+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Preaching to the Choir (/showthread.php?tid=11478)
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
Bravo Vector Tango Wrote:The founding documents are insurance against the exact situation you explain, where rights are determined by force. without inalienable rights, without equalizers, we will always default to "Might makes Right", Bully rules.Uh huh. My position is that, whether we have such "insurance" or not, power is what really counts.
For instance, if we have an "inalienable right" to keep and bear arms -- a right that "shall not be infringed" -- how come there are so many laws which restrict or prohibit the exercise of that right?
It's clear to me (even if not to others here) that the answer is: Because some people had sufficient power to get those laws enacted, the police use their power to enforce those laws, and the courts exert their power to uphold those laws. Might makes right.
Quote:The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and Amendments stand as our voice as one people, Declaring our rights,Oh, please. There is no "our voice as one people" because there is no agreement as to the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment. The people are obviously divided on this issue, as on many others.
Quote:The documents themselves, the Ideals of Freedom, the foundation on which America stands, that IS the Might of the people - and we must always remember how to enact and draw upon that Might, for we will be challenged.<sigh> The documents are words on paper. They have no power, no ability to prevent the implementation of laws contrary to those ideals.
Quote:The 2nd Amendment is paramount to the other inalienable rights established by the founding documents, and indeed, serves as both a lynch pin holding it all together, and as a last physical resort, when those with all the Might come knocking. Government eroding our rights as they have for the last century, is nothing but a bully slowly dismantling the wall around your home, pretty soon, that bully has a clear line of sight, and plenty of stones to throw.Seems to be a rather weak linchpin. I mean, it hasn't prevented that wall from being continually dismantled, has it? If arms are not used, having them can not, and will not, deter that dismantling.
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
WitchDoc Wrote:As a new guy here...Hi, WitchDoc. Welcome to the Horde.
Quote:You say that you (Stanc) are for the 2A, but yet argue with almost everyone who has chimed in here. I will be argued against as well, I fully expect. You do have your facts readily available and spit them out like a ma-deuce, with flagrant disregard to actual conversation.I have no idea what that means.
Quote:I am one of those who did fight for our Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To exercise your right to free speech and say that anything about these documents are absurd, is actually absurd in itself.Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your conclusion.
Quote:That is your opinion but you tout a serious need for fact. It is easy to cut/paste what you consider facts to a message board, and maybe you have all this info memorized. I just don't find it respectful how you are going about it.What have I done that you consider not respectful?
Quote:I'm all about facts and education, but you sir, need some higher power. See, that is what our founding fathers were referring to as far as where these rights came from. You don't sound like you believe in this same higher power, and that is cool with me, but if you did, it may make a little more sense on the unalienable rights...I do not operate on belief, so no, I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian deity. And if their God exists, where does he state that we have said unalienable rights?
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
bwaites Wrote:Wow, this has been an entirely useless thread! No one has actually mentioned that there is PLENTY of documentation of Founding Fathers thought and writings on the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment. Washington for instance, "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."That quote supports the idea that the 2A is concerned only with arming the militia.
Quote:Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, debates over militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene. A variety of plans were put forth by figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben. All of the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed. (Sources: The most extensive studies of these militia proposals are John McAuley Palmer, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson: Three War Statesmen (New York, 1930); Frederick Stern, Citizen Army (New York,1957); John Mahon, The American Militia: Decade of Decision 1789-1800 (Univ of Florida, 1960).)Also supports the idea that the 2A is concerned only with arming the militia.
Quote:A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.Partial truth. Only able-bodied, white males of military age were required to be in the militia, not all adults, so the militia would in fact be only some of the people.
― Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee 1762-1778 V1
Quote:"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..." - John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471(1788Too bad the 2A says nothing about individual self-defense.
Quote:The Right is General - It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.Illogical statement. That is not an "interpretation." That is the meaning of what is actually written. To claim that it means something other than what it says would be an interpretation using what he thinks the author intended.
