More Bill of Rights

[underbear1]

Quote by: zynner That's not true. The US Constitution (as originally written, before the amendments) said nothing about sex or race. It left the question of who could vote (and hold office) to the states. In fact, women did vote in some states, as did free blacks. It's also true that the rights of women and blacks (in non-slave states, of course), where upheld in courts. The point is, these things were left to the states. Some states were plainly racist and sexist. Some were not. ~ zynner

Which states, do you have a link to back up your fact?

[zynner]

Quote by: gallo As long as those tools are held and used in conformity with the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in which the citizen lives.

I'm getting at a more fundamental, basic point. The right of self-defense exists. If any government legislature, executive, or court disagrees, then it is they who are wrong. I don't care what the courts say. If they refuse to uphold fundamental rights, then they are the ones who are the violator of rights. That's what the Declaration of Independence refered to as inalienable rights: they cannot be alienated (taken away) by anyone, including a government.

You go on to make a lot of points about court decisions. Irrelevant to my point.

Just try shooting one of my cattle as see how that works out for you.

Don't mix concepts here. I am not talking about shooting, taking, or damaging your property (cattle). I am talking about wild animals. Obviously, taking your property is a violation of your rights -- but that is not what I was addressing.

For example, I believe that it is illegal to own a handgun in New York,

Irrelevant to my point. If any government passes such laws, then it is those government employees who have committed the wrong.

Do you have a right to self-defense or not?

If you do, then you have the right to the tools necessary to excercise that right.

If you do not have the right to self-defense, then do not respond to this point because you would only be defending yourself -- proving my point!

Except that you would have to show that the 9th Amendment is somehow a guarantee of individual liberty.

You have to consider the context of 1787. These guys were well-versed in Locke and other writings and they were attempting to create a governmental system of liberty. The 9th Amendment is the most important because it is the one that clearly tells you that ALL of your rights have been preserved (they existed before the government did), unless specifically turned over to the government (such as the right to coin money).

Except that I think that there may be some differing views about whether these are basic principles of government. I suspect that you might have a problem if you were attempting to exercise your right to hunt your food in the City of New York.

Well, I like to hunt blondes in New York, but not with a firearm. ;-)

The point is this: individual rights pre-exist government. The Declaration of Independence is a fine example of this concept. They freakin' abolished their government of that time because the government did not respect their pre-existing rights! How more clear can it be?

Any government that does not respect the rights of the individual is anti-liberty. Unfortunately, that includes today's version of the United States government. The Constitution was an attempt to preserve liberty, by way of a limited government. It should not be surprising that would-be tyrants have whittled away at liberty for many decades now and we have arrived at a point today where the system is collapsing.

That's my point. Although I agree with you that we can cite laws on the books and various court cases, I am talking about a higher level of thinking here -- basic rights that exist regardless of whether or not any particular government honors them. And when a government gets out of line and refuses to honor these rights, then it is time that we recognize what is going on. It's not that we do not have these rights; rather, it's that we cannot excercise them becase we have a government that does not respect them.

It's like a barometer of liberty. The more our government respects individual rights so that such rights can be freely excercised, the better off we all are because of the many benefits of liberty. But when the barometer tells us a storm is brewing, we should take note and head for higher ground -- whatever that means to each of us (elect other people, sound the alarm, move, etc.).

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: underbear1 Which states, do you have a link to back up your fact?

Women could vote in New Jersey, for example.

I don't have any links handy. Look it up.

~ zynner

[underbear1]

The American Revolution

"The framers of New Jersey's first constitution in 1776 gave the vote to "all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds ... and have resided within the county ... for twelve months." The other twelve new states restricted voting to men. Although some have argued that this gender-neutral language was a mistake, most historians agree that the clear intention was to allow some women to vote. Because married women had no property in their own names and were assumed to be represented by their husbands' votes, only single women voted in New Jersey. But, in the 1790s and 1800s, large numbers of unmarried New Jersey women regularly participated in elections and spoke out on political issues.

In 1807, the state's legislature ignored the constitution and restricted suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes."
Single women worth more than fifty pounds, I bet that was damn few women.
Wealth was either held by a woman's father or husband, and there was no mention of non-white voters.

[zynner]

Quote by: underbear1 In 1807, the state's legislature ignored the constitution and restricted suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes." Single women worth more than fifty pounds, I bet that was damn few women. Wealth was either held by a woman's father or husband, and there was no mention of non-white voters.

LOL -- that was a FAST response! Were you waiting in the shadows to attack or just hit the first link on Google? LOL.

Yes, of course, it was a racist and sexist world by today's standards.

I agree. The US Constitution is silent on the issue, however -- it was left to the states. Therefore, the founders themselves were not particularly racist nor sexist. The entire society was that way -- an inheritence from Western Europe.

Would you expect someone to snap their fingers and magically everyone adopts 21st Century thinking in 1787? These guys were not particularly racist nor sexist. They could have made sure no woman would vote or hold public office but did not. They could have ensured slavery would exist forever, but did not.

None of that is of any importance to the larger issues, though. These guys were moving human history forward, not backward, with their thinking. That is the real point. It would take many decades more to continue the advance regarding blacks and women, but that does not mean that these guys were a bunch of tyrants moving things back. Slavery existed for thousands of years. Women were considered chattel for thousands of years. The founders were progressing human history forward. That's the real point.

Too many people want to blame these guys for ills/evils that they inherited and that had existed for thousands of years. Thinking that way, one tends to lose perspective on what they accomplished and how they set the stage for later and further advancement in human history, as well.

If you can adopt 24th Century thinking right now, let me know what it's like. If you cannot, then you cannot expect that 18th Century humans could have done likewise. These guys were not trying to secure a cozy spot for the rich, white guy. On the contrary, they were taking a large step away from that thinking, which is what had dominated Western societies for centuries.

You do see the point, right?

~ zynner

[gallo]

Quote by: zynner I'm getting at a more fundamental, basic point.

Then you are straying far from the topic. The topic is about the 2nd Amendment.

Quote by: zynner The right of self-defense exists. If any government legislature, executive, or court disagrees, then it is they who are wrong.

Who said that the government disagreed with that right? In fact, I have mentioned rights specified in the Constitution several times, and the fact that if a right is not mentioned then the federal government cannot restrict it.

Quote by: zynner I don't care what the courts say. If they refuse to uphold fundamental rights, then they are the ones who are the violator of rights.

Again straying off topic. No one even said anything about the courts denying rights except you. In fact, the courts determine when enacted laws or actions of government have violated rights.

Quote by: zynner That's what the Declaration of Independence refered to as inalienable rights: they cannot be alienated (taken away) by anyone, including a government.

Again, who made a claim that they were? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Quote by: zynner You go on to make a lot of points about court decisions. Irrelevant to my point.

But your point is irrelevant.

Quote by: zynner Don't mix concepts here. I am not talking about shooting, taking, or damaging your property (cattle). I am talking about wild animals.

Perhaps you intended to do so, but you didn't express it that way. You claimed an absolute right and I was merely pointing out that your right isn't absolute.

Quote by: zynner Obviously, taking your property is a violation of your rights -- but that is not what I was addressing.

You were claiming a right to kill animals without regard to laws. You expressed it as an absolute right to hunt for your food, even if it violated certain laws.

Quote by: zynner Irrelevant to my point. If any government passes such laws, then it is those government employees who have committed the wrong.

Isn't anarchy wonderful.

Quote by: zynner Do you have a right to self-defense or not?

Sure. But how does limiting the possession of any weapon deprive you of that right?

Quote by: zynner If you do, then you have the right to the tools necessary to excercise that right.

As long as your possession of what you call tools is in accordance with the law.

Quote by: zynner If you do not have the right to self-defense, then do not respond to this point because you would only be defending yourself -- proving my point!

Now you're talking nonsense. Now you are claiming the right to shoot me if I disagree with you? Or are you saying that if I claim the right to defend my position I may use whatever tools I think necessary to do so, like a gun? Really. Did you think about that before you said it?

Quote by: zynner You have to consider the context of 1787. These guys were well-versed in Locke and other writings and they were attempting to create a governmental system of liberty.

No they weren't. They were attempting to establish a government in which the federal powers were well defined. And the freedoms recognized were not absolute in every case but reserved to the states and the people.

Quote by: zynner The 9th Amendment is the most important because it is the one that clearly tells you that ALL of your rights have been preserved (they existed before the government did), unless specifically turned over to the government (such as the right to coin money).

Or unless specifically legislated by state and local governments. Powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

Quote by: zynner The point is this: individual rights pre-exist government. The Declaration of Independence is a fine example of this concept. They freakin' abolished their government of that time because the government did not respect their pre-existing rights! How more clear can it be?

The Declaration does not establish the government. It never did. The first government was established by the Articles of Confederation, which were replaced when the Constitution was ratified.

Quote by: zynner Any government that does not respect the rights of the individual is anti-liberty. Unfortunately, that includes today's version of the United States government. The Constitution was an attempt to preserve liberty, by way of a limited government. It should not be surprising that would-be tyrants have whittled away at liberty for many decades now and we have arrived at a point today where the system is collapsing.

Anarchy is wonderful.

Quote by: zynner That's my point. Although I agree with you that we can cite laws on the books and various court cases, I am talking about a higher level of thinking here -- basic rights that exist regardless of whether or not any particular government honors them.

But it isn't a basic right to own firearms. If you think that you need to hunt your food, then you can do it with bow and arrow. You haven't been deprived of the tools. For the general protection of the rights of others, certain weapons have been restricted by government.

Quote by: zynner And when a government gets out of line and refuses to honor these rights, then it is time that we recognize what is going on. It's not that we do not have these rights; rather, it's that we cannot excercise them becase we have a government that does not respect them.

But that is your opinion. Nothing more. Just because you claim some right doesn't mean that it is rational or real in a given society.

Quote by: zynner It's like a barometer of liberty. The more our government respects individual rights so that such rights can be freely excercised, the better off we all are because of the many benefits of liberty. But when the barometer tells us a storm is brewing, we should take note and head for higher ground -- whatever that means to each of us (elect other people, sound the alarm, move, etc.).

So what does any of that have to do with a well regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms? What does that have to do with the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment? If you think that you have an absolute right to carry a gun, then try it in my state without complying with the laws that restrict your freedom to do so. If you get caught, you can explain to the judge about your right. Carry a weapon into a bar and get caught and you can explain your right to your cell mate. Of course, the warden may disagree with your unalienable right to weapons.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: gallo Not necessarily. That definition may be fitting for groups like the Michigan Militia, who dressed in camouflage and ran around calling each other "general" and "colonel", but that isn't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. First, is the definition of militia from the Virginia Constitution of 1776 that I quoted before. Clearly, that is not a reference to the militia that you propose. Next there is the matter of what is said about the militia in the Constitution. Clearly the framers of the Constitution meant another definition of militia from yours. Clearly they envisioned a militia that is supported by the state and subject to the call of the state.. Clearly they meant the primary definition of militia, an official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Actually, when I mentioned that the militia units of the Revolutionary War furnished their own weapons, I was speaking historically. Obviously that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution since they specifically specified that the militias were to be armed by the federal government, as well as organized and disciplined. And while training was to be prescribed by Congress, the responsibility for carrying out the training was the states. Again, you use a non-standard definition. A militia is a military unit of a state and it is subject to the call to active duty by Congress. That pretty much describes the National Guard. Yes. Indeed. One definition of a militia, an official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Personally, I think that the Constitution specifies what was meant by well regulated, i.e., organized, armed and disciplined by the federal government, trained by the state according to Congress' prescription. I think that "well regulated" excludes organizations like the Michigan Militia from consideration as a militia according to the Constitution. Historically, Revolutionary militias were not very good military units. They functioned better as irregulars. One example is that action of the Massachusetts Minute Men at Lexington and Concord. Rather than stand and fight like regular armies of the time, they gave ground, established a defensive position on high ground, channeled the opposing army to a single narrow front, and then harassed the retreating regulars from all sides with quick hit and run attacks. All in all, if we are to establish what right the 2nd Amendment guarantees, then we must also understand what the framers of the Constitution meant by Militia.

With all that said, I think your definition applies to the US. I do stand by my own definition historically though. The militia of William Wallace, the French Resistance, the vast number of militia currently working in Africa, are/were all none-state actors.

[zynner]

Gallo,

If you're going to accuse me of changing the subject or mixing concepts, then don't do it yourself. What does having a gun in a bar in New York have to do with a militia? What does shooting an animal for food have to do with taking someone else's property?

Each of the first eight amendments are restrictions on the federal government. I think we agree on that.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the federal government cannot restrict the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say anything about the states. You would have to extrapolate to get there; the right itself is preserved to individuals.

The 9th Amendment clearly states that federal government cannot infringe on rights that "the people" have, even though the rights are not expressly retained within the Constitution.

I brought up the 9th Amendment because many people want to make a case for gun control because of the 2nd Amendment, but they must also factor in the 9th Amendment and the tools necessary for excercising the right of self-defense.

Sure, lots of states and lots of governments worldwide do not respect the right for one to own the tools of self-defense. So what? That only shows that a lot of people don't respect the right.

Walking around New York City with a gun has nothing to do (usually) with a militia; it has everything to do with self-defense. Likewise, walking in the woods with a rifle has nothing to do (usually) with a militia or stealing someone else's property; it has everything to do with hunting food.

The 2nd Amendment is not necessary to show that gun ownership is a right. The 9th Amendment should not be necessary, either, but it's there all the same.

Now, if you want to tell me that this or that court would disagree, then you are not telling me anything I don't know. What's your point? That lots of people today do not respect fundamental rights of the individual like the founders did? Yes, I know. That's my point.

~ zynner

[underbear1]

"You do see the point, right?

~ zynner"
There were a few quite radical and lofty concepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but you''ll also need to see my point they lived up to very few of those ideals, for women and minorities..........for Centuries.

[zynner]

Quote by: underbear1 There were a few quite radical and lofty concepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but you''ll also need to see my point they lived up to very few of those ideals, for women and minorities..........for Centuries.

Yes, I see your point. I also acknowledge that it is far easier for a person to live up to lofty ideals if they themselves benefit. It's easy to talk about freedom if you're not a slave. I understand that. And, yes, they were all white men (though few were rich and none super rich).

You have to look at what they had to work with, though. They lived at a time when slavery was just commonly accepted and had been so for thousands of years. The same is true of women having little or no say in politics. That's where society was at. It's not like these men created these concepts.

So, I hope you can acknowledge that these guys did move human history forward -- by leaps and bounds. Sure, they didn't solve all of society's problems within a few weeks of their meeting in Philadelphia, but then *we the people* living today haven't exactly solved all the world's problems either, huh? ;-)

~ zynner

[gallo]

Quote by: G. Adams With all that said, I think your definition applies to the US. I do stand by my own definition historically though. The militia of William Wallace, the French Resistance, the vast number of militia currently working in Africa, are/were all none-state actors.

Yes. Of course it deals with the U.S. That was the question I posted. I was asking about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[gallo]

Quote by: zynner Gallo, If you're going to accuse me of changing the subject or mixing concepts, then don't do it yourself. What does having a gun in a bar in New York have to do with a militia? What does shooting an animal for food have to do with taking someone else's property?

I was following your lead off topic.

Quote by: zynner Each of the first eight amendments are restrictions on the federal government. I think we agree on that.

Irrelevant to the question.

Quote by: zynner The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the federal government cannot restrict the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say anything about the states. You would have to extrapolate to get there; the right itself is preserved to individuals.

Actually, you are wrong. "The people" does not mean individuals. The Supreme Court has even view the term "the people" in such a manner in one 2nd Amendment case. The only instance of "the people" being extended to individuals is in the 4the Amendment, where is specifically indicates so, as in "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." "The people" is a collective term and includes the governments of the people of the various states.

Quote by: zynner The 9th Amendment clearly states that federal government cannot infringe on rights that "the people" have, even though the rights are not expressly retained within the Constitution.

Right. "The people," but not individuals. Besides, the 9th Amendment is irrelevant. The rights of individuals is covered more importantly by the 14th Amendment because the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, and most of the 5th Amendments have been incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment. The 9th has not been incorporated under the 14th Amendment, nor has any other amendment been incorporated under the 9th.

Quote by: zynner I brought up the 9th Amendment because many people want to make a case for gun control because of the 2nd Amendment, but they must also factor in the 9th Amendment and the tools necessary for excercising the right of self-defense.

But it has never been done. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the individual right to weapons on one occasion and found that the phrase about a well regulated militia was operative. Other than that, the 2nd Amendment restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of states to form militias. The 2nd Amendment does not restrict state and local governments from enacting laws that restrict or control weapons. In fact, even the federal government can and does make laws that restrict weapons not appropriate for a militia.

Quote by: zynner Sure, lots of states and lots of governments worldwide do not respect the right for one to own the tools of self-defense. So what? That only shows that a lot of people don't respect the right.

No. It shows that it is not an individual right under our Constitution.

Quote by: zynner Walking around New York City with a gun has nothing to do (usually) with a militia; it has everything to do with self-defense. Likewise, walking in the woods with a rifle has nothing to do (usually) with a militia or stealing someone else's property; it has everything to do with hunting food.

Debatable.

Quote by: zynner The 2nd Amendment is not necessary to show that gun ownership is a right. The 9th Amendment should not be necessary, either, but it's there all the same.

Good, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't show that and the 9th Amendment doesn't have to power to create that right where it does not exist.

Quote by: zynner Now, if you want to tell me that this or that court would disagree, then you are not telling me anything I don't know. What's your point?

My point is that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution as applied to today's world.

Quote by: zynner That lots of people today do not respect fundamental rights of the individual like the founders did? Yes, I know. That's my point.

But if the founders wanted to grant a fundamental right to bear arms, then they wouldn't have included the clause about the well regulated militia. If you take that clause off, does it change the meaning as you understand it? It sure would as far as I can understand. I really think that the framers of the Constitution were smart enough that they wouldn't tack on phrases if they didn't want them to have meaning.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: gallo Yes. Of course it deals with the U.S. That was the question I posted. I was asking about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What a polite way to accept a retraction:rolleyes: No wonder people make say few of them on boards.

