CNN Democratic Debate

• isadore

  HitsRus;1757843 wrote:LOL, 1803...is "LONG" after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. That's pretty weak sauce, Izzy. Moreover, it was written about England that was struggling with its King's usurpations, and had no such guarantees.
  
  
  What part of that don't you understand? What part of that is not clealy stated.

  St. George Tucker is an American, writing his opinion more than a decade after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. He was a lower level judge and an academic. He was not a participant at the Constitutional Convention, the Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights or the State ratification.
• Belly35

  

  isadore;1757859 wrote:and you are part of an ever declining minority.

  Keep think that...
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757812 wrote:Gosh a ruddies 1.What Jefferson wrote in the Declaration was not the word of God to the authors of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They do not use the term unalienable. In fact the Rights in the Bill are alienable by a 2/3 vote of Congress and a ratification by 3/4s of the states. If they wanted to make them unalienable they could have as they did with equal representation in the Senate. Article V protects it from the amendment process.
  2. The Bill of Rights was not all about individual rights. The 10th Amendment in part is about giving "reserved powers to the states. The original 1st Amendment to the Constitution that was sent out by Congress but not ratified by the states was about representation in Congress.
  3. Serving in the militia was an obligation, and not one required of all people or all men. And it was regulated by laws passed by the Congress

  
  No dispute here.
  
  
  It's an inspiration to create and join constitutional militias across the land! Do so and taking up arms shall not be infringed upon! If congress needs us they can call upon! I'm between 18-54. Lets go!
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757859 wrote:and you are part of an ever declining minority.

  Aren't our defined rights inspired to protect such minorities?
• cruiser_96

  

  isadore: I wish you fought with such vigor for the four dead in Benghazi that you do with your anti-gun stance.
• isadore

  Belly35;1757866 wrote:Keep think that...

  gosh a ruddies, I will, it is a fact. You do know what a suffix is?
• isadore

  cruiser_96;1757871 wrote:isadore: I wish you fought with such vigor for the four dead in Benghazi that you do with your anti-gun stance.

  Gosh a ruddies, I am still waiting for a thorough investigation of the 1983 Beirut bombings of our embassy and marine corps barracks that cost the lives of 258 Americans. But until that time I will try to get gun regulation that can stop the slaughter of scores of innocent
  Americans by legally obtained guns. I remember December 14, 2012.
  
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757870 wrote:Aren't our defined rights inspired to protect such minorities?

  gosh a ruddies
  yes the ill informed, semi-literate should have their right to express themselves protected.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757869 wrote:No dispute here.
  
  
  It's an inspiration to create and join constitutional militias across the land! Do so and taking up arms shall not be infringed upon! If congress needs us they can call upon! I'm between 18-54. Lets go!

  gosh a ruddies, a militia regulated by Acts of Congress and commands of the President.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757883 wrote:gosh a ruddies, a militia regulated by Acts of Congress and commands of the President.

  
  Yes, exactly. They may be commanded by the President if he calls upon them with the authority of the President. It's pretty cool.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757877 wrote:gosh a ruddies
  yes the ill informed, semi-literate should have their right to express themselves protected.

  ...and it shouldn't be limited to expression.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757886 wrote:...and it shouldn't be limited to expression.

  he should not be excessively fined
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757885 wrote:Yes, exactly. They may be commanded by the President if he calls upon them with the authority of the President. It's pretty cool.

  gosh a ruddies get ready.
  
  You will have to provide yourself " with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. If you already own a rifle you are required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.
  
• HitsRus

  

  Stupid shit continues to use the term "regulation" in 21st century terms, thus perpetuating his misinterpretation. SMH.

  St. George Tucker is an American, writing his opinion more than a decade after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. He was a lower level judge and an academic. He was not a participant at the Constitutional Convention, the Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights or the State ratification.

  “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
  --- Zachariah Johnson--- Virginia delegation.

  
  

  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
  
  "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

  
• dontcare

  

  Belly35;1757854 wrote:I own two homes and I just bought two more guns for a total of 5 weapons I now own.

  Only 5?? Hell, I just bought 3 handguns today. Why you ask? Because I felt like it. Only 5 Belly? We need to talk......
• isadore

  HitsRus;1757895 wrote:Stupid shit continues to use the term "regulation" in 21st century terms, thus perpetuating his misinterpretation. SMH.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  gosh a ruddies for you obviously ignorance is its own reward.
  
  1. Gosh a ruddies the Congress had already been given the power “to regulate” the militia before the Bill of Rights was even proposed. They had the power to call, arm and discipline. The President was given the power to command it. Then in 1792 they extended that regulation by defining who were members of the militia and how they would be armed.
  2. Of course a slave owner, whose livelihood was based on the peaceful enslavement of hundreds of people can lecture us on the advantages of dangerous freedom.
  3. His little statement about not disarming people did not make it into the 1776 Virginia Constitution. But this showing the only true purpose for the later 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment did.
  “SEC. 13. 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; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “ http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm
  4. Zachariah Johnson’s speech can not be shown to have any effect on the meaning of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. It was given at the Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention in 1788.
  5. And the quote is taken completely out of context. It has nothing to do with a personal right of self protection. It is about the need to resist one religious sect establishing over the other sects.
  [URL="file:///C:/Users/Harry/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/EQDGRQL7/johnson_in_convention6.25.pdf"]file:///C:/Users/Harry/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/EQDGRQL7/johnson_in_convention6.25.pdf[/URL]
• HitsRus

  

  Funny how you attack Jefferson because he doesn't fit your narrative.... And your implication that he is an "evil slaveholder" further demonstrating your lack of context ( unless it suits your purposes). So you don't like T.J.... Would someone else do? Maybe Madison, or Washington.. Hamilton? You can spin it however you wish, but the historical fact is that the founders were very cognizant and afraid that the government that they were creating could one day become as tyrannical as the one they overthrew. They were well aware of tyrants usurping powers, and circumventing elected bodies... And the ultimate check against that was an armed citizenry and militias under local control.
  All the obfuscation about militias you throw out does nothing to refute that the right to bear arms is inalienable. That it was placed at the top of the Bill of Rights is significant to its importance. That is in the Bill of "Rights" at all testifies to this being an individual right. Governments have powers, individuals have rights against these powers, and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is exactly that.
• isadore

  
  · Washington freed his slaves in his will. Hamilton was an early member of the New York Manumission Society. Jefferson, the king hypocrite, raped an underage slave girl and left the bulk of his slaves in enduring bondage. · The Framers gave the right to arms for the purpose as was stated for the purpose of a well regulated militia. A militia that was previously in the Constitution put under regulation by the Congress and under Command of the President. Its purpose as stated in the Constitution was “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasion.”
  · In 1792 the Militia Act Congress regulated the age of membership in the militia and what arms and equipment it had. In 1794 the Militia commanded by George Washington suppressed an internal revolt, by traitors who took up arms against their government, The Whiskey Rebellion.
  · The 2nd Amendment is not unalienable, it can be repealed by a 2/3 vote of the Congress and 3/4s vote of the state legislatures or state conventions. Equal representation in the Senate is more nearly unalienable because it can not be changed by the Amendment process.
  
• HitsRus

  

  “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
  ― George Washington

  “The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
  ― Alexander Hamilton

  “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
  ― James Madison

  
  just sayin.....
• majorspark

  

  isadore;1757962 wrote:The 2nd Amendment is not unalienable, it can be repealed by a 2/3 vote of the Congress and 3/4s vote of the state legislatures or state conventions. Equal representation in the Senate is more nearly unalienable because it can not be changed by the Amendment process.

  The 2nd amendment is the most inalienable of all rights by the simple fact that those actively engaged in the practice of that right have a direct means of exacting a heavy price on those who may want to take it from them. Those politicians throughout our history who have lusted for it since the founding no damn well that the forcible removal of that right will inaugurate civil war. Not a war between the state governments but but a true civil war. As Hits pointed out the 2nd amendment was added to provide checks and balances against the federal standing army. Those being a well regulated or professional militias maintained by the states as well as the individual "the people" right to personally maintain arms suitable for an individual. No we are not talking tanks/artillery etc... The regulation of these individual arms who, what, when, where, were left in the power of state and local governments.
  
  I watched John Kerry before Congress boldly say the administration would not call the treaty with Iran a "treaty" because you can't pass a treaty in the Senate. Even though the Constitution says you need a super majority to do so. How long before an administration is frustrated by the getting a Supreme Court Justice approved does the same? Whats the diff? In the end the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that every politician from Washington until today would like tear up parts of. As the founders foresaw. Easily manipulated by the wiles of a savvy politician. The only thing stopping them is fear.
  
