The Right To Bear Arms

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama's recently commissioned study found guns are used as many times for lawful self-defense as they are crimes.

why not show us the exact quote???

 

[regent]

While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.

This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.

What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.

Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government

.

I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.
As to the liberal government, General MacArthur said this in his farewell speech: "For the framers were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

MacArthur at the time was still being thought of as a Republican candidate for president.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.

What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.

Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government

.

I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.
As to the liberal government, General MacArthur said this in his farewell speech: "For the framers were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

MacArthur at the time was still being thought of as a Republican candidate for president.

dear, when he said liberal he meant classical liberal or limited government liberal. Milton Friedman called himself a liberal too,.... because he was for limited government.

See why we say slow?

 

[Geaux4it]

You have the right to wear a short sleeve shirt ........... its time for the culling ............ Check Mate sheeple, goodnight & Godspeed.

Who will do the culling?

We might as well cut to the chase

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

-Geaux:

 

[regent]

What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.

Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government

.

I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.
As to the liberal government, General MacArthur said this in his farewell speech: "For the framers were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

MacArthur at the time was still being thought of as a Republican candidate for president.

dear, when he said liberal he meant classical liberal or limited government liberal. Milton Friedman called himself a liberal too,.... because he was for limited government.

See why we say slow?

I think there is considerably more to the political ideology of liberalism than limited government. I'm sure Liberalism has far more components than just limited government.
I don't think MacArthur was using just one component of of an ideology in labeling the founders liberal. If MacArthur made an error it was generalizing about the founders, they were of different beliefs but the Declaration of Independence was pure Locke and the Constitution somewhat Locke.
Friedman being for limited government does not make him a liberal no matter the classical liberal label. So what is the correct definition of liberalism you might start with the core beliefs?

 

[legaleagle_45]

I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.

OK, here is a top secret historical truth that you will never learn in High School.

The Bill of Rights was a political ploy unleashed by the anti-federalists in a desperate effort to prevent the Constituion from being ratified.

There, I said it, now you must promise not to tell anyone else.

Here is what occurred.

A growing political movement was gaining momentum to strengthen the powers of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation.. most agreed that some change was necessary and it was agreed to establish a Federal Convention to recommend AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

Now what many people did not know was that in order to amend the Articles of Confederation, it was necessary to obtain the consent of 100% of the states. As a result, many of the leading Anti-Federalists decided not to attend the federal convention, safe in the knowledge that their state had veto power over any proposed amendment and they could pick and choose the proposals they liked and ignore those that they did not. As a result, the Federalists dominated the Federal Convention even though politically they represented only a minority view in the country in 1787

The Federalist threw the anti federalists a curve when they did not propose any amendments to the Articles, instead they proposed that the Articles be thrown on the dustbin of history and replaced with an entirely new Constituion. What is worse, it only required 9 states to appove it and not 100% approval. Further, it was an all or nothing poposal.. The only alternatives were to ratify the Constituion or reject it, they could not pick and choose. This put the antifeds at a great disadvantage because the people wanted SOMETHING and the newly proposed Constituion was something... maybe not perfect, but far better than the Articles. The antifeds were livid.

The Federalists got out of the gate running and a litlle over 2 months later, Delaware became the 1st state to ratify... the antifeds were in shock and in a total stae of disarray. Next up was Pennsylvania and finally the antifeds got their act together. Pennsylvania ratified, but at least the antifederalists were able to mount some opposition. They issued a minority report which seemed reasonable enough.. send the Constitution back to Convention for a few adjustments, such as the addition of a Bill of Rights.

The proposal fom the Pennsylvania Minority was actually a poison pill, and the leaders of both the anti feds and the feds knew this. The reason why is because if a new convention was convened to amend the the constituion to add a Bill of Rights, the anti feds would not stay at home this time. They would dominate the new convention and trash the Constituion.

The Bill of Rights was the one thing that gained traction with the people and there was a real threat that a new covention would be called. The federalists pulled out all the stops, claiming that not only was a BoR not necessary, but it was also dangerous... They also claimed that no list of rights could be complete, but the exclusion from the list would mean they were lost.. the feds were grasping at straws trying to convince the people that it was dangerous to protect the right to free speech and freedom of religion and a jury trial...

The antifederalists now had the upper hand, pointing to the federalists opposition to something as basic as a BoR created suspiscion as to the motives of the federalists... why can't we just send it back for some amendments?

It seemed certain at that point that ratification would fail and the Constitution lost forever. And then a miracle...

THE MASSACHUSETTS COMPROMISE

This was a deal brokered between a moderate faction of anti federalists (led by Sam Adams) and the federalists wherin the antifeds would vote to ratify if there was an express direction that the 1st Congress propose a Bill of Rights for Ratification by the states. .. and Massachusetts barely ratified the Constituion.

Other states quickly mimicked the Massachusetts Compromise with the ratification made with an express directive that a Bill of Rights be proposed by the 1st Congress.

Any truly knowledgeable historian will tell you that without the Massachusetts compromise, we would have neither a Constitution or a Bill of Rights...

and that is the hidden history of the political infighting that occured with the ratification of our Constitution. The feds were not really philosophically opposed to the BoR's and the antifeds were not the benovolent protectors of the individual rights of the people. For many of the leading players, it was nothing more than political posturing to achieve political ends.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

You have the right to wear a short sleeve shirt ........... its time for the culling ............ Check Mate sheeple, goodnight & Godspeed.

Who will do the culling?

We might as well cut to the chase

-Geaux

As you know every sheep herder cares very much for his sheep, but he also realizes that one day the sheep must be culled.
Eg. Lets say I am touring or inspecting one of my factories, and I turn left when I should have turned right ............. and my left arm gets mangled up on one of the factories machines, like all mashed up in the gears .......... the doctors must amputate.
A database shows there is a man near by that is a genetic & size match to myself.
Now that guns will soon be gone, we won't have to worry about the donor putting up a fight with his guns and risk damaging my new arm in a shootout with police.
No ........ he will be brought to the hospital in complete and total submission, just like in South America when I got a kidney transplant.
Yea I am sure that some will argue that he has the right to bear arms, but so do I, if you think about it, his arms belong to me anyway as I am a wealthy person.

 

[Geaux4it]

Just let me know when my street number comes up and who will have the fortitude to deliver the news

Standing by

-Geaux

 

[Spoonman]

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

now if your opinion only mattered

 

[Lakhota]

FACT: The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

 

[Lakhota]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

 

[Geaux4it]

FACT: The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!

 

[M14 Shooter]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

Fact:
I thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[OKTexas]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

FACT SCOTUS said it is an individual right, period, end of story.

Does that make it less confusing for you.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

Only to morons like you.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[TheOldSchool]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

Holy Smokes!!!!!!!

Lakhota!!!!!!

 

[Vigilante]

 

[OKTexas]

I liked her better with the blue eyes.