Flashermac Posted November 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 The problem is the 18th century meaning is very clear. Thus in order to carry their point, the anties have to insist it isn't. In reality, a constitutional ammendment could alter the 2nd Ammendment - but it would be extremely unlikely to pass. It took a constitutional ammendment to outlaw slavery and "involuntary servitude" (except when it is imposed by Selective Service!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 The Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers debated the issues regarding the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28, [color:red]"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."[/color] The anti-gun people refuse to look at these documents. If they did, they would understand what the original Fathers of our country meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I had to read all of The Federalist papers as a university undergraduate. Wonder how many folks have. Fascinating insight into the way the founders' minds worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 The Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers debated the issues regarding the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28, [color:red]"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."[/color] 55555555555555555 Hmmm. So today's situation is about as dire as it has ever been regarding betrayal of constituents, yet I see no uprising. And I am sure I never will, as long as "Dancing with the Stars" is on the tube. Has nothing to do with guns, but apathy. Hamilton would be weeping at what his country has become. And why is it you refuse to read the *actual* minutes of the conventions that developed the second amendment? Is it because it makes your point invalid? Likely. The Federalist Papers are great, but are the opinions of one man, not the minutes of meetings of many men, detailing their collective thoughts. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I read the minutes and maybe you can argue that I saw what I wanted to see but I didn't see any indication that private gun ownership was not a right. You haven't answered my query as to the times and context as well. The question I posed that guns were a vital part of life for many Americans at the time and the logic of the forefathers taking away that right, knowing that it would mean the surival of some folks, especially rural folks. Also that private gun ownsersip (as well as the other rights) were already part of the people and that they were codifying rights already assumed and adding others possibly? Also, if it were illegal WHY didn't the forefathers confiscate them? With all due respect its a weak argument by gun control advocates to remove guns by saying it was never a right instead of the merits of arguing that the right is no longer needed. What supreme court or congress has said that the right is not a right? Yet, you would deem to suggest that it isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 When I listen to anti-gun advocates, they seem to say they want honest people to be disarmed. They don't say anything about disarming the criminals which is the bulk of the problem. Even gun advocates would like the criminals disarmed. I have also noted that that I ask ant-gun advocates what would they do if they were in a building were a person was shooting people randonly. The idea of wishing somebody with another gun could step forth and possibly save them is something they never speak about. What they say is they don't want anybody else to intervene (sounds like a martyr) because they don't want a wild west gun fight. Even when I mention that the other party could be a policeman, it appears they would rather prefer death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Suadum said[color:red]"And why is it you refuse to read the *actual* minutes of the conventions that developed the second amendment? Is it because it makes your point invalid? Likely. The Federalist Papers are great, but are the opinions of one man, not the minutes of meetings of many men, detailing their collective thoughts."[/color] I never said I refused to read the minutes of the conventions. As for the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, they were written by 'many men'. I thought you knew that? CT has been providing some very good arguments. I found a few quotes I would like to share. As CT has said, you have to get into the mindset of our founding fathers in order to understand the 2nd amendment. As the 2nd amnendment goes to the Supreme Court, we will find that [color:red]"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully understood, until they begin to usurp its power."[/color] quoted from Thomas Jefferson. "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." quoted from Sam Adams, as reported in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able may have a gun." quoted from Patrick Henry "Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." quoted from James Madison "When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." quoted from George Washington "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." quted from George Mason [color:red]]"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[/color] quoted from Thomas Jefferson [color:red]"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, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." [/color]quoted from George Washington "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private defense." quoted from James Madison [color:red]"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."[/color] quoted from Tench Coxe, June 18,1789 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.