User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 218

  1. #131
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    No, it doesn't.

    Bill of Rights has an Amendment that says that the government has a right to an Army? That makes no sense.
    History time:

    In the 1600s, England had a nasty civil war, between the Royalists (Cavaliers) and the Parliamentarians (Roundheads), in which both had their own armies. The Royalists had operated under the past rules, in which armies were established by the feudal responsibilities of vassals to their lieges - that is, the King would draw up an army by calling in his responsibilities to his lords, who would then conscript their vassals, and so on and so forth. This would have been a "Royal Army".

    On the other hand, Parliament established an army by going around and conscripting soldiers into their own individual armies, eventually coming up with Cromwell's New Model Army. This army proceeded to kick the crap out of the old feudal army, and take off Charles I's head in the process.

    When the Restoration came about, all of the good generals that were still around were veterans of the New Model Army, and they didn't hesitate to let the new king know that. This was also around the point where Parliament began to pass the Mutiny Acts, which essentially gave it control of the standing army, since under the previous law, there had been no law governing the existence of an army during peacetime.

    Essentially, you had a situation where the army was "owned" by the people through Parliament, while still nominally under the Monarch. That's what this interpretation is saying the Second Amendment is trying to do - have the President ultimately be Commander-in-Chief, but the States in control of the Army.

  2. #132
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That is an incredibly tortured interpretation, especially given the GIGANTIC difference between "militia" and "army." Many of the Founding Fathers were dead-set against a standing army in the United States, "owned by the people" or not. Maybe you should be taking a look at what "well-regulated" meant in the historical context, because what you are proposing is outlandish.
    We're talking about lawyers who wrote the document using terms of art, not plain language. The Framers were opposed to a standing army, true - but they were opposed to a standing NATIONAL army. They had no opposition to state armies whatsoever, which is what that interpretation would suggest.

  3. #133
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    History time:

    In the 1600s, England had a nasty civil war, between the Royalists (Cavaliers) and the Parliamentarians (Roundheads), in which both had their own armies. The Royalists had operated under the past rules, in which armies were established by the feudal responsibilities of vassals to their lieges - that is, the King would draw up an army by calling in his responsibilities to his lords, who would then conscript their vassals, and so on and so forth. This would have been a "Royal Army".

    On the other hand, Parliament established an army by going around and conscripting soldiers into their own individual armies, eventually coming up with Cromwell's New Model Army. This army proceeded to kick the crap out of the old feudal army, and take off Charles I's head in the process.

    When the Restoration came about, all of the good generals that were still around were veterans of the New Model Army, and they didn't hesitate to let the new king know that. This was also around the point where Parliament began to pass the Mutiny Acts, which essentially gave it control of the standing army, since under the previous law, there had been no law governing the existence of an army during peacetime.

    Essentially, you had a situation where the army was "owned" by the people through Parliament, while still nominally under the Monarch. That's what this interpretation is saying the Second Amendment is trying to do - have the President ultimately be Commander-in-Chief, but the States in control of the Army.
    Nice spin there, law student guy.

    What other story are you going to shill me? That Freedom of Speech is for collective freedom, namely being the voice of the people through the House of Representatives?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  4. #134
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Bill of Rights is not about "collective freedoms". WTF is a "collective freedom", anyway? That's commie talk.
    The idea of individual rights defining the level of "freedom" a country had was radical at that time. However, people conventionally understood that a "free people" was one not ultimately governed by a foreign power, as were most ethnic groups in Europe at the time. A "free people" had the right to self-determination. That this expanded into individual rights was a continuing development, not a commonly-understood definition.

  5. #135
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    We're talking about lawyers who wrote the document using terms of art, not plain language. The Framers were opposed to a standing army, true - but they were opposed to a standing NATIONAL army. They had no opposition to state armies whatsoever, which is what that interpretation would suggest.
    So where does the militia come in? "Militia" still doesn't mean "army at the state level." Certainly not in the 18th Century.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #136
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The idea of individual rights defining the level of "freedom" a country had was radical at that time. However, people conventionally understood that a "free people" was one not ultimately governed by a foreign power, as were most ethnic groups in Europe at the time. A "free people" had the right to self-determination. That this expanded into individual rights was a continuing development, not a commonly-understood definition.
    You just basically threw out the whole concept of Bill of Rights with that statement (i.e. "Hey citizen, these are not for you, these are for the people, so fuck off").

    Just to be clear, your assertion is that the US Constitution had nothing to with individual rights?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #137
    Member Chuckums's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    "Well-regulated"

    Another interpretation I've been looking at which seems to make a lot of sense is that the phrase "keep and bear arms" in its contemporary context didn't mean gun ownership as much as it meant "have an army". What this means is that the US Army would be owned by the people, much like the British Army is, and not drawn up by a centralized force, like the Royal Navy is (which exists at the pleasure of the Monarch). Given the relatively recent memory of the English Civil War, and the surrounding context of the Third Amendment and the establishment of the President as Commander-in-Chief, the interpretation would be:

    Since it's necessary for able-bodied males to be in fighting shape and under local control to prevent incursions on their collective freedom, the right of the People to their own army shall not be infringed.

    Really makes sense in the historical context.

    Not according to our Supreme Court Justices.


    OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    Pp. 2–53.




    Would you like the link to all of this?

  8. #138
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Nice spin there, law student guy.

    What other story are you going to shill me? That Freedom of Speech is for collective freedom, namely being the voice of the people through the House of Representatives?
    Not my fault that the Constitution wasn't written by God herself, but rather a bunch of lawyers who knew their history.

    First Amendment doesn't enshrine the freedom of speech per se; it is just a restriction on the powers of Congress in passing certain kinds of legislation. The common law already had plenty of restrictions on speech (such as "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater). The current understanding is an interpretation (such as the amendment applying to the executive branch, judicial branch, and bureaucracy) that has been developed over many decades of law.

  9. #139
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Isaac View Post
    Not according to our Supreme Court Justices.


    OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    Pp. 2–53.




    Would you like the link to all of this?
    That's just dicta.

    Which court is that in the picture?

  10. #140
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The idea of individual rights defining the level of "freedom" a country had was radical at that time. However, people conventionally understood that a "free people" was one not ultimately governed by a foreign power, as were most ethnic groups in Europe at the time. A "free people" had the right to self-determination. That this expanded into individual rights was a continuing development, not a commonly-understood definition.

    It was pretty well understood to North Americans who grew up in the Age of Enlightenment under the spell of John Locke.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Time to ban taxis in the UK
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 06:09 PM
  2. An INFP in the UK by way of SoCal
    By Lindy Lou in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 01:36 PM
  3. Gun Control in the UK
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 249
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 09:16 AM
  4. Gun Control in the UK (Not Gone, Is Being Fixed...)
    By Halla74 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 11:29 PM
  5. List of #1 Singles in the UK 90's - Hilarious
    By nomadic in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 04:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO