It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Only 2 Gun Laws By Obama Total---Both Benefit Gun Owners --0 Guns BANNED in 5.5 Years

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Gryphon66
For those who aren't repelled by scholarly work, here is an excellent paper by Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm on 17th century English constitutional history. There is an excellent basis to understand the historic relationship between gun ownership and responsibility for participation in the militia that would have informed our Founder's opinions.

The Role of the Militia in the Development of the Englishman's Right to be Armed -- Clarifying the Legacy

ADDED IN EDIT: Be advised, this is basically an ANTI- gun control piece. Dr. Malcolm is a conservative scholar.

But she knows her 17th century history. She argues that, interestingly enough, the Second Amendment is also a citizen control against the militia as well.

Good history though.
edit on 16Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:51:33 -050014p042014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)


I agree with your edit, because this is an anti-gun control stance by the author. In fact, I would suggest that you posted a scholarly article that agrees with the points I was making. I had a full rebuttal to your stance, but, since you edited that it was actually an anti-gun control article, you certainly took the wind out of my sails. However, since it is on the floor for discussion, let me explore it a bit.

First of all, the author explores the militia concept of the English monarchy. Given that we fought a revolution with the whole purpose of rejecting the crown, the English monarchal system is not an accurate reflection of the beliefs of the founding fathers, RE the militia.

However, I understand and agree that the FF were influenced by English common law, as well as the Roman sense of jurisprudence and enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke. However, "influenced" does not automatically mean "agree with."

In the article we are informed that, under the monarchal militia system, the entire purpose was to protect the monarchy.



A convention was elected to settle the throne and restore the ancient

constitution. Its members were determined to protect their liberties

from future royal encroachment. High on their agenda of outrages

suffered, they placed the disarmament of law-abiding citizens.




"An Act of Parliament", Sir John Maynard fumed, "was made to disarm all

Englishmen, whom the Lieutenant should suspect, by day or night, by

force or otherwise."[18] Sir Richard Temple agreed the militia act had

given the Crown "power to disarm all England. Hugh Boscawen complained

that the militia, "under pretence of persons disturbing the Government,

disarmed and imprisoned men without any cause" adding, "I myself was so

dealt with."

The monarchy wanted to disarm anyone who was a threat to the monarchy and establish and protect the power of the monarchy over the citizens. There was no Alex Jones in England in the 1600's so are we to label Sir Temple an "Alex Jones InfoWar nutjob" too?.

Those people who protested the King disarming the citizens said similar things to what I have said in this thread. Let's look at Blackstone, quoted in the article you provided:


To enable them to vindicate their rights, if these were violated,

Blackstone explains that the subjects of England were entitled, in the

first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in

the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and

parliament for redress of grievances, and lastly to the right of having

and using arms for self-preservation and defense.[


WOW. Seems like he agrees with me-- in fact the author agrees with me totally.



Where does this leave the American Second Amendment, with its reference

to a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state,

and its insistence that the right of the people to keep and bear arms

shall not be infringed? I would argue that the Second Amendment mirrors

English belief in the individual's right to be armed, the importance of

that right to the preservation of liberty, and the preference for a

militia over a standing army.



The main clause of the Second Amendment preserves one of those rights of

Englishmen we Americans had fought for, and preserves it as Blackstone

understood it -- a right to be armed for individual self defense and to

preserve essential liberties. Americans had never copied English

restrictions on the right so it was not surprising that in contrast to

the English right's religious and class restrictions and caveat that the

right was "as allowed by law" the American amendment forbid

any"infringement" upon the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.




The American Amendment FORBID ANY infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I've demonstrated that, in general, our FF rejected the notion of gun control by the state, but there are specific issues that are very interesting. From the article:


The Militia Act passed by

a royalist parliament in 1662 perpetuated the trend started under the

republic but granted the militia even broader powers to disarm

Englishmen. Any two deputies could search for and seize of the arms of

anyone they regarded as "dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom."

Our FF rejected that notion. How do I know? I'll say that in a second.

IN the monarchal system they also had this:


The militia's power to disarm suspicious persons was part of a broader

campaign to restrict weapons. The import of firearms was banned, a

license was required to transport guns, and royal proclamations forbid

anyone who had fought for parliament from carrying weapons. Gunsmiths

were ordered to submit weekly lists of those who bought the weapons they

made.Text


Holy #! The crown had everything you support: registration, lists, banning of imports, licenses, and banning of carrying weapons! See! The FF envisioned all of those things because they existed and they REJECTED them!

They rejected them so much they encoded it in the Constitution:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No keeping lists there. No "Any two deputies could search for and seize of the arms of

anyone they regarded as "dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom." You had to have frigging warrant, man. The founding fathers rejected every "reasonable method" you propose and to say that they would is idiotic based on the very article you brought to the table.

But, I'm not done. This is why I laugh when you said, "for those who are not repelled by scholarly work," because it is very ironic in that, before you edited your post, it was obvious that you either did not fully read the article you cited or did not understand it.

The author ends with this (and in most "scholarly works," the ending is the primary point):


The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Evening Post of Thursday, June 18,

1789, in language reminiscent of the English legacy, explained to

readers the purpose of the article which became the Second Amendment:



As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly 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 ... in their right to keep and bear

their private arms.[


The people are confirmed in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Man, thank you for proving my point.



(post by NavyDoc removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


For us THEY ARE NOT and we can handle what may come ,if the people believe as we do. You have NO idea so stop with the slanderous observations of MY expertise.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Skymon612

NthOther
How many executive orders has he signed regarding the matter?


Obama has signed less EO's than Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, and Carter

Just facts for you. Google it.



