Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
Fat chance of that ever happening in America's government schools. The unionized radical leftists who teach in so many government schools today would rather eat rat poison than teach the young skulls full of mush in their classrooms the true intent of the authors regarding almost any Constitutionally protected right.
Get your kids out of government schools and into Christian schools or home schooling if you want them to have an appreciation for and an understanding of America's history, and a love for our great American legacy of liberty and God-given unalienable rights. Those are the very last things they will ever be taught in government schools today.
You are a "collectivist". A Democrat. A socialist. You don't like your own words? Stop speaking.
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
You don't have to like it. But, you try and take my unalienable Rights away and we will have... trouble.
["Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson]
You are a "collectivist". A Democrat. A socialist.
No, you're simply an anarchist, afraid of the truth.
"Our falling into anarchy would decide forever the destinies of mankind, and seal the political heresy that man is incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson
No wonder his words cause you to splutter so.
The link went back to a post of your own sourceless rationalizations. Chasing your tail, inventing your facts.
Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?
What is a collective right? Your argument here is that a group can do something, but an individual can't. So, in order to dispose of this right, the government need only argue that you, individually, were not part of the group. For that matter, your argument means that the group has a right that none of its members posses.
How is that possible? It is pointless to argue that there is a collective right for the National Rifle Association to hold an annual meeting, but the individual members have no right to attend it.
"Rights" secured by what entity? The individual state? If so, then I agree. I have no qualms with rights secured by the individual states being individual rights.
The Congress is restricted by the language of the first amendment. The second makes no mention of who may not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. They could have written, "shall not be infringed by the Congress," or, "shall not be infringed by the several states," and they did not. The meaning of shall not be infringed has not changed in the last two hundred and some years.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which Madison didn't even think was necessary and added it later under pressure), as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government. All it said was that the federal government could not infringe on these rights.
So, the second amendment, whatever it protects, protects only from federal infringement. The state were, and still are, guided solely by their state constitutions when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
No rational interpretation of the second amendment can reach this conclusion, and what difference does it make how the amendments were added? Read article one of the US Constitution, which delegates powers to the federal government and to the states.
As you are aware, the model for the U.S. Constitution was the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781). That document did mention a Militia, but did not mention a right to bear arms -- meaning any such protections would have had to come from state law.
The Articles of Confederation were a failure, and everybody knew it.
From the Articles of Confederation:
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
The articles were abandoned for the constitution. Their language means nothing in the light of the fact that a new law was written and adopted. This argument makes the case that alcohol is still illegal, since the 18th amendment once existed.
In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
You should base your opinion on the following facts: The constitution states, in Article I, Section 8, that congress has the power:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
This is where the militia gets their arms. Note that congress has the power to arm the militia, but no obligation to do so.
After Shay's Rebellion, and other incidents, the attitude towards a standing army changed, and the powers that be put the right to maintain an army in Article I, right after the part about declaring war:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Do I trust the supreme court to protect my rights? Not absolutely. I also grew up in New Jersey, and I don't trust New Jersey, or Massachusetts, or Illinois, or California, or Hawaii to protect my rights, either.
You were the one who asserted that I had made such an assertion. I did not.
I merely stated that you can get yourself shot out here by a "poor native", defending themselves.
I also opined that there is more crime in more urban areas, an opinion which statistics bear out, in rates, not just raw numbers. I cited an example of an urban population and a rural one, of roughly the same size, with a gross difference in crime statistics, and gave you a link to those statistics. As urban areas have newspapers thick enough to have "style" sections, apparently, at least in their own mind, they are 'centers of culture'.
As for frequency, you figure it out.
In an earlier post, I gave you the source for the violent crime stats for every state and DC. You ignored that.
Note that North Dakota, according to that source, has the lowest violent crime rate in the US, Washington DC, the highest. Both have populations of approximately 700,000, North Dakota has had concealed carry for quite a while, Washington DC has bodyguards for the few, and laws against the masses defending themselves with handguns, or even being in posession of a handgun.
Draw your own conclusions, those facts apparently do not affect what you seem to think passes for thinking, anyway.
Your demands for justification of my remarks have now taken on the aspect of a three year-old going "Why?" repeatedly. Apparently, you are either a troll or have cognitive difficulties.
Even contending the link went back to my "rationalizations" displays that, it was to YOUR post.
Enough. Go bother your pet.
Unlike you...
Beware the repercussions...
I'm an American.
Beware the repercussions...
Barking dogs don't worry me.
2. No, the link went back to your question asking if I claimed most self-defense actions happened in rural areas. You were the one who asserted that I had made such an assertion. I did not.
You flee well.
Liar. A real American wouldn't dare dream to take anothers Rights by sheer vote majority.
Howl on.
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
What rural areas have heinous gun control laws?
Cities and the urban metro areas are easy to pick with lousy environments for gunowners. Noo Yawk, San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Washington D.C., etc., etc., etc., all have laws which make handgun ownership difficult, if not impossible (legally) for the rank and file.
Note the blue areas on the map of the last election. Think this is a coincidence?
If you can outnumber the populations of cities with gun control laws which are not conducive to individual handgun ownership with those which are, or if with rural areas, if you can prove to me that more rural folks live in areas hostile to individual gun ownership than areas which are gun owner 'friendly', go for it. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, my statement stands.
Now for a Windows lesson. Right click on the link I gave you. Select "properties", the number at the end of the link is the post number.
The link is to your post, not mine. You are the one who brought up the number of self defense actions, not me. I was talking about laws.
Keep sourcelessly begging that question.
Your mileage may vary.
Do your own research. Or are you incapable of a web search?
Tell you what, I'll even point you in the right direction: NRA/ILA Gun laws page
I am the walrus.
Point? I posted that 2.5+ million Americans defend themselves with firearms according to the NRA/ILA, you pretended that only happens in rural areas.
Keep chasing your tail.
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
That explains a few things.
Is that why you have been pestering me all this time? Because YOU MISREAD my post? Get a remedial reading course willya? What a maroon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.