Barack Obama on Gun Control

[stephanie]

Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)




Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

read it all here..
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[Jagger]

the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is conferred only on the individuals in the well regulated militia. The word "people" doesn't coincide with the phrase "well regulated militia." Where the language in a law doesn't coincide, the means is sacrificed to the end.

[Little-Acorn]

The right to keep and bear arms is conferred only on the individuals in the well regulated militia. The word "people" doesn't coincide with the phrase "well regulated militia." Where the language in a law doesn't coincide, the means is sacrificed to the end.

(Sigh)

Looks like little joesteel has come back with a new name. And attitude and rep to match.

Some things never change. :lame2:

[theHawk]

Anyone who believes Obama is going to protect and defend the Consitution is delusional.

[Little-Acorn]

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."


As my Daddy used to say, "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck."

If he had known that this particular duck's name and handwriting were all over it too, he probably would have been even more emphatic about what, or who, it really was.

I know that Barry in particular, and liberals in general, feel they have to always lie about what they really intend, because they wouldn't get many votes if they admitted their intentions honestly. Look what happened to the Democrats after they published a book about their intentions for Universal Health Care in 1993 - they got kicked out of every majority in the government at the next election, a year later.

Barry doesn't dare admit to his intentions for gun control, and probably is kicking himself right now for his too-candid comment to Joe the Plumber about wanting to "spread the wealth around".

But don't mistake what he now says, for what he will do.

[Jagger]

The Bill of Rights is a limitation upon government not upon individuals

The Bill of Right came about because the Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from abusing its power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", by neglecting "to provide for arming the militia", by declaring "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

George Mason during the Virginia Ratification Convention expressed a widespread distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.


The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?

The Second Amendment was meant to be protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. The American people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."

[theHawk]

An example of what our founding fathers thought about gun rights:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence. --John Adams during his defense of British soldiers from the Boston Massacre.

[theHawk]

The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So you are suggesting that the phrase "the People" doesn't include certain individuals?

Perhaps then "We the People" only applies to certain folks too.

[Jagger]

what our founding fathers thought about gun rights... The Constitution wasn't written with the belief or understanding that it's meaning would be ascertained by applying what the founding fathers believed about rights.

[stephanie]

what a bunch of mumble jumble that was..

[Jagger]

An example of what our founding fathers thought about gun rights:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence. --John Adams during his defense of British soldiers from the Boston Massacre. John Adams didn't make that statement about the Second Amendment. You need to get real, dude.

[Jagger]

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So you are suggesting that the phrase "the People" doesn't include certain individuals?

The term "the people" when used in the context of the "right to keep and bear arms", meant " the people as a collective", which meant "the government." See Article Seventeen of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

The object of the right to keep and bear was "collective defense", which was a duty assigned to the government. See Article Seventeen of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

[hjmick]

John Adams didn't make that statement about the Second Amendment. You need to get real, dude.

Actually, John Adams did indeed say that. Seems as if you need to get real.

Here, enjoy a couple of more quotes from one of our Founding Fathers on the subject:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press. - Thomas Jefferson

[Jagger]

what a bunch of mumble jumble that was..You need to get real, dude, and read what the lawmakers said about the rules of legal interpretation being used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

[Jagger]

Actually, John Adams did indeed say that. Seems as if you need to get real. He didn't say it about the Second Amendment, dude.


No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson Now go find what T J said about the meaning of the Second Amendment.


The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press. - Thomas Jefferson

That's a bogus quotation, dude. Post it the way Jefferson actually wrote it.

[stephanie]

someone kick the record player, the record is stuck on DUDE..:slap:

[hjmick]

someone kick the record player, the record is stuck on DUDE..:slap:

The record is stuck on "suck." When I realized that all but one of Jag's posts dealt with disarming the populace and making them vulnerable, that's when I decided to ignore anyof Jag's future ramblings. Nothing worse than a one trick pony.

[5stringJeff]

Here's what the Supreme Court had to say about the Second Amendment:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
In the opinion, the Supreme Court clearly stated that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms apart from militia service.

[Jagger]

Here's what the Supreme Court had to say about the Second Amendment:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
In the opinion, the Supreme Court clearly stated that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms apart from militia service.
The opinion of the Court was wrong.

[manu1959]

The right to keep and bear arms is conferred only on the individuals in the well regulated militia. The word "people" doesn't coincide with the phrase "well regulated militia." Where the language in a law doesn't coincide, the means is sacrificed to the end.

the well regulated milita is the people and this has been the prevailing interpretation for 200 years and the scotus has now agreed.....