Considering he denounced using Executive Orders to side step Congress while he was campaigning I'd say it doesn't matter if he signed less or not.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Double Post -
edit on 21Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:34:53 -050014p092014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


For us THEY ARE NOT and we can handle what may come ,if the people believe as we do. You have NO idea so stop with the slanderous observations of MY expertise.


Can you point out my "slanderous observations" of your expertise, please?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
For anyone (else) interested in continuing the discussion, who can realize that not everyone is a mere simple repeat-o-bot for the talking points of one side or the other when they happen to disagree on some points, I think you may find Dr. Malcolm's article provides a lot of historical basis for the discussion.

I noted that in my post where I provided the link to the article.

The interesting part to me that I had not considered BEFORE I read her article, was that the Founders might have been just as concerned about the abuse of the Militia as the abuse of a Standing Army. Which really does lend credit to the concept that the 2nd does not relate merely to service in the State militias (a point which, by-the-by, I have never made).

I really do think it has more to do with the desire to establish a more classless society, since in their English heritage, while there was a "right to bear arms" that was only afforded to those of a certain landed income or status.

Ah well, so much for history. Back to the thread.

So, many of you are convinced that President Obama, despite the laws that he has recommended and supported, is a part of the liberal-progressive desire to completely disarm the American people. Is that right, or is that an exaggerated statement?

Given that, you see any action that limits, controls, records gun ownership in any shape, form or fashion is a part of that effort, or a first step toward a complete disarmament of the American people, is that a fair statement?






edit on 21Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:20:25 -050014p092014466 by Gryphon66 because: Trying to learn



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by NavyDoc removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I also wonder, additionally, for those of you who consider yourselves avid supporters of the 2nd, were you concerned about these matters under the GW Bush administration? For all intents and purposes, the same laws were in place ... being enforced in the same ways.

Why do you think the Obama administration scares you more?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Gryphon66
I also wonder, additionally, for those of you who consider yourselves avid supporters of the 2nd, were you concerned about these matters under the GW Bush administration? For all intents and purposes, the same laws were in place ... being enforced in the same ways.

Why do you think the Obama administration scares you more?


I dunno, perhaps you could provide us with some more "scholarly articles."



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I was a freshman in high school when President Reagan got shot. A short time later, for the first time in my life, I started hearing about "gun control." As I was living in a fairly rural part of western Georgia at the time, one can imagine that everyone I knew owned guns, loved guns, used guns. My family owned a double-barrel 12 gauge, a 30-30, a .32 pistol. I remember a few people grumbling but I don't remember anyone freaking out about "they're coming for our guns."

Of course, I guess the NRA and the gun lobby were only a few years into their marketing efforts at that point, 1981 ...

I do remember that to get a hunting license for the first time, we had to take and complete a hunter's safety course. Most of us hunted on our family's own land and we didn't even really need a license ... I guess it was just a status thing.

I don't remember feeling like my rights were being violated though, having to pass a test to use my family's guns on my family's land to hunt my family's own game ... and they voted Republican, LOL.
edit on 21Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:51:07 -050014p092014466 by Gryphon66 because: just cause.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The bottom line is, the only thing he did was pass a law to let you do something you already have a right to do.

If it weren't for the hundreds or thousands of gun laws already on the books infringing on your rights as explained in the 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have to pass a law to give you the "right" to do something you already had a right to do.

Gee thanks, I'm forever grateful.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Gryphon66
I was a freshman in high school when President Reagan got shot. A short time later, for the first time in my life, I started hearing about "gun control." As I was living in a fairly rural part of western Georgia at the time, one can imagine that everyone I knew owned guns, loved guns, used guns. My family owned a double-barrel 12 gauge, a 30-30, a .32 pistol. I remember a few people grumbling but I don't remember anyone freaking out about "they're coming for our guns."

Of course, I guess the NRA and the gun lobby were only a few years into their marketing efforts at that point, 1981 ...

I do remember that to get a hunting license for the first time, we had to take and complete a hunter's safety course. Most of us hunted on our family's own land and we didn't even really need a license ... I guess it was just a status thing.

I don't remember feeling like my rights were being violated though, having to pass a test to use my family's guns on my family's land to hunt my family's own game ... and they voted Republican, LOL.
edit on 21Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:51:07 -050014p092014466 by Gryphon66 because: just cause.


I guess you don't remember much, because that incident started yet another big debate on gun control and banning guns. This is where Sarah Brady of the Brady Organization, later named hand gun control incorporated got its start with a platform of banning handguns.

The NRA responded against the call from the left to ban guns--something they do with every tragedy--using it to push their political agenda. But hey," never let a crisis go to waste," right?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 


So, you believe that the 2nd provides a carte blanche license to any and all Americans to own and carry any firearm anywhere they want, any time they want?

And no registration, licensing, permits, or restrictions on prior criminal record, or mental capacity, or ... any measure have any effect?

"Shall not infringe" means government has nothing to say about firearms?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by mwood
 


So, you believe that the 2nd provides a carte blanche license to any and all Americans to own and carry any firearm anywhere they want, any time they want?

And no registration, licensing, permits, or restrictions on prior criminal record, or mental capacity, or ... any measure have any effect?

"Shall not infringe" means government has nothing to say about firearms?


That's exactly what they meant based in the article you referenced for us.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 

Of course I speak of this:

"I guess I don't fool myself. When the US Government wants one of us, or a group of us, or a city ... it will have it. These fantasies of armed rebellion are, for most of us, cinematic distractions."
By obvious intimation you are indeed slandering ME and mine as fools
Anything ELSE you require educating on?
I'm not an academician just the 2 AAs and the BA I'm going for now obfuscating speech is not too hard to figure out however.
the fact is the entire armed force of the United States military couldn't hold the western states,maybe the COASTAL areas but not for long.



new topics




 
27
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join