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.

 

Second Amendment and urban violence

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Well Don I am assuming you are referring to article VI.

" the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

"Freedom of Speech" in Article V is for Congressmen only.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

I saw no reference to "Freedom of the Press" nor "Freedom of Religion"

Don, using the "Articles of Confederation" to backup your claim that the 2A is not for the "People" but only for a militia is wrong.

We are not using the "Articles of Confederation" as the law of the land.

You are comparing Shetland pony to a Quarter horse and affirming that the pony is better.

Roper




posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   


posted by Roper

" . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

(1) Using the "Articles of Confederation" to backup your claim that the 2A is not for the "People" but only for a militia is wrong. We are not using the "Articles of Confederation" as the law of the land. Roper [Edited by Don W]



There are 2 reasons I recited the Article 6, Paragraph 4 from the Articles of Confederation. 1) It is written in easy to understand English. The later written Second Amendment is not. 2) It plainly recites that the arms are to be kept in public “stores” or places. A place we'd call an armory.

Argument. I submit it is not a good idea to go to war with a mix of weapons. For many reasons it is essential to have common weapons. The range and lethality of the troop’s weapons should be uniform so commanders can make the best use of the available firepower. Further, the task of supplying spare parts and ammunition for an assortment of weapons would be more costly, more complex and would be counter-productive. Also I believe weapons were very expensive then, and that very few young men owned firearms.


[edit on 1/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   


There are 2 reasons I recited the Article 6, Paragraph 4 from the Articles of Confederation. 1) It is written in easy to understand English. The later written Second Amendment is not. 2) It plainly recites that the arms are to be kept in public “stores” or places. A place we'd call an armory.


Let me help you out with #1.

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state ( all states may have a citizen army that is not under the US military.)

The right of the people ( that's you and me) to keep ( in the home) and bear ( on your person) arms, shall not be infringed. ( no government or person may take this right from us)

Seems very straight forward to me.

As Admiral Yamamoto is reputed to have said, “You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Roper



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   


posted by Roper

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state ( all states may have a citizen army that is not under the US military.)

The right of the people ( that's you and me) to keep ( in the home) and bear ( on your person) arms, shall not be infringed. ( no government or person may take this right from us) Seems very straight forward to me.

As Admiral Yamamoto is reputed to have said, “You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Roper [Edied by Don W]




This following is what the US Con says about militias. Note the Con was written in 1787, but the Second Amendment was written later, in 1789, and was ratified in 1791.

US Con. Article I, Sec. 8 [The Congress shall have power], Cl. 15: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union . . Cl. 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States . . training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . “

Reading Section 8, Clause 15 and 16, shows me the FFs had a penchant for commas. It will help to get the “feel” of what the FFs had in mind if you read the 2nd Amendment without commas. As if one unpunctuated sentence. The Amendment is about militias. I assume you would agree there are no militias in 2007. As to your offer of re-defining “people” I see no reason not to think 1) the FFs said what they meant or 2) could have said what you would like to see it say which it does not.

Sorry, Mr R, I can’t give a passing grade here.


[edit on 1/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here ya go Don , words form the Founding Fathers.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

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 ruined.

[W]hen 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

I'll stop for now, enjoy!

Roper



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join