[manu1959]

The opinion of the Court was wrong.

of course it was .... of course it was......you should run for president and save as all....

[Hull]

The term "the people" when used in the context of the "right to keep and bear arms", meant " the people as a collective", which meant "the government." See Article Seventeen of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

The object of the right to keep and bear was "collective defense", which was a duty assigned to the government. See Article Seventeen of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

This argument was just put to the test, and it failed. We the people does indeed mean the citizenry of America, as deemed by the constitution, and recently again ascertained by the SCOTUS.

[Jagger]

the well regulated militia is the people The words of the Constitution should be generally understood in their usual signification. In 1789 the usual signification of the term "well regulated militia" wasn't "people."

Wanna try again?


of course it was .... of course it was......you should run for president and save as all.... The Court go it wrong because it applied the wrong method of legal interpretation. It should have applied the method the founding fathers subscribed to, which, according to the Federalist Papers, were derived from the "rules of legal interpretation...adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws."

Wanna try again?


This argument was just put to the test, and it failed. We the people does indeed mean the citizenry of America, as deemed by the constitution, and recently again ascertained by the SCOTUS.

The word "people" in the Second Amendment means "the states." The rules of construction and the great Saint George Tucker say so. You can't beat either of those when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution.

Wanna try again?

[Nukeman]

The Court go it wrong because it applied the wrong method of legal interpretation. It should have applied the method the founding fathers subscribed to, which, according to the Federalist Papers, were derived from the "rules of legal interpretation...adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws."

Wanna try again?I have but ONE question for you jagger, Do you believe a FREE citizen of the United States of America should be allowed to own a firearm?

[Nukeman]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment means "the states." The rules of construction and the great Saint George Tucker say so. You can't beat either of those when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution.

Wanna try again?
But wait aren't we told that this is a "living breathing document" that is subject to change!!! You can't have it both ways. Either it states what it states or it is subject to CURRENT interpretation......

[5stringJeff]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment means "the states." The rules of construction and the great Saint George Tucker say so. You can't beat either of those when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution.

Wanna try again?

Actually, the word "people" means "people." The states were mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, so if they had meant to say "the states," they would have said "the states."

[5stringJeff]

The opinion of the Court was wrong.

Is that your opinion?

[Jagger]

I have but ONE question for you jagger, Do you believe a FREE citizen of the United States of America should be allowed to own a firearm? My person view on private ownership of arms has no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of the Constitution.


But wait aren't we told that this is a "living breathing document" that is subject to change!!! You can't have it both ways. I agree.


Either it states what it states or it is subject to CURRENT interpretation...... My interpretation is not the most popular current interpretation, and I didn't ascertain the meaning of the Second Amendment by applying a rule that says the Constitution is a living breathing document.

I ascertained the meaning of the Amendment by objectively and fairly applying the rules of legal interpretation the lawmakers subscribed to when they made the Constitution.


Actually, the word "people" means "people." The states were mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, so if they had meant to say "the states," they would have said "the states." The words in a legal instrument should be understood according to their usual and most know signification. In 1789, the usual meaning of "people" was "a nation."

Applying that signification to the Second Amendment, we get "the right of the nation to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


...they had meant to say "the states," they would have said "the states." Who is more qualified on that issue, you or the great Saint George Tucker, "The American Blackstone", a member of a six person secret society with Thomas Jefferson and appointed by President James Madison to be a Federal District Judge in Virginia?

[Missileman]

The words of the Constitution should be generally understood in their usual signification. In 1789 the usual signification of the term "well regulated militia" wasn't "people."

Wanna try again?

Who do you think formed the militia? Damned DUDE...you're clueless.

[Missileman]

The words in a legal instrument should be understood according to their usual and most know signification. In 1789, the usual meaning of "people" was "a nation."

Applying that signification to the Second Amendment, we get "the right of the nation to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is the STUPIDEST argument I've ever read. The nation gave itself permission to have an army? You're an ass!

[Yurt]

The words in a legal instrument should be understood according to their usual and most know signification. In 1789, the usual meaning of "people" was "a nation."

Applying that signification to the Second Amendment, we get "the right of the nation to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

what instrument are you using?

and what does signification mean?

