Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I read the entire Constitution and Articles of Confederation. Some observations.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I can now count myself among the 18-33% of Americans who have actually read the entire document.

Some interesting observations:

*The Constitution supports gun control. Amendment II is not about protecting hobbyists. Nor is it even about allowing people to fortify their castle and protect their family, at least not primarily so.

The exact wording of the amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This isn't saying there should be a firearms free for all and that a citizen should be able to own any type of weapon they want no matter what. What it's saying is that the state shouldn't have a monopoly on fire power because there needs to be a check against tyranny.

*The first sentence of the Constitution makes a framework for socialism. Quote: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to Posterity..."

This is specifically stating that the government of this country has some duty to create some kind of safety net for the less fortunate. The framers would have found the idea of a socially Darwinian laissez-faire economy to be disagreeable if not downright deplorable. You might argue that they are saying that private charity is what they mean, but I would disagree because the Constitution's purpose is to define the responsibilities of the government.

*In order for a state to secede, according to the Articles of Confederation, not only would its exit have to be approved by Congress, it would have to be approved by every single other state.

Personally I disagree with this because in my opinion it makes the idea that a state is a sovereign entity void and meaningless, but this is what the Articles of Confederation say. It would take an alteration of the document or a nationwide loss of faith in the Union for secession of a state to be a realistic possibility.
edit on 25-3-2013 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-3-2013 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I was under the impression that the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, so it's not all that important for the current rule of law; but it does help to see how the current laws and the current constitution came about from what we had beforehand.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


not trying to self promote my own thread.
but read this and check out the links.
then read what the framers thought.www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
You should check out Ron Chernow's "Alexander Hamilton", a lot of priceless information in there.

Also, you might be interested in checking out "The Curse of Alexander Hamilton" on youtube, it brings the conversation into today's context. Granted they speaker is a libertarian, it's still a great video.

To get a little off topic, if I hadn't already...

The Constitution is meant to fail, especially considering the perception of it being a living document and subject to change. Not to mention the countless disregards for the original meaning behind the texts. There's an expiration date of between 225-250 years for the Constitution and it's here.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   


The exact wording of the amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The constitution supports "gun control"



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It also doesn't limit the type of weapons. There are commas after each statement for a reason. Each has an importance and stand on their own.

You intimate that they may have a right to regulate certain weapons yet also state this was placed in there as a check against tyranny. Should the people still have muskets while those that may become the tyrants have sophisticated weapons? How would that check out?

I don't own a weapon, but I still want that right should I feel the need for protecting myself.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
looks like the op is just ignoring what he has read



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


A small piece of unsolicited advice - take a course in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - then take a separate course on the Articles of Confederation. That way you won't be your own "professor" and you will have engaged yourself with other students, which is what learning is really all about, rather than relying on yourself as "your own teacher." I say this because your explanation, while sincere, is woefully inadequate - even for the GED intellectual level of the average ATS poster.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment referring to a well-regulated militia.


Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm
- Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

I think the National Guard is a pretty well regulated militia. But because our violent revolution was so recent, relatively, people here still cling to guns as a subconscious safety blanket. Personally I wish there were no more guns. Sick of them already.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroReady
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment referring to a well-regulated militia.


Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm
- Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

I think the National Guard is a pretty well regulated militia. But because our violent revolution was so recent, relatively, people here still cling to guns as a subconscious safety blanket. Personally I wish there were no more guns. Sick of them already.




The issue I have here is state's right have been usurped via the commerce clause as well as by other federal regulations. The purse strings are in the hands of the central government. Fundamentally states rights are meaningless and the National Guard is controlled by the DoD.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Exactly!

"Guns should only be the hands of the government and my personal bodyguards."
~every major gun control advocate~



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


The exact wording of the amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The constitution supports "gun control"



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Now go read the federalist papers.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Trying reading the constitution and the bill of rights and finish with the declaration of independence.


So who is twisting what?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
the 2nd ammendment is about defense against britain and spain. the founding fathers did not want a standing army, they wanted militias.

it's very misunderstood



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Exactly!

"Guns should only be the hands of the government and my personal bodyguards."
~every major gun control advocate~



Love the way you try to put words in people's mouth.

Everyone has a basic right to a gun the same way every one has a right to have a child but if you are molesting the child, maybe kids aren't for you. Sure guns are legal but they aren't for everyone and the NRA pretending they are is irresponsible. Guns should not be pushed like candy to everyone and their insane uncle.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Trying reading the constitution and the bill of rights and finish with the declaration of independence.


So who is twisting what?



Why don't you just reference the Article and Section where it says this.




Armed and trained to be an equal footing as "government" forces


I don't think LIAR is too strong a word.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 





Why don't you just reference the Article and Section where it says this


Right there:


Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Right here:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government


www.archives.gov...

Same people wrote both of those what the hell were they suppose to use harsh words ?
edit on 25-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


So glad you read it, but ou don't understand it yet.

Look up the definition of welfare for that time period, it had nothing to do with a safety. It had to do with securing our borders and keeping the people safe to promote their own welfare.


You will not have a complete understanding of the founders intentions until you read the federalist papers, then get back to us.

Please remember words had different meanings then, than what the left says they mean now.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


Also, the founders wrote the constitution to RESTRICT the government, not give it responsibilities.





new topics




 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join