Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Figured a companion thread was necessary. Clearly, not all of their ideas were good and not all of them lasted. More, some were good at the time, but have just become obsolete. I'm going to start with one that was probably absolutely necessary to keep the country together, but nontheless was a horrible decision and compromise. Keeping slavery and counting a slave 2/3s of a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 The open ended definitions of the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Author Share Posted December 13, 2010 Not bare arms? That ambiguity has caused a lot of grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 The Articles of Confederation didn't work out so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Not bare arms? That ambiguity has caused a lot of grief. I don't see it as ambiguous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Bare arms are a right? I've been wearing long sleeves all these years for no reason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 I don't see it as ambiguous Agreed. It seems rather clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Author Share Posted December 13, 2010 Sure, as long as you are part of a well-regulated militia you have the right to bare arms. Individuals not belonging to a well-regulated militia don't have that right. Simple, clear, and without ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Sure, as long as you are part of a well-regulated militia you have the right to bare arms. Individuals not belonging to a well-regulated militia don't have that right. Simple, clear, and without ambiguity. Only those who wish to inhibit the right feel it's ambiguous. Most understand precisely what it says and means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Author Share Posted December 13, 2010 Or... only those who stop reading when they feel like it think it lacks ambiguity. SS, the country has been arguing about the clause forever and you have the affrontery to pretend it ain't ambiguous. If it were clear there wouldn't be an argument. People might fight to overturn it, but that's not what happens. If you read that passage in its entirety and literally two people can come up with two honest interpretations. What you believe to be correct doesn't change the clarity of the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Are we forgetting the part about it that says that right should not be infringed ? We have the right to bear arms. There is no clause, it is for self defense and hunting. Felons and mentally ill are the only exceptions it seems. Pretty clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Or... only those who stop reading when they feel like it think it lacks ambiguity. SS, the country has been arguing about the clause forever and you have the affrontery to pretend it ain't ambiguous. If it were clear there wouldn't be an argument. People might fight to overturn it, but that's not what happens. If you read that passage in its entirety and literally two people can come up with two honest interpretations.What you believe to be correct doesn't change the clarity of the statement. Like I said, the only people who pretend it's gauge are those who don't want it as an. Indvidual right. Otherwise it's pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 The right to Bare Arms The right to Bear Arms ---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 09:16 AM ---------- SS, in all fairness I'm anti-gun control and the intent of the Framers on this matter is debatable, IMO. The supreme court recently ruled that your interpretation is correct. But what others are talking about is the prefunctory clause that starts the Second Amendment: 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 infringe Why mention Militia if it was intended to extend to private citizens who have no intention of joining/forming a Militia? Even the punctuation on the Constitution and the copies that were distributed to the states for ratification varies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Militia is mentioned because at the time some states required citizens to supply their own arks while others didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Militia is mentioned because at the time some states required citizens to supply their own arks while others didn't. There's no reason to ever put anything from the Constitution into context. It is written clear as day and requires no interpreation, ever. The worst thing they did was what they forgot to do: abolish slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Author Share Posted December 13, 2010 Militia is mentioned because at the time some states required citizens to supply their own arks while others didn't. Some did. Some didn't. Sounds like ambiguity to me. Honestly, I'm not even saying your interpretation is wrong... merely, that it is an interpretation because the way it was written wasn't clean. Look at the difference between that and Freedom of Speech Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't say, in an assembly Hall or place of governance... it said, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise or abridging. No amiguity. Do you see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Sure, as long as you are part of a well-regulated militia you have the right to bare arms. Individuals not belonging to a well-regulated militia don't have that right. Simple, clear, and without ambiguity. The right to bare arms was actually much better than their first idea... The right for bears to arm... Worst Ideas... (1) The VP of any administration is the #2 vote getter in that Presidents election. Bad idea which didn't outlast the second President. (2) John Adams Allien and Sedition acts during the Quasi War with France were pretty bad ideas.. Made it a crime to complain about the government. (3) Only letting the people vote for representaties in the congressional house was a bad idea... ( President elected by electorial college, senate elected by the state legislatures, and Supreme court appointed. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Ode to the Gun http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/ "Those who hammer their guns into lows, will plow for those who do not." -- Thomas Jefferson "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and independence . . . from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 The right to Bear Arms Or this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Author Share Posted December 13, 2010 Ode to the Gunhttp://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/ "Those who hammer their guns into lows, will plow for those who do not." -- Thomas Jefferson "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and independence . . . from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington. Everyone knows you don't take speechifying literally. These are statements hyperbolized to stir man's hearts and not their reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Many of the FF had it wrong regarding States -vs- Federal powers. Thank God the Federalists won out and we got the Constitution and produced a great country... and not a collection of 13 colonies loosely joined by little more than a gentleman's agreement. The future of our country would have been much like South and Central America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Everyone knows you don't take speechifying literally. These are statements hyperbolized to stir man's hearts and not their reason. In other words, ignore their words and actual intent and pretend it's ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 The right to bare arms was actually much better than their first idea... The right for bears to arm...Worst Ideas... (1) The VP of any administration is the #2 vote getter in that Presidents election. Bad idea which didn't outlast the second President. I've done some thinking on this, and I'm not sure, after all, it was such a bad idea. Much like partisanship serves to make an effective and fair congress, one wonders if the Iraq war would have occured if, say, Al Gore was the VP. However, I do see how ridiculous it is in many respects. But I don't think it's a black and white "bad idea" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 13, 2010 Author Share Posted December 13, 2010 In other words, ignore their words and actual intent and pretend it's ambiguous. Nope, ignore flowery speeches and read what they wrote. What they choose to do and what they say they'll do or what they believe in is often very, very different. Obama said he was going to go through the budget with a laser and slash it mercilessly. Do you buy the speech? Is that who he was? The Republicans said that they have returned to the roots of fiscal conservativism and yet their first action would increase the debt by almost a trillion dollars. Are they fiscal conservatives? They said they was. What people say doesn't often match with what they mean or what they do. What they do is what's important. What they wrote and how they wrote it is significant. In this case, they chose to write that not only is a militia required, but that it must be a Well-Regulated militia. In your mind, that means that every individual is free to do as they will without any strictures. I think we have a difference caused by... meaning versus intent. Or ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Sure, as long as you are part of a well-regulated militia you have the right to bare arms. Individuals not belonging to a well-regulated militia don't have that right. Simple, clear, and without ambiguity. 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. The sentence starts with the reason why the amendment is being put there, then it moves on very unambiguously to "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While the first part of the amendment outlines the reason for the second part, the second part of the amendment is not conditional upon the first part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.