"COnstitutional Carry?"

[Riot]

First of all, Penguin, I respect your opinion. Nevertheless, I dissagree with your main point. The 2nd Amendment covers all firearms and does not exclude any type of carry or any type of firearm, for that matter.

Since the indoctrination of the 2nd Amendment, we've become dessensitized to firearms. People have used it as a scapegoat. "Instructors" blame the firearms for not having enough safety features to prevent them from blowing their foot off. The media blames firearms for massive shootings and trajedies. Parents blame the guns for their child shooting themselves or another sibbling.

It's just easier to blame the gun than it is to take responsibility for your actions or inactions. Who looses? The gun owners do. Hunters, shooting enthusiasts, constitutionists, and people that just want to defend themselves loose at this mindset that firearms are anything less that our right as a US citizen. These are our BILL OF RIGHTS, rights granted by every US citizen. How is it not contitutional to express that right? If some hippy can burn the US flag out of protest, then I should be able to carry a firearm, open and where ever I damn well please!

 

[SonicBlue03]

You can make the statement that all firearms are covered, but you also have to accept that the firearms that existed during the time of the declaration were powder rifles and pistols (excluding artillery because cannons weren't exactly single-man portable) and were very limited.

No one knows how the FF's would have responded had they gotten a glimpse of what technology would bring over the next 200+ years. Also any thoughts of understanding whether they felt this would be a fixed document for centuries or adapted as times changed are also as accurate as tea leaf divining.

 

[Sawdust]

Also any thoughts of understanding whether they felt this would be a fixed document for centuries or adapted as times changed are also as accurate as tea leaf divining.

Not quite. The Constitution was set that We The People could keep the government in check, not the other way around.

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

And far as possessing arms, these may shed some light.


[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]THOMAS JEFFERSON
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... 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.

Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.


[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]PATRICK HENRY
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]GEORGE MASON
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[Artilleryman]

You can make the statement that all firearms are covered, but you also have to accept that the firearms that existed during the time of the declaration were powder rifles and pistols (excluding artillery because cannons weren't exactly single-man portable) and were very limited.

No one knows how the FF's would have responded had they gotten a glimpse of what technology would bring over the next 200+ years. Also any thoughts of understanding whether they felt this would be a fixed document for centuries or adapted as times changed are also as accurate as tea leaf divining.

I can't really be supportive of that 'living Constitution' theory- you can't use the fact that technology has improved as a way around the Bill of Rights. After all, the internet, telephones, radio, television, etc weren't around back then either, so should that affect 1st amendment rights?....
(if it hadn't been written many years later I'd say think of the implications for the 19th amendment, women are a lot different these days too)..I strongly disagree with any idea that the Founding Fathers intent was for our firearms rights to only mean muskets. Ben Franklin was well known for being forward thinking where technology was concerned- and I'm sure he wasn't the only one. To essentially state as you did that these men were convinced firearms technology would remain fixed at their current technological state- I suspect was never true.

 

[Gunner3456]

Also any thoughts of understanding whether they felt this would be a fixed document for centuries or adapted as times changed are also as accurate as tea leaf divining.

That thinking is called "revisionist" and is practiced by progressives. It is taught in liberal universities.

If you follow it to its logical conclusion, our constitution can't be counted on to protect us through the centuries.

Due to the simple fact that the constitution was written to protect us from government, it stands to reason that we must keep pace with the government or have our rights trampled.

Our founders couldn't see that some people would live in motor homes either, but if they are our home, then they are covered under search and seizure.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

That thinking is called "revisionist" and is practiced by progressives. It is taught in liberal universities.

If you follow it to its logical conclusion, our constitution can't be counted on to protect us through the centuries.

Due to the simple fact that the constitution was written to protect us from government, it stands to reason that we must keep pace with the government or have our rights trampled.

Our founders couldn't see that some people would live in motor homes either, but if they are our home, then they are covered under search and seizure.

Was repealing Prohibition "revisionist?" You have to remember that was in the constitution also. The constitution is an evolving document. if not there would have been no means put in place to revise it.

 

[Gunner3456]

Was repealing Prohibition "revisionist?" You have to remember that was in the constitution also. The constitution is an evolving document. if not there would have been no means put in place to revise it.

For our constitution to "evolve," it must be amended. There are only two ways to amend it, and only one has ever been used. The second is too dangerous. (Constitutional convention which puts the whole constitution in jeopardy.)

