A message to our Leadership in America

[steelish]

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

[denuseri]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[steelish]

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

I don't have a Barretta (I assume that is what you're referring to) nor do I have a .50 caliber rifle (thank God) but I do have a very nice CZ 75BD. I know I'm being cheeky now, but I can't help it. Most people who don't understand seem to think that gun owners are "shoot 'em up" type people who will take wild pot-shots at anything and everything. (possibly because my neighbors dog shit in my yard) But nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor violence but I am not so stupid as to not be knowledgeable about guns and gun safety.

[steelish]

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?

Ah, but Amendments that gave women the right to vote and gave African Americans equal rights were not changes in human nature. They were an re-affirmation of God's Law, which is what our Constitution is based upon.

once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

The proliferation of clocks did not change the work day for many American workers. Farmers, loggers, miners, etc. still worked sunup to sundown. And most modern sports came about as a result of economics. Gambling, to be exact. It was another way for people to make money.

[denuseri]

I seem to recall our founding fathers wanting to make a seperation between church and state.

[Thorne]

Ah, but Amendments that gave women the right to vote and gave African Americans equal rights were not changes in human nature. They were an re-affirmation of God's Law, which is what our Constitution is based upon.

Ah, but that's not what God's Law is all about, is it. God's law holds women to be not much better than property, and slavery to be justified. It is MORAL law that gives women and former slaves equal rights.

[Stealth694]

I have always felt the Constitution is a work in Progress,,, and must evolve according to the environment. Once Slavery was legal, now its a crime, Alcohol was illegal, once now its legal again, there are proposed amendments to legalize drugs ( I am against it) but still the Constitution has worked for over 200 yrs. BUT our Congressmen should be reminded that they "SERVE" at our pleasure, and after what happened in Massachuetts, hopefully this will wake them up to the fact that they are not in office for life, and we are not pleased.

[steelish]

There's a huge difference between adding to the Constitution with Amendments, and "changing" the Constitution or simply twisting it to fit a particular viewpoint.

Slavery is inhumane, therefore it should be illegal. Alcohol only became illegal after a progressive movement, at which point the government thought they were doing Americans a favor by making it illegal. So the prohibitionists had a field day and it backfired on the government. It caused more problems than it solved. So...they legalized it once again.

Not only did the Constitution work for over 200 years, it created one of the greatest nations on earth.

I am not holding my breath that the election in Massachusetts woke up the Democrats. A few have murmured that "maybe the majority of the people don't want this health care after all". But I for one think it's a ploy to save their seat. I don't think they've changed. They knew a majority didn't want it but they were plowing ahead anyway. Now that they're in danger of being voted out, suddenly they're singing different songs. I don't care for their songs anymore.

[MMI]

An amendment is what it says: a change, a correction, or rectification, etc. If the American Constitution had not been altered by the Bill of Rights, or by the various other amendments giving, for example, the vote to women, or abolishing slavery, the USA would not be "one of the greatest nations on earth," which it undoubtedly is.

The fact that, in 1919 it was felt necessary to use the Constitution to prohibit the production of alcoholic beverages, and, in 1933 it was felt necessary to amend that part of the Constitution again, to repeal the earlier amendment shows that changes can be made to the document, if necessary over and over again.

[denuseri]

I dont think the issue with the constituionalists is about the document and its amedments in and of itself.

Its with the blatant sidesteping of it by passage of all sorts of regulatory laws (some by legal descision in the courts other through various resolutions and side votes in committeees and other pork barrel aditives).

[oww-that-hurt]

Wouldn't it be grand if all of the U.S. citizens could write as well as denuseri did with the opening post to this thread? Yeah, I know, only the first couple of lines were hers, but for her to write those lines and present the text for us is outstanding.

denuseri, i shake your hand, for writing much of what I feel, through your many thread contributions.

Thank-you

oww

[Midnytedreams]

I'm just pondering how long it will be before we see an Obama shoe or line of clothing" would the slogan read now you can feel the power". Maybe he could solve the economy with his endorsements.

[steelish]

I dont think the issue with the constituionalists is about the document and its amedments in and of itself.

Its with the blatant sidesteping of it by passage of all sorts of regulatory laws (some by legal descision in the courts other through various resolutions and side votes in committeees and other pork barrel aditives).

Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to get across and it just wasn't coming out, no matter how I tried to explain it!

[denuseri]

They allready have a load of Obama novelty products out there.

[Midnytedreams]

The Obama's have replaced picture of Lincoln in the white house with new art

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...455287432.html...

The art says nothing but the word .... Maybe

makes you wonder what that means

[TwistedTails]

The Obama's have replaced picture of Lincoln in the white house with new art

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...455287432.html...

The art says nothing but the word .... Maybe
makes you wonder what that means

From the article....

"and a blood-red Edward Ruscha canvas featuring the words,
“I think maybe I’ll…,” fitting for a president known for lengthy
bouts of contemplation."

It is not a very good picture of the work, and I don't see anything
about replacing any presidential portraits. I rather doubt the curator
would allow that. As far as the residence goes, it has always been the
First Lady's prerogative to redecorate.