[gallo]

Quote by: G. Adams What a polite way to accept a retraction:rolleyes: No wonder people make say few of them on boards.

Gosh. If only your retraction had included some hint that it was a retraction. Your retraction sounded so much like, "yeah, in the U.S. maybe, but I'm not talking about the U.S."

Actually, if I had been paying attention to where you are, I would have figured that you probably wouldn't have been aware of what our Constitution says about the Militia, except for the parts that I posted. I posted everything it says, but after the fact.

You probably wouldn't be aware that the militias have become National Guard units, with military designations and arms and equipment. The wear Army uniforms and Army ranks, but are under the command of the governors of the various states (unless called to active duty). And there are some unusual units, like the Texas State Guard, a state supported, unarmed, uniformed, all volunteer militia whose function is to protect Texas National Guard armories when those units have been activated, and to respond to local emergencies.

By the way, another word for militia as you are defining it is "terrorists," as in Iraqi militias.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: gallo Gosh. If only your retraction had included some hint that it was a retraction. Your retraction sounded so much like, "yeah, in the U.S. maybe, but I'm not talking about the U.S." Actually, if I had been paying attention to where you are, I would have figured that you probably wouldn't have been aware of what our Constitution says about the Militia, except for the parts that I posted. I posted everything it says, but after the fact. You probably wouldn't be aware that the militias have become National Guard units, with military designations and arms and equipment. The wear Army uniforms and Army ranks, but are under the command of the governors of the various states (unless called to active duty). And there are some unusual units, like the Texas State Guard, a state supported, unarmed, uniformed, all volunteer militia whose function is to protect Texas National Guard armories when those units have been activated, and to respond to local emergencies. By the way, another word for militia as you are defining it is "terrorists," as in Iraqi militias.

It was a retraction, I admitted you were right, that my definition was not applicable to this case, what more could you expect?

No, having studied the US as part of sixth form and uni education for 5 years now, I'm quite aware of the wording of the US constitution, thanks.

Terrorism is a tactic, whereby fear is spread amongst an enemy population in order that pressure is put upon said populations government to change a particular policy. So the definition I gave would only make said militiamen terrorist if they, shock horror, employed terrorism.

[gallo]

Quote by: G. Adams It was a retraction, I admitted you were right, that my definition was not applicable to this case, what more could you expect?

I wouldn't have expected more, but you gave it. I would have expected you to stop there if it had been a "retraction."

Quote by: G. Adams No, having studied the US as part of sixth form and uni education for 5 years now, I'm quite aware of the wording of the US constitution, thanks.

Amazing. Most Americans aren't.

Quote by: G. Adams Terrorism is a tactic, whereby fear is spread amongst an enemy population in order that pressure is put upon said populations government to change a particular policy. So the definition I gave would only make said militiamen terrorist if they, shock horror, employed terrorism.

As in Iraq, Somolia, and Darfur?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: gallo I wouldn't have expected more, but you gave it. I would have expected you to stop there if it had been a "retraction." Amazing. Most Americans aren't. As in Iraq, Somolia, and Darfur?

In Iraq and Somalia, militia have employed terrorism. It does not mean they are all terrorists, many militiamen in Iraq act as a substitute police force (until a counterforce arrives) rather than as active insurgents.

Darfur is different. The Janjaweed (sp?) militia's main goal is not to change government policy, but ethnic cleansing of their own, as well as raiding. This means they are not so much terrorists, but a paramilitary force, quite possibly capable of supplanting government. As Sudan isn't far away from a failed state, it's hard to draw lines, as afterall government is just who has the monopoly of power.

[gallo]

Quote by: G. Adams In Iraq and Somalia, militia have employed terrorism. It does not mean they are all terrorists, many militiamen in Iraq act as a substitute police force (until a counterforce arrives) rather than as active insurgents. Darfur is different. The Janjaweed (sp?) militia's main goal is not to change government policy, but ethnic cleansing of their own, as well as raiding. This means they are not so much terrorists, but a paramilitary force, quite possibly capable of supplanting government. As Sudan isn't far away from a failed state, it's hard to draw lines, as afterall government is just who has the monopoly of power.

In other words, we agree that the word "militia" may have several definitions, meaning anything from an official reserve army composed of citizens, to all able bodied citizens capable of bearing arms, to unofficial para-military armed bands who may or may not operate through terrorism.

However, not all of those are pertinent to the discussion I proposed. So the question is, from an examination of the Constitution and other documents of the time (the Virginia Constitution), what did