Both houses of congress must approve an amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then it must go to the states and 3/4 of them must approve it. There is usually a time limit placed for the states to approve, and that has traditionally been 7 years, set by congress.

That's a tall hill to climb, and without it the constitution stands pat.

The exception is when the courts rule that the constitution says something it doesn't. They find some brand new thing in it. This is dangerous and is why we have to be careful who we elect and therefore who gets on the SC.

 

[SonicBlue03]

If the Constitution wasn't expected to be a living, evolving document then is it a generally acceptible position that blacks and women shouldn't vote? Should we scrap the amendments because they were written by government and approved by government officials (even though they're elected officials.)

Was the Constitution was written to protect us from government, or from the government that was in-place in England at the time? If there are some Constitutional scholars that can speak to that, I'd be interested to learn more about that.

Quick semi-topical question: Do the people here view insurgents as patriots or terrorists?

It actually matters to the topic on hand.

 

[2zuks]

Was repealing Prohibition "revisionist?" You have to remember that was in the constitution also. The constitution is an evolving document. if not there would have been no means put in place to revise it.

Prohibition has nothing to do with an inalienable right. I am not sure what liberal playbook teaches you guys to use that one, but I sure hear it alot. lol. The Bill of rights is not an evolving document. It was never intended to be. The bill of rights guarantees individual rights to all citizens. It isn't called the Bill of Privelages for gods sake! These are inailenable RIGHTS that no man or government can take away!

Alright, we have the internet now. The founding fathers never could have invisioned that. By that line of reasoning, freedom of speech is up for debate too.

Come on people! WTF? Do we agree that the second amendment was first and formost written to make sure the government didn't become too powerful and use it's army to enslave the people? It was written as a check on the government and the standing army! Do you really think given the spirit of why it was written that the founding fathers would have decided that the people should be limited to muskets while the millitary advanced? Of course not! Quit trying to invent things! Here is what ond of the framers had to say on this topic!

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


Here is one for you all on the gun laws that are in place! Read the freaking 2nd amendment!

"[E]very act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the
commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act,
therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this,
would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that
the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people
are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of
powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what
they forbid."

Alexander Hamiltion

This is part of what is wrong in our society today!

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
that men have died to win them."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

I just like this one.

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

Tell me again how the second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to carry.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States)
assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise
it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times
armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of
religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[SonicBlue03]

Thomas Jefferson was a visionary who was a groundbreaker in establishing equal rights for all Americans. Except for his slaves, of course, because we can't have them blacks slippin' their chains, ya know.

If the issue is the misuse of the military, why have a military? Why not have a well-regulated militia to be called upon when the country needs defense?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Prohibition has nothing to do with an inalienable right. I am not sure what liberal playbook teaches you guys to use that one, but I sure hear it alot. lol.

There is your problem right there. You have bought into the nonsense of an "inalienable right." There is no such animal. All rights we enjoy are rights we provide to ourselves as a collective. If the collective removes that right then it no longer exists. Nature provides no rights to any living organism. You do not even have the right to not be eaten as far as nature is concerned. Have the society that provides you with those rights collapse and see how many of those "rights" you still enjoy.

 

[Trlsmn]

There is your problem right there. You have bought into the nonsense of an "inalienable right." There is no such animal. All rights we enjoy are rights we provide to ourselves as a collective. If the collective removes that right then it no longer exists. Nature provides no rights to any living organism.

I would turn that around and say that nature provides us with all the rights, in that nature lets us do anything we wish, it is government /rules of man that takes those inalienable rights away.

Inalienable rights and atheism are compatible, you just have to shift the focus from god given rights, to born with freedom to what nature/environment allows you to do.

 

[Gunner3456]

If the Constitution wasn't expected to be a living, evolving document then is it a generally acceptible position that blacks and women shouldn't vote?

Our constitution never said that women and blacks shouldn't vote.

Should we scrap the amendments because they were written by government and approved by government officials (even though they're elected officials.)

No, the whole constitution was written by "government" and approved by the same. It just takes such a super majority to approve or change it that we need to be careful who we vote for.

Was the Constitution was written to protect us from government, or from the government that was in-place in England at the time?

It was written to protect us into the future. The Revolutionary War was to free us from England.

If there are some Constitutional scholars that can speak to that, I'd be interested to learn more about that.