― Thomas McIntyre Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America;
Quote:This is only a short version, but there is little doubt what the Framers intended with the 2nd Amendment if you actually research and read their writings.1. AFAIK, the 2nd Amendment was written solely by James Madison -- not by any of the others you quoted -- and what you quoted him as saying is so vague that it offers no real insight into his intent.
2. If you're going to take the position that the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says, then it can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
Preaching to the Choir - montana - 07-06-2016
stanc Wrote:I do not operate on belief, so no, I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian deity. And if their God exists, where does he state that we have said unalienable rights?
No disrespect intended here Stanc but what a sad life you must have. With no belief there is no right or wrong, and no point to ones life. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not just words but a belief in the natural state all people were intended to live. This is a belief. With no belief there is no good or evil just the application of force. Let me help a non believer such as yourself understand. The founding fathers believed in this natural state"belief" but recognized those who didn't which we believers call evil. The Constitution was a document which was to limit power"force" by division of power"force". The bill of rights was the power "force" given to citizens to complete the division of power"force". George Washington stated government is like fire, a dangerous servant and fearful master. This is why the Second Amendment as all of the other Amendments are in the Bill of Rights. It is the division of power to protect the natural state"belief" all people had the right to live. With out belief there is no such thing as good or evil so there is no such thing as evil men in your opinion? . Pedophiles, murders, rapist are OK as long as they have the force to back them ? With out a higher force "belief" to be held accountable to, good and evil do not exist. That is a belief I do not care subscribe to.
Preaching to the Choir - dammitman - 07-06-2016
Unfortunatley, ISIS has their higher beliefs thus making simply "believing" in higher power isnt all there is to it. It doesnt require belief to know right from wrong, good from evil.
Preaching to the Choir - LRRPF52 - 07-06-2016
If anyone has problems understanding the context of the Bill of Rights as to whether it is aimed at constraining government from violating the natural rights of individuals and the separate States they live in, it helps to actually read the whole thing.
For example, the question about individual versus collective rights is clear on both counts.
The first 9 amendments address individual rights, with the words "people" or "person" being used. The only amendments that address collective rights is in reference to the State in the 9th and 10th Amendments, where people's, then State's rights supersede anything not delegated in the Constitution, and then again reinforce the rights of the people over the State. Individual > State > National Constitution
Quote:Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Quote:Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to argue that:
1. freedom from state religion, freedom of press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government,
3. freedom for quarter,
4. freedom to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,
5. and freedom from being forced to testify against yourself
....are collective rights.
That someone can conclude that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias is either willfully ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights, or has a serious personal issue with freedom for their fellow men.
We normally see this with people who have the statist opinion that only soldiers and police should have access to firearms, while mere untermensch plebes and unwashed masses of peasants should be treated with disdain, contempt, and distrust. It is only by unjust will that someone sees what they want with the 2A, twisting their mind to interpret it as a collective right, in the midst of very explicit individual rights.
People who are a successful product of government-forced schooling are very easy to convince of these collective rights BS arguments, since the fathers of what has become the modern public schooling system hated the foundational principles of the United States.
Go look up Horace Mann and John Dewey to see what kind of Socialist/Marxist ideas they espoused, hating the influence of American culture on local schooling, with the primary goal of federalizing schools and marginalizing the roles of families and religious institutions in American culture. Horace Mann was a major proponent of human secularism, seeking to displace the role of freedom with the state and its institutions. Dewey really made his dream come true.
Check out Dewey's Pedagocic Creed. These lines always jump out at me:
Quote:I believe that the subject-matter of the school curriculum should mark a gradual differentiation out of the primitive unconscious unity of social life.
I believe that we violate the child's nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.
The word "social" appears in Dewey's Creed 57 times. Learning appears 0 times. Education appears 37 times. Parents appears 0 times. Society appears 6 times.
Mann and Dewey understood that a dumbed down society could be easily socialized and collectivized. Their progressive education system is the most successful government program in the history of the United States. Look at the results.
