quade 4 #51 July 7, 2009 No - it was debated even before the Constitution was written, that FACT is in the record of the Continental Congress. It was debated as to whether or not it was meant to be an INDIVIDUAL right or a COLLECTIVE right since they could not decide which section to put it in to begin with; the rights of the individual or the rights of the states. Go read the links I posted earlier.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 July 7, 2009 QuoteNo - it was debated even before the Constitution was written, that FACT is in the record of the Continental Congress. It was debated as to whether or not it was meant to be an INDIVIDUAL right or a COLLECTIVE right since they could not decide which section to put it in to begin with; the rights of the individual or the rights of the states. Go read the links I posted earlier. I'm familiar both with Madison's quote you used earlier, as well as with the discussion - do you have a point that actually SUPPORTS a collective rights interpretation, other than the use of the word "militia"? Do I REALLY need to drop a dozen quotes in here from the founders stating that the right is individual and the 'militia' were the citizens at large? BTW - here's the second quote on the Madison page you linked: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #53 July 7, 2009 QuoteBTW - here's the second quote on the Madison page you linked: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." Exactly right . . . he's very specifically talking about a GROUP of people, not individuals.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteBTW - here's the second quote on the Madison page you linked: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." Exactly right . . . he's very specifically talking about a GROUP of people, not individuals. Yes, of course, Quade - YOU'RE right, and they're wrong. OBVIOUSLY, the founders meant "the people" as individuals in EVERY ONE of the other amendments in the bill of rights, but in the second amendment, they meant select groups of individuals - I know that *I* always considered "the body of the people" to mean just a small, select group. Gimme a fucking break. You obviously DIDN'T read the links I gave earlier, and you obviously HAVEN'T read any of the other writings of the founders.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 July 7, 2009 Quote You obviously DIDN'T read the links I gave earlier, and you obviously HAVEN'T read any of the other writings of the founders. Of course he's read them. He just doesn't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #56 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteBTW - here's the second quote on the Madison page you linked: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." Exactly right . . . he's very specifically talking about a GROUP of people, not individuals. What are groups composed of?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #57 July 7, 2009 QuoteIt's because of the way you've worded your request. Got it, you are unable and now want to change the topic. Quote It's simply not a required position for any of them to have had to have taken in order to them to have intended the wording to mean a collective right. The simple fact that it says *the right of the people (not States) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed* should be enough. What are the people made of? Quotes from founding father after founding father show that it is made of the individuals that are willing to take up arms. But add in that time after time each founding father is on record supporting an individual right and not ONCE on record supporting a collective right alone. Again, please find ONE quote where they are against individuals having the right. QuoteJust because you have found a quote attributed to Jefferson doesn't mean squat Add in dozens of other quotes all saying the same thing... Then add in ZERO quotes supporting your position and it says plenty. QuoteIt certainly seems as if he's talking about the collective there and not individuals. Or he is simply saying that a militia is composed of the people (duh), that they should be trained to be effective (again, duh), is the best defense to the Country..... Yet not once does it say jack about any rights. It just says what it says and you are unable to find ANY quotes from a founding father AGAINST individual ownership. You would think if they were against individual ownership that they would have said it at least ONCE. And you would think if they were against individual ownership that they would not have written, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"... the would have written "the the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Also since the BoR in every other article gives rights to individuals.... Why does the 2nd suddenly not? Fact is you can't prove it, you can't find ONE quote from a founding father that supports your position. QuoteIf you want to play the game of cherry picking facts we can go on all day and night (and I believe we have in the past), but the fact remains that regardless the claims made by Kelpdiver and others about this issue being a recent development, the individual vs collective right has been debated for CENTURIES Only because people like you that fight tooth and nail for every other right, seem to want to deny the 2nd at every opportunity you can. And NONE of you can bring a single shred of data that the founding fathers were against gun ownership of individuals.... And you ignore quote after quote that shows they were for ownership.... Such as my sig line. Please... Try to explain these away... Or even produce ONE quote against the individuals right: Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] 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 the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew. "& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787 "Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. 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." -- George Washington, The first State of the Union speech, January 8, 1790 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788 "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence 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?"