The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[rightwinger]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

 

[Tennyson]

It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

Dear Boss
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.

Emilynghiem,

Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc.

James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:

All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.

Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​

Thank you Tennyson
Again, this source already comes from the bias that
* God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
vs
* secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose

The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
not excluded or discriminated against.

I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.

But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
beliefs of starting with Govt as the default. That's how they set up their priorities,
and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.

Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?

Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
but is the default truth?

I was not advocating; just adding a little historical context.

I am not sure that the word “bias” is an accurate description of James Wilson’s statements as they were the prevailing thoughts and the ideological concepts that formed the basis of our government and were consummated with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution, the laws, etc. were not applicable to the people or the states, and Wilson was referring to the very limited power the federal government had. The people and their beliefs were governed by the most proximate government: their local and state governments. These were very responsive to the people and could be replaced quickly and easily to create the government the people can choose for themselves. This was federalism.

Expressing oneself was a fully functional state concept, not a federal concept. This is how the majority in a state or municipality could make their own religious accommodations. That is how Rhode Island was created.

The belief system and mindset of the liberal secular does not set-up the framework the same way etc. is readily addressed above at the state and local level. The great thing about the concept of the people being governed by the most proximate government, which is their local and state governments, is that it precludes a bitterly divided country such as the one we have now because federalism does not allow these divisive issue to have a national forum.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

The problem is, our country is not established on a secular belief system. God is essential for "inalienable" rights, otherwise, man can alienate those rights at will. So the entire premise we are founded upon rests on the belief in a God who endowed us with rights. You are not obligated to believe in God but that doesn't mean you can change our system to fit your beliefs.

Dear Boss
People still defend the choice whether to BELIEVE or not in God and this understanding that
our country was established on that.

Many people come from a background where natural rights are not from God as the source
of both natural laws and spiritual laws.

I have struggled to wrap my mind around this realization the Atheists/secularist minds
that don't come from this God based background
REALLY DO BELIEVE they have nothing and rely on GOVT as the default for deciding and enforcing central laws.

That is what their belief system is based on
An inherent BELIEF not to start with God as the base
but depending solely on secular authority as the "default"

So if we are going to get anywhere with respecting and protecting the God-based belief
at the very least we need to agree to
respect and protect the secular-govt-based belief system
as having the right to exercise this on their own.

From there, we can figure out
how the heck we're going to agree on govt from two different positions.

But we can't get ANYWHERE if both camps keep cutting down each other as wrong and invalid.

Boss are there really 4 party positions and political beliefs?
Liberal Democrats A and B. The ones who bully and will not respect other sides' beliefs
except if theirs are in control. And A who treat the others equally and will work toward
a common default position where the other views can be under that umbrella.

Conservative Republicans A and B. The ones who bully and will not accept any other beliefs
except in relation to theirs as the established framework. And A who treat the others equally
and will include each other instead of fighting to coerce or exclude unless the other side changes.

is this what we need to present to our party and govt leaders?
A plan for mapping out how to deal with these FOUR factions
so they don't obstruct and destroy their own parties, each other and the nation???

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

Dear Boss
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.

Emilynghiem,

Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc.

James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:

All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.

Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​

Thank you Tennyson
Again, this source already comes from the bias that
* God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
vs
* secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose

The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
not excluded or discriminated against.

I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.

But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
beliefs of starting with Govt as the default. That's how they set up their priorities,
and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.

Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?

Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
but is the default truth?

I was not advocating; just adding a little historical context.

I am not sure that the word “bias” is an accurate description of James Wilson’s statements as they were the prevailing thoughts and the ideological concepts that formed the basis of our government and were consummated with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution, the laws, etc. were not applicable to the people or the states, and Wilson was referring to the very limited power the federal government had. The people and their beliefs were governed by the most proximate government: their local and state governments. These were very responsive to the people and could be replaced quickly and easily to create the government the people can choose for themselves. This was federalism.

Expressing oneself was a fully functional state concept, not a federal concept. This is how the majority in a state or municipality could make their own religious accommodations. That is how Rhode Island was created.

The belief system and mindset of the liberal secular does not set-up the framework the same way etc. is readily addressed above at the state and local level. The great thing about the concept of the people being governed by the most proximate government, which is their local and state governments, is that it precludes a bitterly divided country such as the one we have now because federalism does not allow these divisive issue to have a national forum.

??? Tennyson
I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

That would be great if you are saying the correct way of teaching pro-federal govt
is actually what states rights activists are also saying. But then what was the big feud over if these agree???

 

[Boss]

So if we are going to get anywhere with respecting and protecting the God-based belief
at the very least we need to agree to
respect and protect the secular-govt-based belief system
as having the right to exercise this on their own.

But I can't respect that because it's not true. Our government is not "secular-government-based" and never has been. It is unique and exceptional among governments. The foundation is our inalienable rights which come from our Creator and not man. It's fine if you choose not to believe in a Creator but it doesn't change where your freedom to have that belief came from. And that's the gist of the problem with the secular left, they want to strip God from government and claim we have a secular-based system which completely destroys the unique exceptionalism of our system and makes us just like many other forms of government which have failed.

I am a non-religious Spiritualist who believes in a God more in line with Spinoza's. I fundamentally disagree with some Christian social conservatives who think we are supposed to impose Biblical laws on society. That said, I defend their right to hold those beliefs and lobby for them in the public square. Indeed, most (if not all) our laws are rooted in some religious dogmatic belief. This is why you see the 10 Commandments carved into the granite over the Supreme Court.

 

[Tennyson]

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

Dear Boss
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.

Emilynghiem,

Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc.

James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:

All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.

Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​

Thank you Tennyson
Again, this source already comes from the bias that
* God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
vs
* secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose

The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
not excluded or discriminated against.

I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.

But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
beliefs of starting with Govt as the default. That's how they set up their priorities,
and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.

Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?

Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
but is the default truth?

I was not advocating; just adding a little historical context.

I am not sure that the word “bias” is an accurate description of James Wilson’s statements as they were the prevailing thoughts and the ideological concepts that formed the basis of our government and were consummated with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution, the laws, etc. were not applicable to the people or the states, and Wilson was referring to the very limited power the federal government had. The people and their beliefs were governed by the most proximate government: their local and state governments. These were very responsive to the people and could be replaced quickly and easily to create the government the people can choose for themselves. This was federalism.

Expressing oneself was a fully functional state concept, not a federal concept. This is how the majority in a state or municipality could make their own religious accommodations. That is how Rhode Island was created.

The belief system and mindset of the liberal secular does not set-up the framework the same way etc. is readily addressed above at the state and local level. The great thing about the concept of the people being governed by the most proximate government, which is their local and state governments, is that it precludes a bitterly divided country such as the one we have now because federalism does not allow these divisive issue to have a national forum.

??? Tennyson
I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

That would be great if you are saying the correct way of teaching pro-federal govt
is actually what states rights activists are also saying. But then what was the big feud over if these agree???

Federalism was the design created by the framers that explicitly defined the respective spheres of federal authority and state authority. This was the cause and debate regarding Article I, Section 8, which are the enumerated powers of the federal government. James Wilson authored the necessary and proper clause and he explained it in this manner as well. The federalism created was the federal government had the powers enumerated and the states kept all the powers of sovereign states that they had under the Articles of Confederation.

The concept of “people” was not a factor. This was the states, via the deputies, creating a compact between the states and the federal government. The “people” were discussed in the context of the creation of a bill of rights after ratification of the Constitution.

The power to check the collective power was the Senate because it was created to represent the states and the Senators were not elected. This important power was destroyed with the Seventeenth Amendment.

 

[Boss]

I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike

I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.

Silly me.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

Dear Skull Pilot and Vandalshandle
The same way I would not take the 2nd Amendment out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights,
but interpret "right of people to bear arms" as "law abiding citizens" (meaning within the CONTEXT of
defending laws not violating them, with respect to due process and not depriving anyone of rights
to life liberty or property or other principles)

Why not enforce this condition with nuclear arms as well:
that countries must also pledge to enforce those same basic rights and due process of laws,
and in order to proactively interact with other countries,
show a record of having diplomatically resolved conflicts and enforced laws by consensus,
before using armed forces to police threats by other countries.

If all they have is a record of aggression and complaints of coercion or abuse,
they'd have to go back and resolve those and restore good faith relations first,
in order to establish a record of diplomatic peacekeeping to justify using arms for policing.

We cannot force citizens in another country to do anything

And yes when I use the term gun owner I imply that they are legally eligible to have firearms

Unfortunately the people here who want to deny people the right to own guns don't make that distinction so to them a bunch of gang bangers with multiple felony convictions are included in their count of gun owners

 

[emilynghiem]

I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

 

[rightwinger]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

 

[Skull Pilot]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

 

[rightwinger]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike

I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.

Silly me.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

 

[ding]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase

I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.

Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides. A sure sign of too much estrogen. You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.

 

[ding]

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead

You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?

For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You keep making a logical fallacy argument. Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?

Repeating that nonsense does not make it true

Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now

No, what makes it true is that fact that it works. An armed populace does keep the government in check.

 

[ding]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

Yep, let's let the states handle gay marriage and abortions too.

 

[ding]

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike

I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.

Silly me.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yep... God forbid. And God forbid that tails don't wag dogs too.

 

[ding]

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.

An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.

deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....

To be fair... it does have pearl handles. Besides I like MY chance better with a gun rather than without a gun. Guns aren't for everyone. A gun may not be for you. Some women and effeminate men don't have the hand strength to work the slide. Some women and effeminate men are scared of loud noises. At the end of the day, I fully respect your right to go into battle unarmed and unable to protect any of your loved ones. I won't look at you as any less of a man. I promise.

Common, Ding, no way you can be 55 years old. Are you going to beat me up at recess?

I probably already did when we were kids. I did that to bullies a lot when I was younger. Yes, I'm 55. Sicilians have great genes and lots of guns too.