Score one for people that love America!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 14 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]405837[/snapback]</div>

Go re-read what I said, you're misquoting me severely.

I read the federalist papers in high school and then in college close to 30 years ago. Have they changed?

I don't see a need to resort to name calling, although you do have some serious problems with logical deduction and inference.

Try using your interpretation of the "intention" behind the second amendment in any educated venue. You're extrapolating a single sentence beyond reason, and for you to claim "there is only one right and clear answer" says it all. Constitutional law has been debated continuously since the Constitution was created, and you're so bold as to say you know the exact intent. Amazing.

Taking arms against a hostile enemy is already taken care of and our armed services do quite well with national defense. They don't do as well solving religious based civil wars, but that's not their fault because that's not in the perview. If you think you can take on the US military, which is what you seem to be suggesting, good luck with that.

Did I say we needed more laws?

Please do put me on your ignore list.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 14 2007, 02:27 AM) [snapback]405258[/snapback]</div>

Well I guess only the well schooled electorate have the right to keep and read books, pity.

Wildkow

 

I'm not going to talk about guns themselves...you all, if you read a previous thread, know my position.

However, I would like to mention the Federalist Papers. desynch keeps bringing them up.

Coupla things about them:
First, they were written as a "sell job" to the people of America. Much like an op-ed piece promoting a piece of legislature. The scribers of the Constitution, notably Hamilton and Madison, felt that they needed to explain/sell the Constitution to Americans in order for it to become ratified. After all, they all had worked very long and hard in creating it.

Second, while well-written, they were opinion pieces that let us have insight into what the founding fathers thought.

Third, Federalist Paper number 84 felt that the Bill of Rights was not needed. Hence, the second amendment was not needed. Neither was the freedom of press, religion, anything at all in the first ten amendments (aka, The Bill of Rights.) Here's a quote for you that's extremely relevant to this discussion:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

So, all I'm saying is: the Federalist Papers do not support your argument. And they weren't law...they were journalism. Oh that ridiculous liberal media--even back then!

 

The Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’ ~ George W. Bush

:lol: <joking>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 15 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]406122[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe in banning them. I believe in banning some of them--and I believe in having more regulations/requirements than we currently have. I also believe in making them even more stupidly expensive.

I don't believe in the domino effect, or slippery slope, or however else it's stated. There are grey areas. It doesn't have to be an all or none proposition. Either way is too extreme for me.

And you really shouldnt use the UK as an example. Here's why: gun−related homicides overall are 50 times higher in the US than in England and Wales, and handgun figures 150 times higher; non−gun homicides are merely three times higher in the US. (Data studies, 1985-1990)

Until we figure out why Americans are so hell-bent on killing each other with guns, and take away the catalyst that is making that happen, then we should have a stopgap in place. As I watched several different cops on TV get shot or shot at on traffic stops this morning, I am even more fervent in my beliefs. If I had been suppressed under King George III, and had taxation without representation, punishment through taxation, etc., I would have a different perspective. Things change, and I do trust our system of government as the writers of the Federalist Papers wanted, indicating that the need for a Bill of Rights was mitigated when the government is just. (Now, saying that, I don't trust all of the people in our government, but I do trust the system to right itself when needed.) Call me naive; tell me I live in la-la land, or whatever, but I am PROUD of our governmental system, and stand behind it. It doesn't sound like you do. Our entire government/country does NOT revolve around the second amendment.

That's an answer to your question. As I said before, I'm not getting into this argument with you. I am in the middle on this. I won't answer another question on guns themselves as I suspect (even if it's inadvertent) baiting.

And I know that the Federalist Papers were drafted before the Bill of Rights. The one that I quoted (84) indicated that the framers (or at least Hamilton) did not WANT a Bill of Rights for fear of it being used to extreme measures. So there you go. The Federalist Papers speak to both sides, don't they? Perhaps Hamilton COULD foresee the future, and somehow knew that some of the Bill of Rights may be taken to extreme...and he was not referring to any specific "right," btw. So while they may have believed in the right to bear arms (totally justified feeling at the time, btw), they also recognized that it could be taken to extremes. Like anything can. For instance, I think the Press has gotten too crazy on occasion, too. Not in all cases, but some.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 15 2007, 06:49 AM) [snapback]405997[/snapback]</div>

I liken them to early USENET posts. The authors even use "nicks".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 15 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]406195[/snapback]</div>