The best thing you can do to help people find the truth is get them as far away from collective government schooling as possible. That's where they learn to hate America, and love statism, while being physically conditioned with a daily regimen to follow orders, don't rock the boat, play along to get along, like good little serfs.
A self-educated person can read the Bill of Rights for themselves, and see what it means. They don't need anyone's help in understanding basic concepts and principles espoused in our foundational documents.
Preaching to the Choir - Slappy - 07-06-2016
"Mann and Dewey understood that a dumbed down society could be easily socialized and collectivized. Their progressive education system is the most successful government program in the history of the United States. Look at the results."
That says it ALL right there. and yet people are getting dumb and dumber by the minute and they think it is the thing to do?? It is scary out there!!!!! BANG BANG!!
Preaching to the Choir - montana - 07-06-2016
dammitman Wrote:Unfortunatley, ISIS has their higher beliefs thus making simply "believing" in higher power isnt all there is to it. It doesnt require belief to know right from wrong, good from evil.
That wasn't my point, it was the belief the founding fathers had for our nation. The belief of ISIS is not compatible to the US Constitution. The part"belief" in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not compatible with ISIS. I apologize for the confusion, I'm a master at that when discussing topics.
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
montana Wrote:Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not just words but a belief in the natural state all people were intended to live.Intended by who/what?
Certainly not by the Christian God, who cursed humans and the ground on which they walk, condemning all of mankind to a life of pain and suffering. (See Genesis 3)
Nor by nature, which doesn't care how people live.
Quote:This is a belief. With no belief there is no good or evil just the application of force.Precisely.
Quote:Let me help a non believer such as yourself understand. The founding fathers believed in this natural state"belief" but recognized those who didn't which we believers call evil. The Constitution was a document which was to limit power"force" by division of power"force". The bill of rights was the power "force" given to citizens to complete the division of power"force". George Washington stated government is like fire, a dangerous servant and fearful master. This is why the Second Amendment as all of the other Amendments are in the Bill of Rights. It is the division of power to protect the natural state"belief" all people had the right to live.And yet, neither the 2nd Amendment, nor any of the others in the Bill of Rights, have prevented the enactment of multitudes of laws which, by any rational standards, clearly infringe, abridge, and restrict our so-called "unalienable rights."
Quote:With out belief there is no such thing as good or evil so there is no such thing as evil men in your opinion?Correct. "Good" and "evil" exist only in the mind of the beholder. For example, Americans call ISIS evil. And at the same, ISIS calls us evil.
Preaching to the Choir - LRRPF52 - 07-06-2016
Major victories for the rights of the individual in my lifetime:
* FOPA
* End of the Clinton AWB in 2004 (10 year term, an example of where a gun control measure has been repealed or extinguished)
* Concealed carry shall issue laws spreading across the States (although there should be no special provisions for what was a right, it was eroded during the 20th century)
* Heller Supreme Court Decision, affirming the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Before this, many courts of the 20th century unconstitutionally interpreted it as a collective right.
* Suppressor laws becoming more and more liberal
* Some States erasing any requirements for CCW permits, like Idaho just did.
These have been huge victories for lovers of freedom, and major defeats for those who love tyranny and oppression, statism, and federalism.
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
LRRPF52 Wrote:That someone can conclude that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias is either willfully ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights, or has a serious personal issue with freedom for their fellow men.Most people see what they want to see in the 2A, as shown by the number of people in this thread who insist upon "interpreting" it according to what they think/believe was the author's intent, while choosing to dismiss what it actually says. I don't consider them to be guilty of "unjust will" (whatever that means); they mean well, they're just not examining it objectively or logically.
It is only by unjust will that someone sees what they want with the 2A...
Quote:...twisting their mind to interpret it as a collective right, in the midst of very explicit individual rights.I fully agree that it's an individual right. But, as worded, it appears to apply only to those individuals (free, able-bodied, white males of military age) who were required by law to serve in State militias.
What most folks today seem blissfully unaware of is that the Founding Fathers did not consider all of "the people" to have the same rights. Women, Indians, and most blacks, had few or no "rights," and the Bill of Rights applied fully only to land-owning, white men.