[Nukeman]

My person view on private ownership of arms has no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of the Constitution.
Actually it does have meaning. If YOU are for gun ownership and you fight to say that we DO NOT have the right than you are arguing with your brain. IF you are AGAINST individual gun ownership than you are fighting with your heart.

I will stand by my following statement, "if you are fighting with your heart you have a extreme case for being biased". You will not be able to look at the issue objectively because YOU will ALWAYS have an agenda. so to counter your assertion that it has no bearing, it most definitly does...... To think other wise is just ridiculous......

So which is it, Pro______ or Con_____ ? still waiting for that answer!

[Nukeman]

what instrument are you using?

and what does signification mean?
He likes to use the "rules of construct". Yet he forgets that the STATES that formed their own "state constitution" AFTER the ratification used VERY simple and plain english to describe gun ownership and its uses. He will ignore the fact that the states spelled it out very simplisticly in order to avoid this type of problem. He will also ignore the attitude of the people of the time and their wishes.

He is only interseted in the "Rules of Copnstruct" and that is it. He refuses to see the basic simplistic role the states followed AFTER the signing of the US Constitution and the making of their own.

[Jagger]

Who do you think formed the militia? Damned DUDE...you're clueless. The Constitution grants Congress the power to organize the militia.


That is the STUPIDEST argument I've ever read. Your rule that we should construe a word in the Constitution according to the most usual meaning ever given to the word is what is stupid, dude.


what instrument are you using?

and what does signification mean?

I used those words in their usual sense.


Actually it does have meaning. If YOU are for gun ownership and you fight to say that we DO NOT have the right than you are arguing with your brain. IF you are AGAINST individual gun ownership than you are fighting with your heart.

I will stand by my following statement, "if you are fighting with your heart you have a extreme case for being biased". You will not be able to look at the issue objectively because YOU will ALWAYS have an agenda. so to counter your assertion that it has no bearing, it most definitly does...... To think other wise is just ridiculous......

So which is it, Pro______ or Con_____ ? still waiting for that answer!

I am in favor of reasonable laws regarding gun ownership.


STATES...formed their own "state constitution"

We're not interpreting the state constitutions, dude.

[Nukeman]

We're not interpreting the state constitutions, dude.
No shit sherlock but THEY (the drafters of the state constitutions) lived at the time in question and to give future citizens of this great country an IDEA of the thought process of the time. They made their own constitutions easier to understand and utilized plain language where ever possible.

This was done so there would be NO confusion about what was said. If you look at each states that followed they have specificly spelled out what was meant. These same gentlemen who wrote the state constitutions LIVED at the time of the drafters of the US Constitution so I think that MAYBE THEY have a better understanding of what OUR founding fathers wanted. They didn't need to look at the "rules of construct" they were living in the times and KNOW EXACTLY what was intended. Or do you contest that??

[namvet]

(Sigh)

Looks like little joesteel has come back with a new name. And attitude and rep to match.

Some things never change. :lame2:

did he ??? that's really JS??? what a coward

[namvet]

We're not interpreting the state constitutions, dude.

"hey Joe" whatcha hidin' from??? yourself???? :dance::coffee:

[Missileman]

The Constitution grants Congress the power to organize the militia.

Now you're confusing army and militia...you're hopeless.

[Nukeman]

Now you're confusing army and militia...you're hopeless.
He has an agenda and that is it!!!!!!!

[Mr. P]

The words in a legal instrument should be understood according to their usual and most know signification. In 1789, the usual meaning of "people" was "a nation."

Applying that signification to the Second Amendment, we get "the right of the nation to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No one can read Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights on June 8, 1789 and conclude what you assert to be the signification of "people".

[Missileman]

Your rule that we should construe a word in the Constitution according to the most usual meaning ever given to the word is what is stupid, dude.

So you are sticking to the argument that the government gave itself permission to bear arms? Funny that you want to use 18th century grammar to interpret "the people" but not 18th century context to understand the word "militia".

You need to take a crash course in the Revolutionary War, study the role and make up of the militia, LEARN the value of their contribution to the success of the war, and THEN come back and attempt to argue that the founders didn't understand that if the populace hadn't been armed and able to augment the war, it would have been lost.

[Jagger]

No shit sherlock but THEY (the drafters of the state constitutions) lived at the time in question and to give future citizens of this great country an IDEA of the thought process of the time. They made their own constitutions easier to understand and utilized plain language where ever possible.

