Gun Laws Debate - Pine Bush, NY

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Pine Bush, NY.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Pine Bush thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
3
Yes
 
0
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Pine Bush:

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 33 of33
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Watch Eye

Urbandale, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 10, 2013
 
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Historian Garry Wills has made an attempt at claiming the above. An online article, from the gun control group Join Together, reports Wills as writing "any claims that the Constitution ensures an armed citizenry as a bulwark against the potential tyranny of government is a myth [emphasis added].'You can't read the amendment apart from the body of the Constitution,' he wrote,'and the body of the Constitution defines taking up arms against the United States as treason.' " [quoting Wills from his book, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (1999)]

A myth? Not according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811):

"The importance of this article [the Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." [emphasis added]
---Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, CHAPTER XLIV, AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
(Who's commentaries on the Constitution would you give greater weight to? Historian Wills', who has very strong opinions on gun owners and gun ownership, or Justice Story's?)[1]
Of course, it's not a right of insurrection or rebellion against a constitutionally elected government that the Second Amendment protects. As Justice Story writes, the right to keep and bear arms offers protection against "usurpations of power by rulers." In fact, "[t]he Governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania were ready to call out the militia if the Federalists in Congress usurped the election of 1800 and blocked the selection of Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr as president." (Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation, Powe, L.A. Jr.)

Even James Madison, himself, wrote that the Constitution was "subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases." [emphasis original](James Madison to Daniel Webster, 15 Mar. 1833, Writings 9:604--5) James Wilson, another Founder, wrote, "a revolution principle certainly is, and certainly should be taught as a principle of the constitution of the United States, and of every State in the Union." (James Wilson, Of the Study of the Law in the United States, Lectures on Law 1791 Works 1:76--79)

None of this should be surprising, especially since the militia was initially relied upon as the "cornerstone of armed resistance to British policy" (question 3.6 from a militia FAQ). And when Congress was considering its first mlitia act, Congressman James Jackson (Georgia) commented on his vision of a militia:

"In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army."
---"The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States," Gales and Seaton, pub., 1834 (at 1853).
The fact that the militia can be called out to either suppress insurrections or act as the check of last resort is by no means contradictory. Claiming the Second Amendment does not include a check against a tyrannical government because the Constitution provides a means of suppressing insurrections, or defines as treason the taking up of arms against the government, is a non sequitur.
Watch Eye

Urbandale, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 10, 2013
 
Krulick wrote:
Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means
by Akhil Reed Amar
( http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103w... )
The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively rather than a right of "persons" individually.
<snipped for excessive flatulence>
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So evidently the 1st Amendment is collective according to Amar as it speaks to "the people".

Not to mention the 4th, 9th , & 10th.

Dershowitz and Tribe know better. Sadly, you never will. Charlatans like Amar know they have willing dupes like you to carry their ill-treated water for them.
Watch Eye

Urbandale, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jun 10, 2013
 
C'mon Krulick. Take the challenge.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcha.html

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jun 10, 2013
 
Watch Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So evidently the 1st Amendment is collective according to Amar as it speaks to "the people".
Not to mention the 4th, 9th , & 10th.
Dershowitz and Tribe know better. Sadly, you never will. Charlatans like Amar know they have willing dupes like you to carry their ill-treated water for them.
Clearly you can't read for comprehension. I've also dispatched all this in my essay, which would take too much time to repost here.

The "People" part of the 1st Amendment ONLY deals with the "assembly" part, NOT with speech, religion or press. See the difference? THOSE, not being restricted by the "people" phrase, are clearly individual rights; the latter part, because OF the PEOPLE mention, includes both COLLECTIVE and INDIVIDUAL rights FOR the members of the People Class, the Freemen who were adult white males in 1789 ONLY. Again, all this is spelled out in great detail in my essays. Same with the distinction of the other amendments using the term the PEOPLE and how it's used there and elsewhere in the Constitution.

Amar is hardly a charlatan, but a well-respected and CONSERVATIVE scholar; your mere ad hominem doesn't refute him or me.

Again, the details are in the comprehensive essays which you have YET to point out a SINGLE error in!

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jun 10, 2013
 
Watch Eye wrote:
C'mon Krulick. Take the challenge.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcha.html
The site is a joke as I can't post to it!

But I have plenty of material in my essays that proves my claim; here is one of the simplest:

Jeffersonís seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at:

http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm :

"One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following,Ďand all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established ití i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution."

Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard!

According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand."

Hereís what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792:
"Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamiltonís was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords."

Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO!

FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights, which, clearly included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights are simply not to be found there!

The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence!

And that is why one canít ignore it! In LAW, specifically in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that there IS NO "surplusage" in the Constitution! This "debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CANíT or WONíT accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS ENTIRETY!

Yet even so, based on what Madison MEANT by "bear arms," even the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia amendment!

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jun 10, 2013
 
Watch Eye wrote:
C'mon Krulick. Take the challenge.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcha.html
The site is a joke as I can't post to it!

But I have plenty of material in my essays that proves my claim; here is one of the simplest:

Jeffersonís seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at:

http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm :

"One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following,Ďand all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established ití i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution."

Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard!

According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand."

Hereís what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792:
"Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamiltonís was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords."

Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO!

FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights, which, clearly included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights are simply not to be found there!

The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence! And that is why one canít ignore it! In LAW, specifically in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that there IS NO "surplusage" in the Constitution! This "debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CANíT or WONíT accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS ENTIRETY!

IF they were not writing a narrowly focussed MILITIA AMENDMENT, they could have simply left OUT the first half! Even the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia amendment!
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jun 10, 2013
 
I am trying to respond to the "challenge" post but this forum is not letting me post. The site is a joke as there's no way to post to it! I have the answers, but I will keep trying to put them here

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jun 10, 2013
 
The "challenge" site is a joke as I can't post to it!

But I have plenty of material in my essays that proves my claim; here is one of the simplest:

Jeffersonís seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at:

http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm :

"One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following,Ďand all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established ití i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution."

Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard!

According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand."

Hereís what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792:
"Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamiltonís was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords."

Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO!

FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights, which, clearly included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights are simply not to be found there!

The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence! And that is why one canít ignore it! In LAW, specifically in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that there IS NO "surplusage" in the Constitution! This "debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CANíT or WONíT accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS ENTIRETY!

IF they were not writing a narrowly focussed MILITIA AMENDMENT, they could have simply left OUT the first half! Even the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia amendment!
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jun 10, 2013
 
The last bit, which I just squeezed in and had no room to explain about, is Madison's original draft, which proves that "bear arms" was SOLELY about having to "render military service in person" and NOT simply "carrying guns"!

In the last clause of this version (the conscientious objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military service usage.

It is implausible to contend that virtually the same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jun 10, 2013
 
Further, ALL the debates in the first Congress over this amendment, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, was about ONLY the militia and who would serve. PERIOD! NOTHING about individual gun rights or ownership. NOTHING.

The details of that debate, as well, is covered in detail in my essays, and again prove that the purpose of the amendment was about the make-up and control of the militia.
geelong

Latham, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jun 20, 2013
 
Watch Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So evidently the 1st Amendment is collective according to Amar as it speaks to "the people".
Not to mention the 4th, 9th , & 10th.
Dershowitz and Tribe know better. Sadly, you never will. Charlatans like Amar know they have willing dupes like you to carry their ill-treated water for them.
Indeed! Amar is a Joyce Foundation shill as are all of Krulick's sources.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jun 20, 2013
 
geelong wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed! Amar is a Joyce Foundation shill as are all of Krulick's sources.
Ah, more ad hominem fallacies instead of actual refutation! I suppose James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Storey, James Wilson, Luther Martin, Elbridge Gerry, and ALL my PRIMARY SOURCES from the late 18th and early 19th century were "Joyce Foundation shills"!!! LOL!

Once you use the absolutist claim "all" you are easily refuted by showing ANY sources that don't meet your claim.

Again, I ask anyone to point to SPECIFIC points I made, or the ORIGINAL sources I cited, and show where I am using inaccurate or irrelevant material.
Our Rights!

Goshen, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jun 23, 2013
 
"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 second amendment to the US Constitution). When our rights were being jepordized the 13 colomies of great britain rose up and fought the American Revolution. On July 4, 1776 we declared ourselves independent and free. We made it so that all citizens had equal rights. We have been a free nation for over 200 years as it remains today. Though as time passes so do the priorities and the values of our government. If it ever became so that we are not free and that the United States of America does not live up to the idea of liberty, we are allowed to keep guns if we ever have to revolt. So we do need militias and the right to bear arms if we ever have to protect the idea of a free State we must be able to rise up to protect our rights as citizens and if our government takes this right away this is one step closer to the government gaining too much control and if the government gains too much control we must have the right to bear arms in order to protect our liberty!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 33 of33
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pine Bush Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]