  Kerry fearlessly told a branch of the federal government that holds the power under the Constitution to remove his boss from power for such an act. But he knows that will not happen. No fear. Words are just words unless they are backed up by something more forceful than words. The 2nd amendment ended up being the cornerstone of the whole Constitution because it not about words. Look I have no problem with nor does the Constitution with regulating who, what, when, where when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Just the level of governance.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757889 wrote:gosh a ruddies get ready.
  
  You will have to provide yourself " with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. If you already own a rifle you are required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

  That is indeed how it reads and it's very good news. At least we will all stay armed and that is the goal.
• cruiser_96

  

  HitsRus;1757974 wrote:just sayin.....

  Enough with the racism!
• isadore

  HitsRus;1757944 wrote:Funny how you attack Jefferson because he doesn't fit your narrative.... And your implication that he is an "evil slaveholder" further demonstrating your lack of context ( unless it suits your purposes). So you don't like T.J.... Would someone else do? Maybe Madison, or Washington.. Hamilton? You can spin it however you wish, but the historical fact is that the founders were very cognizant and afraid that the government that they were creating could one day become as tyrannical as the one they overthrew. They were well aware of tyrants usurping powers, and circumventing elected bodies... And the ultimate check against that was an armed citizenry and militias under local control.
  All the obfuscation about militias you throw out does nothing to refute that the right to bear arms is inalienable. That it was placed at the top of the Bill of Rights is significant to its importance. That is in the Bill of "Rights" at all testifies to this being an individual right. Governments have powers, individuals have rights against these powers, and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is exactly that.

  gosh a ruddies, your ravings sound exactly like the advocates of slavery who thought their right to own slave would never be abolished. Gosh they even had Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott protecting their "right." But the beliefs of the swung against them. We can already see an increasing majority of Americans do not own guns. We can see the decline in the number of hunters in our country. As the 21st Amendment did away with the 18th, some future Amendment will do away with the 2nd.
• isadore

  majorspark;1757975 wrote:The 2nd amendment is the most inalienable of all rights by the simple fact that those actively engaged in the practice of that right have a direct means of exacting a heavy price on those who may want to take it from them. Those politicians throughout our history who have lusted for it since the founding no damn well that the forcible removal of that right will inaugurate civil war. Not a war between the state governments but but a true civil war. As Hits pointed out the 2nd amendment was added to provide checks and balances against the federal standing army. Those being a well regulated or professional militias maintained by the states as well as the individual "the people" right to personally maintain arms suitable for an individual. No we are not talking tanks/artillery etc... The regulation of these individual arms who, what, when, where, were left in the power of state and local governments.
  
  I watched John Kerry before Congress boldly say the administration would not call the treaty with Iran a "treaty" because you can't pass a treaty in the Senate. Even though the Constitution says you need a super majority to do so. How long before an administration is frustrated by the getting a Supreme Court Justice approved does the same? Whats the diff? In the end the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that every politician from Washington until today would like tear up parts of. As the founders foresaw. Easily manipulated by the wiles of a savvy politician. The only thing stopping them is fear.
  
  Kerry fearlessly told a branch of the federal government that holds the power under the Constitution to remove his boss from power for such an act. But he knows that will not happen. No fear. Words are just words unless they are backed up by something more forceful than words. The 2nd amendment ended up being the cornerstone of the whole Constitution because it not about words. Look I have no problem with nor does the Constitution with regulating who, what, when, where when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Just the level of governance.

  Your arguments and threats of force mirror those of the advocates of the right to own slaves. But history is on the other side. The number of household owning guns is in decline as is the number of people who hunt. I know it is bad news for you but civilization is breaking out in America. As the majority repealed the 18th Amendment with the 21st in our future the anachronism that is the 2nd Amendment bill be removed by legal means.
• isadore

  HitsRus;1757974 wrote:just sayin.....

  gosh a ruddies just sayin "context, context, context."
  
  George Washington quote is from his first address to Congress in 1790 is about a well regulated “disciplined” militia and about establishing national industries for defense.
  “Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
  A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. “
  
  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washs01.asp
  
  and we find it true of other quotes on the subject.
  
  http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm