Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
03 29, 24, 09:12:33:AM

Login with username and password

Biden Does NOT need a BILL to close the border
He only needs a PEN. Thats all he needed to open it.
Thats all he needed to close it. Thats all Trump needed.
Maybe this is just Proof Trump is better than Biden.

Search:     Advanced search
2653715 Posts in 297946 Topics by 306 Members
Latest Member: chachamukhtar
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: The meaning of "Well Regulated." 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: The meaning of "Well Regulated."  (Read 7354 times)
HK91-762mm
Sr. Member

Posts: 19919

FreePeople are Not Equal,Equal people are Not Free


« Reply #36 on: 06 28, 16, 09:06:53:PM » Reply

 Bottom Line --- Conservatives see the Constitution as what has held this nation together for 200+ years

The Liberals see the Constitution as an Impediment To doing want they want to the USA !!














A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"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
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
Jim
When someone claims to have an Open Mind they are soon shocked, dismayed, and offended that there actually are other views.
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 62181

What would they do without Anecdotals or Snark


« Reply #37 on: 06 28, 16, 09:08:58:PM » Reply

the government can regulate that right and they have.
 
Then its NOT a RIGHT!    Will you be happy when they Regulate your Free Speech?
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 68575

Let's go Brandon!


« Reply #38 on: 06 28, 16, 10:57:30:PM » Reply

Will you be happy when they Regulate your Free Speech?


They are incapable of forming a coherent philosophy regarding individual rights.  Actually, they are fine regulating the speech they don't like.  They are authoritarians and to them there are no limits to collective power.  To them all "rights" are derived from collective authority.  It is evident in the efforts to stop claims that disrupt the climate change agenda, amount other things.  Oh, they will claim that it is criminal fraud or some such, but it is really free speech that they don't like.  The right only to say what is considered as truth, or correct, in any case, in no right of free speech at all.  You may just as well shelve it, altogether.  It's dead.
Dan
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

JW2 is a homosexual


« Reply #39 on: 06 29, 16, 02:24:13:AM » Reply

Quote
a (properly aligned) on your right to own and carry a weapon.

What the hell does that mean, wvit?
Dan
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

JW2 is a homosexual


« Reply #40 on: 06 29, 16, 02:26:47:AM » Reply

Quote
yes you have the right to own a weapon but the government can (properly align) that right and they have.

What the hell does that mean, wvit?
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 68575

Let's go Brandon!


« Reply #41 on: 06 29, 16, 08:58:35:AM » Reply

They can't fathom words like "rights", "Congress shall make NO law", "shall NOT be infringed", and "powers not delegated belong to the states, ...or people."  To them, there is NO federal law they can't write and pass and NO federal power that is not possible.
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #42 on: 06 29, 16, 09:01:40:AM » Reply

 You're right to free speech is already regulated. Try walking up on the White House lawn with a bullhorn and start spouting your nonsense and see what happens.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #43 on: 06 29, 16, 09:54:12:AM » Reply

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison's Usage

The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison's intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable "reasonable" regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of "infringe" based protection.

Samuel Adams' Usage
Another person who used "infringe" in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison's case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Congressional Amendments Committee Usage

There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of "shall not be infringed" language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates' historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment's actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison's proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of "infringed" relative to freedom of religion as well as his "shall not be infringed" language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used "shall not be infringed" with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Interpreting this restrictive "infringe" based language in the manner that some advocates of gun control do for Second Amendment usage removes all meaning of the terminology and completely destroys any protective intent of the provision. Such interpretations leave the intended protected rights to be regulated exactly like any other subject placed under the government's power. Such views of the language completely ignore the developmental history of the Bill of Rights, a history that is remarkably well documented because the need for a U.S. Bill of Rights was publicly and privately discussed for more than two full years prior to Congress' proposal of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments.

Shall Not Be Infringed - Shall Make No Laws

Another interesting period fact is that the style of restrictive language ultimately used in the First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law" - was previously found mostly in Second Amendment related proposals.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #44 on: 06 29, 16, 10:03:41:AM » Reply

The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.


David E. Young Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment developmental history and documents. Author of The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses, published in the Journal on Firearms & Public Policy
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #45 on: 06 29, 16, 10:13:09:AM » Reply

It's too bad that our Supreme Court hasn't agreed with your idiocy on this isn't it sweaty.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #46 on: 06 29, 16, 10:23:24:AM » Reply

Today, to the extent that the Second Amendment’s language is considered confusing or unclear, one thing is certain. Those applying such descriptions are unfamiliar with or ignoring the Second Amendment’s extensively documented American bill of rights history and period usage of its terms. Our history conclusively demonstrates both Second Amendment clauses are part and parcel of the individual rights protections that constitute the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of these provisions resulted from state ratifying convention desires that protections of the existing state bill of rights be added to the U.S. Constitution in a Federal Bill of Rights.  The relevant historical documents indicate that the Second Amendment’s clauses, just like their state bill of rights predecessors, were intended to protect individual rights against misconstruction and abuse of government powers.

The Supreme Court’s District of Columbia vs Heller case demonstrated a continuing dichotomy in Second Amendment history between relevant period sources, which were largely relied on in the Courts’ decision, and the views of modern historians that backed up the dissent in that case. Justice Breyer’s statement that most of the historians supported the Heller dissent was correct, but that is exactly the problem. The historians’ brief contained numerous errors of fact and failed to present the essential bill of rights related developmental history of the Second Amendment’s clauses. This article contains extensive and essential relevant information that directly conflicts with, or is entirely missing from, the historians’ brief to the Supreme Court.

http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/index.html


David E. Young is a Second Amendment scholar, editor of the ratification era document collection.
duke_john
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 59627


« Reply #47 on: 06 29, 16, 10:42:04:AM » Reply

 
You're right to free speech is already regulated. Try walking up on the White House lawn with a bullhorn and start spouting your nonsense and see what happens.

Try it with a Hillary campaign stop and see what happens. 

Try it at a Trump rally and watch the lefties shout FREE SPEECH FOR THE PROTESTORS!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 ... 13 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: The meaning of "Well Regulated."
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.306 seconds with 37 queries.