Quick semi-topical question: Do the people here view insurgents as patriots or terrorists?

Unsure which insurgents you're referring to....

It actually matters to the topic on hand.

Our constitution was written to protect us from our government. Our founders had just come out from under the tyranny of the King of England.

The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was to reaffirm that the people have power over the government, and not the other way around.

 

[Gunner3456]

I would turn that around and say that nature provides us with all the rights, in that nature lets us do anything we wish, it is government /rules of man that takes those inalienable rights away.

Inalienable rights and atheism are compatible, you just have to shift the focus from god given rights, to born with freedom to what nature/environment allows you to do.

+1. You don't have to be religious to be very afraid of a government. Just look at history. You don't have to be religious to have an innate need to be free.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Our constitution was written to protect us from our government. Our founders had just come out from under the tyranny of the King of England.

The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was to reaffirm that the people have power over the government, and not the other way around.

Good answers.

My insurgent question is regarding modern day Iraq.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I would turn that around and say that nature provides us with all the rights, in that nature lets us do anything we wish, it is government /rules of man that takes those inalienable rights away.

Inalienable rights and atheism are compatible, you just have to shift the focus from god given rights, to born with freedom to what nature/environment allows you to do.

There is a difference between a freedom and a right. In nature you have no "right" to anything. If you cannot take it though force you have no claim to it. If you cannot outfight or outrun any other creature you even have no right to survive. Nature does not owe you anything.

 

[Gunner3456]

There is a difference between a freedom and a right. In nature you have no "right" to anything. If you cannot take it though force you have no claim to it. If you cannot outfight or outrun any other creature you even have no right to survive. Nature does not owe you anything.

So do you believe that we are not higher in intelligence and civilization than other "animals?"

Do you not think that there is something innate in us which gives us a sense of right and wrong? Why do I "know" that it's wrong to steal your food, but among lower animals stealing food is winning?

Do you believe that there is something in humans which separates us from lower animals?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So do you believe that we are not higher in intelligence and civilization than other "animals?"

Do you not think that there is something innate in us which gives us a sense of right and wrong? Why do I "know" that it's wrong to steal your food, but among lower animals stealing food is winning?

Do you believe that there is something in humans which separates us from lower animals?

Even lower animals have a base sense of right and wrong. That is how they survive. Even when fighting for a mate among rivals animals of the same species understand not to kill each other because they depend on one another. The human sense of right and wrong is based on the same psychological mechanisms.

Our higher intelligence just gives us an advantage. That is all. It is also that same intelligence that provides us with the man made concept of "rights."

 

[JumpWing]

Animals have no such "base sense of right and wrong." I can't even believe I just read that. Rival males end up killing each other ALL THE TIME when fighting over mating rights. A losing contender only lives because he backs off and demonstrates submission. They steal each other's food, kill each other's young... even male lions will kill the cubs of a rival male if he manages to take over the pride. Jumpin' jehovah man, what nature channels have you been watching??

In nature there is most assuredly a right to defend onesself. What you don't get is a guarantee of success in doing so.

And we don't have rights because of some collective agreement to create them. The collective purpose is to protect them. This computer is rightfully mine. The fact that it can be taken from me by force does not mean it rightfully belongs to the thief; it means that my rightful ownership has been ignored, not nullified.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Animals have no such "base sense of right and wrong." I can't even believe I just read that. Rival males end up killing each other ALL THE TIME when fighting over mating rights. A losing contender only lives because he backs off and demonstrates submission. They steal each other's food, kill each other's young... even male lions will kill the cubs of a rival male if he manages to take over the pride. Jumpin' jehovah man, what nature channels have you been watching??

In nature there is most assuredly a right to defend onesself. What you don't get is a guarantee of success in doing so.

And we don't have rights because of some collective agreement to create them. The collective purpose is to protect them. This computer is rightfully mine. The fact that it can be taken from me by force does not mean it rightfully belongs to the thief; it means that my rightful ownership has been ignored, not nullified.

Where do you get you knowledge of natural behavior? Hunting programs on the Outdoors Channel? Because you are completely off base. And you do not have a "right" to defend yourself. You might have the freedom to do so if you can, but you have no right to a defense. If someone eats you in your sleep and you do not defend yourself they have not violated any of your rights.

You are also wrong about your rights. Your rights are bestowed upon you by your society. Do people in other countries have the same rights that you enjoy? If they are inalienable then they cannot be removed so they must.