the 2nd amendment rights... in fact, they even gave you a reason in that "fucked up sentence".

No it's a fucked up sentence because we all can not easily interpret it and understand exactly what is being said.

As for a reason given beyond national security, where is it?

[Thondalar]

I would like to remind you of a sentence you bolded, with additional emphasis mine:

"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."

Hamilton's argument wasn't that nothing was implied by the Constitution, it was that we had to be very considerate of what we added to the Constitution because inferences are valid. Please note how this explanation is coherent with his later (explicit) arguments for implied powers.These are your words: "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." You have interpreted an argument that fits your overarching philosophy, even though this interpretation is directly contradicted by the man himself and that is why you are Ronald Reagan.

No one disagrees that Bruce says "Born in the USA!", the interpretation of that as a patriotic sentiment is what is incorrect. No one disagrees that Hamilton was anti Bill of Rights, the interpretation of that as strict constructionism is what is incorrect. How do we know this? Because they told us exactly that.

I just posted two long paragraphs, penned in his own hand, that very clearly state his fears of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. There's nothing at all to interpret. I'm really not sure why you're still trying to argue this. Re-read the quote you yourself posted...

[Thondalar]

Regulate, license, registration these are all limits. After all, convicted felons are limited from owning guns and I don't hear anyone arguing for their rights in this matter.

Convicted felons give up their rights.

This is a joke but you're actually hitting on something really important. We've given up or modified our other bill of rights rights. No one's really bitching about that except when it comes to the "War on Christmas" and displaying Christian icons. All those defenders of the Constitution can see the reasonableness of losing these other rights but freak out over curbing gun rights. There's a disconnect here.

I'm totally bitching about this, and have for a long time. The problem is, the Third amendment doesn't have a huge lobbying base that fights against restrictions to it.

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about losing any of our rights.

[cwolff]

Convicted felons give up their rights.



I'm totally bitching about this, and have for a long time. The problem is, the Third amendment doesn't have a huge lobbying base that fights against restrictions to it.

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about losing any of our rights.

Just imagine the legal wrangling over that.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

They'd have a field day with all those commas.

[Warriorbird]

I just posted two long paragraphs, penned in his own hand, that very clearly state his fears of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. There's nothing at all to interpret. I'm really not sure why you're still trying to argue this. Re-read the quote you yourself posted...

You're now attempting to narrow your own argument because you don't like to be cornered on just how narrow your historical interpretations are.