This was done so there would be NO confusion about what was said. If you look at each states that followed they have specificly spelled out what was meant. These same gentlemen who wrote the state constitutions LIVED at the time of the drafters of the US Constitution so I think that MAYBE THEY have a better understanding of what OUR founding fathers wanted. They didn't need to look at the "rules of construct" they were living in the times and KNOW EXACTLY what was intended. Or do you contest that??
We're still not interpreting the State Constitutions. We're interpreting the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.


Now you're confusing army and militia...you're hopeless.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


No one can read Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights on June 8, 1789 and conclude what you assert to be the signification of "people". Saint George Tucker did, and President James Madison put him on the Federal Bench in Virginia.


So you are sticking to the argument that the government gave itself permission to bear arms?
The Constitution gave Congress exclusive power to organize, arm and train the militia. Many were concerned that Congress might disarm the militia by neglecting it. The Second Amendment, according to the great Saint George Tucker, removed that concern.


The convention of Virginia...proposed the following amendment to the constitution; "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." . . . all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed." . . .

--Saint George Tucker (1803)



you want to use 18th century grammar to interpret "the people" but not 18th century context to understand the word "militia".
I understand both words generally according to their usual signification in 1789, which accords with the well established common law rules of legal interpretation existent in 1789.

[Mr. P]

Saint George Tucker did, and President James Madison put him on the Federal Bench in Virginia.

Madison's quote from his Introduction of the Bill of Rights on June 8, 1789.


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.

Go read a bit kid. All of it! Yer wrong on yer assertion that "people" meant "nation" in regard to the 2nd amendment.

[Missileman]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The congress is not enpowered to organize, arm, and discipline the militia...that is a state function. Congress is enpowered to fund it.

[Jagger]

You need to take a crash course in the Revolutionary War You need to take a crash course in the rules of legal interpretation in 1789.

[Jagger]

...the militia never did any good to this country...we must have a standing army of 50.000 men....

--Timothy Pickering (Secretary of State under George Washington)

[Nukeman]

We're still not interpreting the State Constitutions. We're interpreting the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Maybe not but THEY sure as hell knew MORE of what was MEANT by the 2nd amendment than YOU do, since after all they were ALIVE at the time of the writing, interpretation , and ratification of the document. Were you there at the time? Can you state emphatically that they didn't want their citizens armed? If so your much dumber than I ever gave you credit for...

[Jagger]

THEY sure as hell knew MORE of what was MEANT by the 2nd amendment The great Saint George Tucker was alive in 1789 when the Second Amendment was framed. He was chosen to take the position held by the venerated George Wythe at the College of William and Mary, and is known as the first modern law professor.

He was also a personal friend and political ally of Thomas Jefferson. They were both members of a six man secret society. President James Madison put Tucker on the Federal Bench.

I suspect that Tucker knew what the Second Amendment meant. What do you think? Can you think of anyone who ever interpreted the Second Amendment so soon after it was adopted, with as much objectivity, authority and credibility as the "American Blackstone", Saint George Tucker, the foremost exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism?

[Nukeman]

The great Saint George Tucker was alive in 1789 when the Second Amendment was framed. He was chosen to take the position held by the venerated George Wythe at the College of William and Mary, and is known as the first modern law professor.

He was also a personal friend and political ally of Thomas Jefferson. They were both members of a six man secret society. President James Madison put Tucker on the Federal Bench.

I suspect that Tucker knew what the Second Amendment meant. What do you think? Can you think of anyone who ever interpreted the Second Amendment so soon after it was adopted, with as much objectivity, authority and credibility as the "American Blackstone", Saint George Tucker, the foremost exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism?I find it amazing that YOU will take ONE persons opinion but refuse to take the collective legislative branches of a number of states. YOU are a piece of work with a very single minded agenda!!!!

[Psychoblues]

Do you have any comment on the post or is it your simpleass purpose to attack the poster, nuk?



I find it amazing that YOU will take ONE persons opinion but refuse to take the collective legislative branches of a number of states. YOU are a piece of work with a very single minded agenda!!!!

What can you add concerning the works and attitudes of Saint George Tucker?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::beer::clap::laugh2::beer::salute:

Psychoblues

[Jagger]

I find it amazing that YOU will take ONE persons opinion but refuse to take the collective legislative branches of a number of states. Show us these opinions on the meaning of the Second Amendment. I have no idea what you're talking about, my dear friend.

[Nukeman]

Show us these opinions on the meaning of the Second Amendment. I have no idea what you're talking about, my dear friend.I don't have to show you an "opinion". It is in the very fact of their state contitutions that allow for the freedom of gun ownership. I have argued this very topic with you on another thread and provided you with a number of state contitutions and how THEY spelled out gun ownership explicitly.

You fail to realize that the drafters of the states contitutions that followed the ratification of the US constitution had perfectly well in mind what our founding fathers were thinking, if not than all the subsequent state constitutions would have imposed limits.


Do you have any comment on the post or is it your simpleass purpose to attack the poster, nuk?




What can you add concerning the works and attitudes of Saint George Tucker?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Just Want To Celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::beer::clap::laugh2::beer::salute:

Psychoblues
And just exactly what the fuck did you add to this conversation. I really don't care about one persons "opinion". I will take the opinion of the SCOTUS, and the legislative branches of the states and their own constitutions with their interprtation of the US constitution, which MOST states base theirs on.....

to make it simple I pulled this from another thread were all you do is call for the disarming of the US citizen...

Oh by the way Physco you go ahead and defend this nut he wants all your guns as well.... Keep that in mind as you defend him...:poke:


Here are a few more to go with the one from Indiana. YOU will note the simplification of the wording. This was done due to the "questioning of the federal constitution.....



Quote:
Vermont

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Tennessee

Section 26th That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence

Ohio

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
[ View Article Table of Contents ]
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Mississippi

SECTION 12.
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Illinois
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

It really doesn't get any simpler than that. The individuals living at the time had the same questions you have so in order to eliminate any further questions they simplified what the intent was......
If you can't understand this than there really is NO help for you. You can deconstruct and pick apart every word of the US Constitution to your hearts content, but you need to understand it was the INTENT not the wording..

[5stringJeff]

The great Saint George Tucker was alive in 1789 when the Second Amendment was framed. He was chosen to take the position held by the venerated George Wythe at the College of William and Mary, and is known as the first modern law professor.

He was also a personal friend and political ally of Thomas Jefferson. They were both members of a six man secret society. President James Madison put Tucker on the Federal Bench.

I suspect that Tucker knew what the Second Amendment meant. What do you think? Can you think of anyone who ever interpreted the Second Amendment so soon after it was adopted, with as much objectivity, authority and credibility as the "American Blackstone", Saint George Tucker, the foremost exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism?

I would rather take the word of the man who, more than any other, was responsible for actually writing the Bill of Rights, James Madison:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Obviously, Madison saw the citizens themselves being armed, for their own protection, against the government if needed. If the right to bear arms was given only in connection with militia service, how could an armed people resist a tyrannical government.

You would also be wise, Jagger, to heed another quote from Madison:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

[LOki]

The word "people" in the Second Amendment means "the states." No, it is the plural of person. In the particular context of the Constitution, it is the plural of persons belonging to the state who are invested with political power for political purposes--i.e. United States citizens.


The rules of construction and the great Saint George Tucker say so. You can't beat either of those when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution.
"HAVING, in the eight preceding chapters, treated of persons as they stand in the public relations of magistrates, I now proceed to consider such persons as fall under the denomination of the people. And herein all the inferior and subordinate magistrates, treated of in the last chapter, are included."AND
"The constitution of a state is, properly, that instrument by which the government, or administrative authority of the state, is created: its powers defined, their extent limited; the duties of the public functionaries prescribed; and the principles, according to which the government is to be administered, delineated.

The GOVERNMENT or administrative authority of the state, is that portion, only of the sovereignty, which is by the constitution entrusted to the public functionaries: these are the agents and servants of the people.

Legitimate government can therefore be derived only from the voluntary grant of the people, and exercised for their benefit.

The sovereignty, though always potentially existing in the people of every independent nation, or state, is in most of them, usurped by, and confounded with, the government. Hence in England it is said to be vested in the parliament: in France, before the revolution, and still, in Spain, Russia, Turkey and other absolute monarchies, in the crown, or monarch; in Venice, until the late conquest of that state, in the doge, and senate, etc.

As the sovereign power has no limits to its authority, so has the government of a state no rights, but such as are purely derivative, and limited; the union of the SOVEREIGNTY of a state with the GOVERNMENT, constitutes a state of USURPATION and absolute TYRANNY, over the PEOPLE."AND

"The constitution of the United States of America, then, is an original, written, federal, and social compact, freely, voluntarily, and solemnly entered into by the several states of North-America, and ratified by the people thereof, respectively; whereby the several states, and the people thereof; respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government of the United States; and by which the federal government is bound to the several states, and to every citizen of the United States."

Wanna try again?

[Missileman]

No, it is the plural of person. In the particular context of the Constitution, it is the plural of persons belonging to the state who are invested with political power for political purposes--i.e. United States citizens.


"HAVING, in the eight preceding chapters, treated of persons as they stand in the public relations of magistrates, I now proceed to consider such persons as fall under the denomination of the people. And herein all the inferior and subordinate magistrates, treated of in the last chapter, are included."AND
"The constitution of a state is, properly, that instrument by which the government, or administrative authority of the state, is created: its powers defined, their extent limited; the duties of the public functionaries prescribed; and the principles, according to which the government is to be administered, delineated.

The GOVERNMENT or administrative authority of the state, is that portion, only of the sovereignty, which is by the constitution entrusted to the public functionaries: these are the agents and servants of the people.

Legitimate government can therefore be derived only from the voluntary grant of the people, and exercised for their benefit.

The sovereignty, though always potentially existing in the people of every independent nation, or state, is in most of them, usurped by, and confounded with, the government. Hence in England it is said to be vested in the parliament: in France, before the revolution, and still, in Spain, Russia, Turkey and other absolute monarchies, in the crown, or monarch; in Venice, until the late conquest of that state, in the doge, and senate, etc.

As the sovereign power has no limits to its authority, so has the government of a state no rights, but such as are purely derivative, and limited; the union of the SOVEREIGNTY of a state with the GOVERNMENT, constitutes a state of USURPATION and absolute TYRANNY, over the PEOPLE."AND

"The constitution of the United States of America, then, is an original, written, federal, and social compact, freely, voluntarily, and solemnly entered into by the several states of North-America, and ratified by the people thereof, respectively; whereby the several states, and the people thereof; respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government of the United States; and by which the federal government is bound to the several states, and to every citizen of the United States."

Wanna try again?

I suspect you will only produce yellow-stained fingertips and a tired tongue with this post. Jagger only sees what he wants to.

[Jagger]

I don't have to show you an "opinion". It is in the very fact of their state constitutions that allow for the freedom of gun ownership. You have offered no evidence whatsoever that there were state constitutions that allowed the freedom of gun ownership at the time the Second Amendment was made.


THEY spelled out gun ownership explicitly. Why don't you point out where the Second Amendment explicitly spells out gun ownership?


the drafters of the states constitutions that followed the ratification of the US constitution had... in mind what our founding fathers were thinking... How exactly did they ascertain what the founders were thinking?

[Nukeman]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that there were state constitutions that allowed the freedom of gun ownership at the time the Second Amendment was made. Kind of hard to do since they occured after the ratification of the Us constitution. So in order to make it more EASILY understood they MADE them simple.


Why don't you point out where the Second Amendment explicitly spells out gun ownership? The whole statement, enough said of course your jsut going on opinion.


How exactly did they ascertain what the founders were thinking? How the hell do YOU. i would think those living at the time would have a closer bead on the thought process of our leaders since they WERE our leaders..... Dipshit

[Jagger]

Kind of hard to do since they occurred after the ratification of the US constitution. So in order to make it more EASILY understood they made them simple. You still have produced no evidence to support your theory.


The whole statement, enough said of course your just going on opinion.
My interpretation of the Second Amendment is the result of a fair objective application of the rules of legal interpretation subscribed to by the lawmakers at the time they made the Amendment.


How the hell do YOU. I just apply the rules of legal interpretation.


...the thought process of our leaders... Show me where any founding father ever said legal instruments were to be interpreted to square with the thought process of our leaders.

[Yurt]

I would rather take the word of the man who, more than any other, was responsible for actually writing the Bill of Rights, James Madison:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Obviously, Madison saw the citizens themselves being armed, for their own protection, against the government if needed. If the right to bear arms was given only in connection with militia service, how could an armed people resist a tyrannical government.

You would also be wise, Jagger, to heed another quote from Madison:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

:salute:

[red states rule]

http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/obama-says-02.jpg

[Yurt]

[p.37] Patrick Henry shared similar fears. The "militia, sir, is our ultimate safety," he argued, yet, "[t]he great object is that every man be armed . . . every one who is able may have a gun." [133] Even Richard Henry Lee concluded, "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." [134] Although, to Lee, "the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little or no property" could not be relied upon as the militia, he nevertheless thought that this part of the community should be allowed to possess arms. [135]

Virginia ultimately ratified the Constitution by the close vote of eighty- eight to eighty, but only at the price of simultaneous proposals for a bill of rights. [136] The proposals were drafted by a committee that included Antifederalists Lee and Mason, as well as Federalists James Madison, John Marshall, and George Wythe. [137] On the arms versus militia issue, this committee took an unusual approach.