-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788 "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789 "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers Those quotes even discuss the Government ownership vs. the individual. And as you can see the individual rights are supported. QuoteFFS sake, if you wanna know who wrote most of the words, I believe you'll find that Madison is most often given the credit for that and he very specifically said: Yes, lets talk about Madison shall we. His proposed Amendment to the Constitution read: Quote"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." And he also said: Quote"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." -- James Madison, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared," 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788: Both of the above seem to support the individual right... Care to produce a quote from him saying it is not an individual right? Please, find ONE quote from a founding father that says the individual should not be allowed the right.... Simple fact is you will be unable. Most would consider the inability to find a single shred of data to support their position as holding an unsustainable belief.... Yet when it comes to the Second you and others continue to hold a belief that cannot be backed with a shred of data. Why is that? Why is it you will fight tooth and nail for every other Amendment and apply each and everyone to an individual... Yet you skip the 2nd? Again, to support your position, please find ONE quote from a founding father that is against individual ownership. James Madison also said in 1788, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." But please, you are a smart guy... Please find ONE quote from a founding father *against* the individuals right to own a weapon... I have looked and not been able to find one. Maybe you can succeed and bring some data that I have been unable to find."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #58 July 7, 2009 Be sure to save this, Ron. It would be a waste otherwise, as you know you'll need to repeat the same argument in another month. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #59 July 8, 2009 I sent the ACLU back my membership card when they filed their amicus brief in Heller, along with an explanation as to why. Until they revise their statements on their website, I won't support them financially, as there are other organizations that can use my money. That said, I think they do a lot of good supporting other areas of the constitution, and they're doing the right thing in this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,206 #60 July 8, 2009 This is a stupid debate. The ONLY opinion that counts is that of the Supreme Court, and they have declared it an individual right. It is, however, not an unlimited right: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone throughthe 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26" Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55 Opinion of the Court... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #61 July 8, 2009 QuoteThis is a stupid debate. Only to you, since you don't care. QuoteThe ONLY opinion that counts is that of the Supreme Court I happen to disagree, and I bet the Founding Fathers would disagree as well. Maybe you could read up on United States v. Miller. They had 4 points: On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. They ruled: Quote In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. If it were not for the fact that Miller and his lawyer never even showed up it would have been thrown out. Sawed off shotguns WERE and ARE used in many military's... I had one in 2000 that was issued to me. Maybe you should read Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson to see that the SC is not perfect. QuoteIt is, however, not an unlimited right Which seems to go 100% against the "Shall not be infringed" portion. Also it would seem your home City of Chicago does not seem to agree as well. So, should Chicago residents be allowed to own handguns or not Dr? And can you show ONE quote from a Founding Father that would support Chicago's current position? Or one quote from a Founding Father that would support your home town boys position on the AWB? I am betting that not even you can find ONE."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 July 8, 2009 QuoteExactly right . . . he's very specifically talking about a GROUP of people, not individuals. The SC also ruled on what a "militia" is: US v Miller, 1939: QuoteThe signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Still waiting for ONE quote from a Founding Father saying it is NOT an individual right."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #63 July 8, 2009 >>It is, however, not an unlimited right >Which seems to go 100% against the "Shall not be infringed" portion. Ron, do you think that convicted felons or the insane should have the right to own weapons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #64 July 8, 2009 QuoteWhat are groups composed of? Silly argument.....groups are sometimes given rights, obligations, or exemptions that do not filter through to the individual members of that group. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #65 July 8, 2009 QuoteRon, do you think that convicted felons or the insane should have the right to own weapons? It would depend on several factors. Is the guy a felon for tax fraud? Sure! Is he a rapist? No. Do you think that felons should lose the right to vote forever? Besides, this has actually been covered... Just read my sig line. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." If the felon, or the insane person is dangerous, then they should not be free. And I would still like you, or anyone else, to find a SINGLE quote from a Founding Father that says it is not an individual right."