[Midnytedreams]

thank you twisted that's what I get for not wearing My glasses when I read

[MMI]

Maybe I look at life from a different angle
Maybe there are some knots that we don’t need to untangle
Maybe I look at the world from a different point of view
Maybe all lies are not false and all truths are not true
Maybe I look at the heavens with rose colored glasses
Maybe there’s one rainbow that was meant for all the masses
Maybe I looked at poverty from a different position
Maybe an empty plate means poor recognition
Maybe I look at war from a different prospective
Maybe fighting wars leaves one a little defective
Maybe I listen to the wind with different ears
Maybe the wind is a lullaby to calm babies’ tears
Maybe I’ll just pilot a giant craft like Noah’s Ark
Maybe it will open peoples’ eyes and they will see a new spark
Maybe I’ll plant around the world a seed of desperation
Maybe then we will awaken to a new realization
Maybe I’ll sell this planet a better tomorrow
Maybe peace and harmony will keep down the sorrow
Maybe I’ll say penance for the errors of our ways
Maybe we should get down on our knees and see how it plays
Maybe I look at creation as something artificial
Maybe coloring it with crayons makes it official
Maybe I look at the unknown with ambiguous eyes
Maybe being cynical is an inherent disguise
Maybe I look as destiny as a vehicle of hope
Maybe we just haven’t thrown out enough rope
Maybe I’m just a creature of apprehension
Maybe it’s true that love is the mother of invention
Maybe I look at starvation and it just doesn’t make any sense
Maybe that is why happy people talk about salvation in the past tense
Maybe I look at democracy with a tired eye and closed mind
Maybe the rich shouldn’t get richer stealing the poor blind
Maybe I look at dreams from a different optical plane
Maybe a kaleidoscope isn’t fragmented, it’s only our brain
Maybe I’ll just go hide behind a dead tree and throw up
Maybe I was just too gullible to think someday we would grow up
Maybe I look at the cutting edge of society with a dull sense of despair
Maybe a better tomorrow will never come, we’re already there
Maybe I look at spilt blood as more than external pain
Maybe a river of blood is but a sad refrain
Maybe I look at silence as the king of betrayal of our fall
Maybe a tongue tied artist can’t speak for us all
Maybe I picture the mother earth as a black pearl in the sky
Maybe, just maybe we need to ask the question why

Alfred Ramos

[Energizer]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

[Bren122]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

there is a very good argument that in guaranteeing property rights and rule of law, the US Constitution made the necessary conditions for wealth creation possible. very hard to create wealth in some countries when the authorities keep leaning on you to pay 'protection' money and 'special' contributions.

[Bren122]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

The success of the South relied absolutely on recognition by Britain; and Britain refused to supply it because of the pro-slavery stance taken by the confederacy. In fact the failure of the South worked to Britain's favour- it managed to establish cotton farms in labour cheap parts of the Empire and in Egypt as well as weakening France in its misguided pursuit of a Mexican crown. workers in the cotton mills in the north of England sent letters of support to Lincoln and even contributed money to the Northern war effort while their mills stood idle for want of Southern cotton. Liverpool dock workers refused to unload much of the cotton that was smuggled out of the South. Britain put principle above interest in this matter.
the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms.

[denuseri]

I apologize, it wasn't the whole of Brittan, I excludded the so called "Official" position of the government and its abolisionist supporters. I should have been more specific about which divisons of which countries I was refering to.

Factions of the Brittish as well as the French did however not support the interuption of commerce from the South at least initially during the war and more than one political cartoonist in the UK as well as France did do their best to paint Lincon in paticular in a bad light, especially prior to election but also during the war, where as the new markets that were opened were done by nessesity due to sudden sortages that initially cuased hardship as opposed to by design of oportunity seeking if I recall correctly.

[DuncanONeil]

"Sold them a bill of goods"? You consider work hard, save for the future, attend church regularly, and be honest in your dealing with others a "bill of goods"?

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

[DuncanONeil]

The amendment states, as you note, that a well regulated militia is necessary.
But! In order to insure that said can exist a right is granted, not to the militia or state but to "the people". The language of the amendment is clear and can only result in one understanding.
In case my position is perceived as my own personal bias against your personal bias you can find an English language analysis from an expert at teh following location. http://www.largo.org/literary.html

The second Amendment reads;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish, basically very well put. However there is one fundamental flaw in your post. "We don't have a functioning state-militia system". This is a bit wrong, the National Guard is a functioning state militia system!

Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.

Consider this sentence:

"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"

Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.

[DuncanONeil]

To say; "government is meant to serve, not fear, the people. " is foolish. To make it simple, you fear your boss. Not because he is mean or any such thing but because he has the power to fire you.
For the Government to fear the people makes the Government responsive to the people. When the Government does not fear the people you arrive at a situation like we have now, where the Government decides that it does not matter what the people say or desire we are going to pass the law we think is best for them.
The people did not want to bail out the auto companies. The Government went ahead anyway! The people have determined that the Government plan for health insurance is fatally flawed and do not want it. What is the Government position? Pass it anyhow! We'll fix it later! The second part of that is proof they know it is flawed, why not fix it first?

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[DuncanONeil]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

[DuncanONeil]

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.

where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.

Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[DuncanONeil]

None of that has changed "human nature"!

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?
once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

[DuncanONeil]

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

This is not a complaint.
The toughest weapons go to two kinds. Collectors, I think we can all presume they have no intent to go on a killing spree.
And the bad guys. The bad guys are concerned with two things in a fire arm. Rate of fire and is it concealable.