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
LRRPF52 Wrote:Major victories for the rights of the individual in my lifetime:Seriously? Since FOPA instituted a ban on production of machine guns for civilians, I sincerely hope we don't get any more "victories" like that.
* FOPA
Quote:* End of the Clinton AWB in 2004 (10 year term, an example of where a gun control measure has been repealed or extinguished)The 1994 AWB was not repealed. It expired. If it had not had a set term, it would almost certainly still be in effect.
Quote:* Heller Supreme Court Decision, affirming the individual's right to keep and bear arms.Minor victory. It reaffirmed the ruling that there is no right to carry concealed.
The other changes you cited are noteworthy achievements, though.
Preaching to the Choir - Bravo Vector Tango - 07-06-2016
Stan,
I am actually in agreeance with you on Might, but the society we live in operates under Rule of Law, which is the exact opposite of Rule of Power, Which you describe. Rule of Power does not work, look to the middle east for countless examples of its perpetual failure and fellowship with genocide, brutality and barbarism.
The law is to include those Elected by the Governed - the separation of power is what is intended to assure this, without the separation of power, we have an Oligarchy. Oligarchy parallels Monarchy in the despair and suffering it elicits on the people - and we can look to the Declaration if Independence itself for the symptoms - and indeed, a good number of them seem example in our government today. Evident in the constriction of our rights and freedoms, the gross abuse of power and privilege within government, the centralization of wealth, and the social engineering of a deaf, blind and dumb populace of wage slaves, unquestioning of central authority.
Consider what Richard Henry Lee, whom lead the Second Constitutional Congress in their decree of independence from Great Britain had to say about the 2nd amendment:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975])
And the Patriot, Patrick Henry:
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.”
― Patrick Henry
“Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”
― Patrick Henry
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined. ”
― Patrick Henry
I think its pretty clear in the words of those that actually fought for their freedom from the tyranny of Great Britain, that the rights of the people were of the first concern, to include the right to bear arms.
as far as what you have to say about only white, male land owners - I think we have since then established that color of skin and sex does not exclude an individual from their rights. it was called the Civil War, and consequently, landmark court cases in women's rights over the span of the 20th century.
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-06-2016
Bravo Vector Tango Wrote:Stan,I would say that history does not support that view, since what you call the "Rule of Power" has worked for most of the world throughout time.
I am actually in agreeance with you on Might, but the society we live in operates under Rule of Law, which is the exact opposite of Rule of Power, Which you describe. Rule of Power does not work, look to the middle east for countless examples of its perpetual failure and fellowship with genocide, brutality and barbarism.
In any case, you are taking too limited a view of "power." I'm referring to power in all its forms, not solely the ability to use physical violence against others. In the context of the struggle over Constitutional "rights," I'm talking about such things as political power, the ability to influence public opinion, etc.
Quote:“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined. ”Isn't that pretty much what I've been saying?
― Patrick Henry
Quote:as far as what you have to say about only white, male land owners - I think we have since then established that color of skin and sex does not exclude an individual from their rights. it was called the Civil War, and consequently, landmark court cases in women's rights over the span of the 20th century.Granted, but the issue is the intent of the Founding Fathers. Judging by the laws they enacted, their apparent intent was not what folks here think it was by today's standards.
And BTW, note that such changes were implemented primarily as a result of the determined efforts of progressive, liberal activists, the very type of people who are so despised on gun boards.
I can't help but find that amusingly ironic.
Preaching to the Choir - montana - 07-06-2016
stanc Wrote:And BTW, note that such changes were implemented primarily as a result of the determined efforts of progressive, liberal activists, the very type of people who are so despised on gun boards.
I can't help but find that amusingly ironic.
Stanc to say your unyielding is an understatement lol. The liberals of yester year were not the big government activist of today but quite the opposite of the progressives," a term created during the Wilson presidency if memory serves" liberals of today. For you to dismiss the writings and thoughts of the actual creators of the Second Amendment is quite disingenuous on your part especially if you were sincere about the true meaning of gun rights. It would be like people discussing "arguing" about the meaning in a novel and then totally dismissing the authors remarks on the very novel he wrote. Not very logical if I do say so.
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-07-2016
montana Wrote:Stanc to say your unyielding is an understatement lol.Heh, heh. "Pot calling kettle..." :p
Quote:For you to dismiss the writings and thoughts of the actual creators of the Second Amendment is quite disingenuous on your part especially if you were sincere about the true meaning of gun rights. It would be like people discussing "arguing" about the meaning in a novel and then totally dismissing the authors remarks on the very novel he wrote. Not very logical if I do say so.Well, first off, there was only one creator of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights): James Madison.
As for what contemporaries of Madison thought, instead of cherry picking quotes to support your position, let's look at the gun rights that were actually incorporated into State constitutions before Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.
Delaware: That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
Maryland: That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
New Hampshire: A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State...
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state...
Vermont: That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State...
Virginia: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...
Tabulating the results, we have:
3 for the defense of a free State.
3 for defense of the State.
2 for defense of the State and defense of the individual citizen.
Conclusions.
The majority did not place quite the importance upon the "free" State idea that some of you insist has so much significance.
The majority addressed only collective defense (arming the militia for defense of the State, free or not).
Only two -- a small minority -- specified that individual self-defense was a reason for the right to keep and bear arms.
Preaching to the Choir - montana - 07-07-2016
stanc Wrote:Heh, heh. "Pot calling kettle..." :p
Well, first off, there was only one creator of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights): James Madison.
As for what contemporaries of Madison thought, instead of cherry picking quotes to support your position, let's look at the gun rights that were actually incorporated into State constitutions before Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.
Delaware: That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
Maryland: That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
New Hampshire: A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State...
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state...
Vermont: That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State...
Virginia: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...
Tabulating the results, we have:
3 for the defense of a free State.
3 for defense of the State.
2 for defense of the State and defense of the individual citizen.
Conclusions.
The majority did not place quite the importance upon the "free" State idea that some of you insist has so much significance.
The majority addressed only collective defense (arming the militia for defense of the State, free or not).
Only two -- a small minority -- specified that individual self-defense was a reason for the right to keep and bear arms.
Actually George Mason was the master Drafter of the Bill of rights. Read this Stanc , it is with out any doubt the right to bear Arms was considered an individual right.
http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm
17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
Preaching to the Choir - sneaky one - 07-07-2016
This all makes sense, study it sentence by sentence. Item by item. 17. Word by word if need be. Yes, times were different then, ARE THEY DIFFERENT nowadays? Terrorists abound, trust is gone. We need to self protect. Our modern sporting rifles, -60 year old design- and handguns are the best way to ensure ones rights to keep & bear arms. I Give up il nada!- NOTHING !
I don't care much about gun control speak anymore, I will part with a nothing from my collection. Remember, our govt. is here to help us, not control us. We own them. By tax monies, They DO NOT OWN US ! Doesn't matter what they preach, ain't gonna work out well for them Dem.
We can never get to the idea of surrendering anything. Cars are responsible - and bad drivers- for more deaths in USA than weapons of self defense.
Montana, cell up & running ?
I like BVTango's ideas too. Let's find a mindset somewhere in the middle gents. This is where we were meant to be , for the HRC idea, if she gets in... good lorde. she's a crook like billy...... Go online to see all the dirt upon them 2. It's bad, I have no smiles their way. THEY SUCK IT BIG TIME !!! Ahh!!!!
Preaching to the Choir - Slappy - 07-08-2016
Reverend!! Bang bang!!
Preaching to the Choir - stanc - 07-08-2016
sneaky one Wrote:Remember, our govt. is here to help us, not control us.Silly boy. By definition, to govern is to control.
govern
: to officially control and lead (a group of people) : to make decisions about laws, taxes, social programs, etc., for (a country, state, etc.)
: to control the way that (something) is done
: to control or guide the actions of (someone or something)