Previous proposals either had emphasized the importance of the traditional militia or had recognized an individual right to arms. The Virginia committee chose to do both, and spliced together language that extended protection both to militia needs and individual rights. In its final form this provision read "that the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state . . . ." [138] The lack of the qualifier "for the common defense" in the arms segment of the provision was indicative of the committee's recognition of the individual right as being separate and distinct from the militia issue.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html

[red states rule]

http://podcast.gunrights.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/barack-obamas-ten-point-plan-to-change-the-second-amendment-233x300.jpg

[Yurt]

James Madison:

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

(December 12, 1787)



That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION

(February 6, 1788)

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(June 21, 1788)

Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

[red states rule]

No gun Control on Obamas agenda?


http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3401/bridge4sale3sz.jpg

[Mr. P]

The states address arms in their Constitutions near 1779.
Go fish, Jagger. You ain't got a case. I'm hoping yer just a young law student wet behind the ears and NOT a Law professor...OMG it wouldn't be a surprise though.


1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1799 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

[Yurt]

The states address arms in their Constitutions near 1779.
Go fish, Jagger. You ain't got a case. I'm hoping yer just a young law student wet behind the ears and NOT a Law professor...OMG it wouldn't be a surprise though.




he could be lead counsel for the ACLU, obama's next AG

[hjmick]

1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1799 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

There seems to be a common theme here.

"That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves" and "And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."

It can not be said often enough: Fear the government that fears your guns.

[Mr. P]

There seems to be a common theme here.

"That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves" and "And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."

It can not be said often enough: Fear the government that fears your guns.

Very common...ya think all those folks really knew what the founders intent was? Jag doesn't. Oh well, buy em books an send em to school an take yer chances.

[Jagger]

I would rather take the word of the man who, more than any other, was responsible for actually writing the Bill of Rights, James Madison:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Obviously, Madison saw the citizens themselves being armed, for their own protection, against the government if needed. If the right to bear arms was given only in connection with militia service, how could an armed people resist a tyrannical government. That quote is genuine. However James Madison didn't make that particular statement about the meaning of the Second Amendment. You have taken it out of its context and used it to mislead.

According to the rules of historical analysis, an interpretation of a legal expression trumps a statement that wasn't an interpretation of the expression. Therefore, Saint George Tucker's 1803 interpretation of the Second Amendment trumps James Madison's 17878 statement that was not offered as an interpretation of the Amendment.

PS: When James Madison used the phrase "right of being armed" in the Federalist Papers, he was talking about the right of the subordinate governments [state governments] to have militias.


...the advantage of being armed...[and] the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition

Madison was saying that Americans had two things that formed a barrier against Federal enterprises of ambition. Those two things were the state governments and the right of the state governments to organize, arm and train their own militias.

[Jagger]

You would also be wise, Jagger, to heed another quote from Madison:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

That's a most bogus quote, dude.

[Yurt]

i see jagger ignored a plethora of other quotes by madison and ignored the state constitutions...

i simply cannot believe or in the alternative, if true cannot lend credibility to any theory of legal construction that ignores the thoughts/words of the authors of any legislation or constitution.

[Jagger]

People...is the plural of person. United States citizens.
In 1789, the usual and most known signification of the word "people" was "a nation; those who comprise a community."

[Yurt]

In 1789, the usual and most known signification of the word "people" was "a nation; those who comprise a community."

uh, who are the "people" that make up a nation?

citizens

[Jagger]

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

(December 12, 1787)

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;

That language was rejected, which proves that Congress didn't recognize a right to bear arms for personal defense or for kill ling game.


...and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them The Pre-Amendment Constitution grated Congress no power to disarm the people.

[Jagger]

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION

(February 6, 1788)

And that the said Constitution be never construed to... prevent the people of the United States...from keeping their own arms. That language was rejected. Congress apparently didn't want the Constitution to mean that.

[Jagger]

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(June 21, 1788)

Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

That language was rejected.

[Yurt]

it was not rejected, just because they didn't include every little thing for guns does not mean it was rejected...it does show that gun ownership for individuals was of paramount importance...

and you were able to spout off on 3, bravo, that means the rest stands and thus you are proven to have an incorrect understanding of the 2nd am.