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #66 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat are groups composed of? Silly argument.....groups are sometimes given rights, obligations, or exemptions that do not filter through to the individual members of that group. Why (are rights given to groups)? Can you give me some examples, explaining why the individuals shouldn't or don't have the right, but the group does? And how do we justify a right adhering to a group of people, who taken one by one, do not possess it?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #67 July 8, 2009 > Is he a rapist? No. OK. So you believe that, in some cases, the right to bear arms SHALL be infringed. Sounds like you agree with most of the people in the US, and most of the judicial decisions on the right to own weapons. >And I would still like you, or anyone else, to find a SINGLE quote from a >Founding Father that says it is not an individual right. Why? I think it's both an individual _and_ a collective right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #68 July 8, 2009 QuoteWhy (are rights given to groups)? Can you give me some examples, explaining why the individuals shouldn't or don't have the right, but the group does? Quite afew groups are tax exempt, certainly doesn't mean that every member of that group is exempt from paying taxes themselves. (though that would be a great recruiting tool for most religions) The military has the right to maintain nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean every member of the military has that same right. Congress has the right to declare war, but every individual member does not does not. Government has the right to impose taxes, yet every single member of government does not have that right individually. QuoteAnd how do we justify a right adhering to a group of people, who taken one by one, do not possess it? It is one of the founding principles of democracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,206 #69 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis is a stupid debate. Only to you, since you don't care. QuoteThe ONLY opinion that counts is that of the Supreme Court I happen to disagree, and I bet the Founding Fathers would disagree as well. . Unfortunately for YOU, the Supremes trump your opinion, and the Founding Fathers no longer have any say in the matter. The Supremes decide what the law IS and what the Constitution MEANS. Not you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,206 #70 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteRon, do you think that convicted felons or the insane should have the right to own weapons? It would depend on several factors. Is the guy a felon for tax fraud? Sure! . Why should someone who has so much contempt for the country and his/her fellow citizens that he or she won't pay their fair share towards the costs of running the country benefit from the rights that the country bestows on its honest supportive citizens? A tax fraud steals from everyone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #71 July 8, 2009 QuoteOK. So you believe that, in some cases, the right to bear arms SHALL be infringed. Based on the conditions the FF's put into place. QuoteWhy? I think it's both an individual _and_ a collective right. So you think a citizen in good standing should be able to go out and buy a full auto M-16?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #72 July 8, 2009 Quote Quote The ONLY opinion that counts is that of the Supreme Court I happen to disagree, and I bet the Founding Fathers would disagree as well. Considering the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the final word on interpretation of laws, including the Constitution, I am quite certain the FF would agree with Kallend on this point.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhy (are rights given to groups)? Can you give me some examples, explaining why the individuals shouldn't or don't have the right, but the group does? Quite afew groups are tax exempt, certainly doesn't mean that every member of that group is exempt from paying taxes themselves. (though that would be a great recruiting tool for most religions) The military has the right to maintain nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean every member of the military has that same right. Congress has the right to declare war, but every individual member does not does not. Government has the right to impose taxes, yet every single member of government does not have that right individually. In your attempt to support your initial argument, you're badly confusing rights with authority or duties. Implementing taxes or national defense is not a civil liberty. A benefit (tax exempt status) is not either. So do you have any actual examples? The closest I can think of would be collective bargaining agreements (ie, unions), but that won't qualify either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #74 July 8, 2009 QuoteUnfortunately for YOU, the Supremes trump your opinion, and the Founding Fathers no longer have any say in the matter. The FF's DO have a say in the fact that they wrote the Constitution... YOU may want to throw it out, but it is the basis for this Country's freedoms YOU seem to enjoy. QuoteThe Supremes decide what the law IS and what the Constitution MEANS. Not you. And the SC has stated that the militia is any bodied male willing to take up arms. The SC has said that those men should be equipped with what is in common military use at the time. The SC has said that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. Yet YOU support bans which have been ruled Unconstitutional. Sorry for YOU. Maybe YOU can show ONE quote from a Founding Father to support a ban? Cause the SC was not able to do it. Most people when they find they are unable to support their position with facts.... Admit their position is not valid. YOU seem not able to do that and hold to your belief without a shred of data."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #75 July 8, 2009 QuoteWhy should someone who has so much contempt for the country and his/her fellow citizens that he or she won't pay their fair share towards the costs of running the country benefit from the rights that the country bestows on its honest supportive citizens? A tax fraud steals from everyone Why would YOU support taking that right from everyone?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
