2nd Amendment "Fraud"

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by icenine

Everyone forgets that the form of government we have is a federal one.....as in confederate in a generic sense of the word. It was designed so that not one branch can dominate another with a series of checks and balances. It works both ways. It protects us from tyranny from state government as well in the form of protecting minority rights.
So it is not just an argument about overarching federal govenrment witht the Bill of Rights.

Actually federation and confederation are two different forms of government.

The primary difference, as I recall, is the degree of power ceded to the central government. A federation, which is what we are, has the stronger central authority. A confederation, which is what we were pre-1789, is too weak, allowing the constituent states too much free reign to go their own way, out of step with the central government and the other states. Our stab at confederation was a disaster.

John

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Actually federation and confederation are two different forms of government.

The primary difference, as I recall, is the degree of power ceded to the central government. A federation, which is what we are, has the stronger central authority. A confederation, which is what we were pre-1789, is too weak, allowing the constituent states too much free reign to go their own way, out of step with the central government and the other states. Our stab at confederation was a disaster.

John

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

Pragmatism tempering idealism.

John

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

Locke idea's is only valid in political science survey courses and philosophy. You cannot apply them to our nation today...this is the real world, and in the late 18th century his ideas had to be adapted to the real world at the time.

See how well John Locke's ideas are working out in Egypt.....

out government is not tyrannical

boy I am sounding conservative....

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by icenine

Locke idea's is only valid in political science survey courses and philosophy. You cannot apply them to our nation today...this is the real world, and in the late 18th century his ideas had to be adapted to the real world at the time.

See how well John Locke's ideas are working out in Egypt.....

out government is not tyrannical

boy I am sounding conservative....

And that would be to centralize power for the benefit of what were then elites. My rather simple point is that freedom and restraint can not be brought about by command and have any chance of surviving long term. BTW, this feels like the liberal idealist argument prevalent in the 1960s? Interestingly, now that those idealists have the reins of power, they're just as power grubbing as the right wrt command and control of their fellow citizens.

Locke is much more complex that the oft quoted social contract theory snippets favored by both the left and the right IMHO. In fact, I feel that "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" ought be studied before the "Two Treatises." All of this revolves around the nature of the self, free will, and choice theory. I suppose in Political Economy, we'd try to design a system that maximizes choice and free will while minimizing any hindrance caused by government since the government is at best only an adjunct to the individuals.

[mpholland]

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

You don't actually think this current bunch of Republicans are conservatives, do you? And nobody's sanctifying Burger.

What's going on here? Are you unable to counter his argument or the others in this thread? Are you reduced to ad hominem jibes directed at the liberals on the board?

I'm pretty sure that's it but I welcome you to try to change my mind.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mpholland

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

Yeah, so. Post one JFK quote about "excessive taxation" and watch Conservatives become instant Kennedy fans.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Regards,
Dave

[mpholland]

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

Then what is your objective and your desire and how did your most recent post serve those ends?

Nobody is "unnecessary" and nobody is forgetting anything about the Bill of Rights. It seems, however, that some people with a case to be made regarding the 2nd Amendment believe it's the only thing that matters or, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the final third of it is all that matters.

There are other documents that outline our rights and responsibilities as well as the rights and responsibilities of government. Some of those have been mentioned in this thread. Taken together, they paint a clear picture of the framers' intent regarding the possession of arms by the populace. The 2nd Amendment doesn't negate Article 1 and it doesn't nullify later legislation like the Militia Acts.

Next, nobody here is arguing that you don't have the right to own firearms. That right, however, has ALWAYS been a qualified right. There have always been individuals who for one reason or another could own none and there were types of weapons that were outside the bounds of what was permitted in private hands.

When the Bill of Rights was written ownership of a field gun wasn't allowed. Then, when machine guns were invented, they became off limits to civilians except under very narrowly defined circumstances. So we see that, as time moves on and new weapons appear, the qualified right to bear arms needs to be tweaked. I think it's clear that a tweak regarding assault weapons and high capacity magazines is in order - overdue, in fact.

John