[LOki]

In 1789, the usual and most known signification of the word "people" was "a nation; those who comprise a community."Your source, the Great Saint George Tucker, said: "HAVING, in the eight preceding chapters, treated of persons as they stand in the public relations of magistrates, I now proceed to consider such persons as fall under the denomination of the people. And herein all the inferior and subordinate magistrates, treated of in the last chapter, are included."

The actual usage of the term "The People", in the particular context of the Constitution, consistent with your source, is the plural of persons belonging to the state who are invested with political power for political purposes--i.e. the United States Citizens.

This is done for you.

[Jagger]

Your source, the Great Saint George Tucker, said: "HAVING, in the eight preceding chapters, treated of persons as they stand in the public relations of magistrates, I now proceed to consider such persons as fall under the denomination of the people. And herein all the inferior and subordinate magistrates, treated of in the last chapter, are included."


Tucker didn't write those words, buckaroo. Blackstone wrote them.

[Jagger]

....gun ownership for individuals was of paramount importance... Point out where the Second Amendment says gun ownership for individuals is of paramount importance.

[Yurt]

Point out where the Second Amendment says gun ownership for individuals is of paramount importance.

point out where it says it is not

[hjmick]

point out where it says it is not

Dude, do ever get dizzy dealing with this guy? :lmao:

[Jagger]

point out where it says it is not I'll take that as your admission that the Second Amendment doesn't say gun ownership for individuals is of paramount importance.

[Yurt]

I'll take that as your admission that the Second Amendment doesn't say gun ownership for individuals is of paramount importance.

so i'll take it that 2nd doesn't say gun ownership is NOT of paramount importance

thanks for playing

[Yurt]

Dude, do ever get dizzy dealing with this guy? :lmao:

i've been working on a brief since 4:30 since this morning, i have to take little breaks to cheer me up :coffee:

[Jagger]

I wrote a brief one time arguing that "guns don't kill people", and therefore my client couldn't be charged with homicide.

[Missileman]

I wrote a brief one time arguing that "guns don't kill people", and therefore my client couldn't be charged with homicide.

That's a total non-sequitur. That "guns don't kill people" might be a logical reason to not charge a gun with homocide, but the second half of the phrase, "people do" would make a totally useless defense for your client. When was the guy executed? He surely didn't get off with the aid of your brain-dead defense.

[Yurt]

I wrote a brief one time arguing that "guns don't kill people", and therefore my client couldn't be charged with homicide.

:lol:

[Missileman]

:lol:

I can hear it now..."Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. The gun didn't kill that man, my client did."

When did they start putting law licenses in crackerjacks?

[5stringJeff]

That's a most bogus quote, dude.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jamesmadis136359.html

[5stringJeff]

That quote is genuine. However James Madison didn't make that particular statement about the meaning of the Second Amendment. You have taken it out of its context and used it to mislead.

According to the rules of historical analysis, an interpretation of a legal expression trumps a statement that wasn't an interpretation of the expression. Therefore, Saint George Tucker's 1803 interpretation of the Second Amendment trumps James Madison's 17878 statement that was not offered as an interpretation of the Amendment.

Madison, if you're not aware, was the Father of the Constitution, and practically wrote it, to include the Bill of Rights. According to the rules of common sense, a statement by someone who wrote the Constitution about what it says always trumps the statement of someone who didn't write it, attempting to interpret what the people who wrote it meant. So I will take the word of Madison over the word of Tucker.

[Jagger]

I can hear it now..."Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. The gun didn't kill that man, my client did."

When did they start putting law licenses in crackerjacks? Briefs aren't read to, or tried by, juries.

[Jagger]

Madison, if you're not aware, was the Father of the Constitution, and practically wrote it, to include the Bill of Rights. According to the rules of common sense, a statement by someone who wrote the Constitution about what it says always trumps the statement of someone who didn't write it, attempting to interpret what the people who wrote it meant. So I will take the word of Madison over the word of Tucker.

James Madison never offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment, hombre.

[Missileman]

Briefs aren't read to, or tried by, juries.

That doesn't make your argument any less stupid.

[Mr. P]

James Madison never offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment, hombre.

:laugh2: Nope you are correct...he didn't offer an interpretation, he proposed what became the second to Congress in June of 89.

[LOki]

Tucker didn't write those words, buckaroo. Blackstone wrote them.Sorry, buckaroo, that is a direct quote from Tucker.