The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Pages: 1 2 3

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
The Constitution is not a suicide pact

2010-02-04 07:21:38

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5750|London, England

Varegg wrote:
You know the terms rewrite and update yes?

That a law or bill is obsolete doesn't mean you just remove it ...

I prefer the simple language myself. If they were rewritten today it would take a team of lawyers and each amendment would achieve a striking resemblance to a text book. Simple language makes loopholes disappear.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-04 07:32:52

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7202|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:
Varegg wrote:
You know the terms rewrite and update yes?

That a law or bill is obsolete doesn't mean you just remove it ...
Ok how about 3 and 10?

Don't see the need for #3 ... if the situation is so dire that soldiers need to occupate my house for national security they are more than welcome.

#10 is more a matter of opinion I guess, imo it prevents the success of the entire nation but then again I'm not against federal government ... we have states or communal government also in Norway but the federal government gives them their guidelines ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-04 07:39:54

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Varegg wrote:
You know the terms rewrite and update yes?

That a law or bill is obsolete doesn't mean you just remove it ...
Ok how about 3 and 10?
Don't see the need for #3 ... if the situation is so dire that soldiers need to occupate my house for national security they are more than welcome.

#10 is more a matter of opinion I guess, imo it prevents the success of the entire nation but then again I'm not against federal government ... we have states or communal government also in Norway but the federal government gives them their guidelines ...

3 says without the consent of the owner. If you allow troops in theyre more than welcome, its the force use of your home.

For 10 it just says any laws that isn't passed in the federal gov can be passed in the states. So it doesn't bar the states from having their own legislature. However, if something is passed in federal gov it supersedes state laws due to supremacy clause.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-02-04 08:21:49

13rin: Member; +977|6871

It happened during Katrina. The mayor ordered the police to go around and "confiscate" peoples guns. The police should not have abided and the mayor. Those that did and the Nagan should have been arrested and brought up on charges. I'd a been killed by the police.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-02-04 08:24:33

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

DBBrinson1 wrote:
It happened during Katrina. The mayor ordered the police to go around and "confiscate" peoples guns. The police should not have abided and the mayor. Those that did and the Nagan should have been arrested and brought up on charges. I'd a been killed by the police.

They should have made people show proof they had gun registration imo. Hell taking guns from law abiding citizens just makes shit worst.

2010-02-04 09:05:58

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7202|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
It happened during Katrina. The mayor ordered the police to go around and "confiscate" peoples guns. The police should not have abided and the mayor. Those that did and the Nagan should have been arrested and brought up on charges. I'd a been killed by the police.
They should have made people show proof they had gun registration imo. Hell taking guns from law abiding citizens just makes shit worst.

Or in extreme cases like hurricane Katrina is possibly saved lives ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-04 09:16:28

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7107|US

Because beating down old ladys for their .38 revolver will prevent bloodshed...oh wait, granny got beat down by the local PD!

2010-02-04 10:15:00

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
It happened during Katrina. The mayor ordered the police to go around and "confiscate" peoples guns. The police should not have abided and the mayor. Those that did and the Nagan should have been arrested and brought up on charges. I'd a been killed by the police.
They should have made people show proof they had gun registration imo. Hell taking guns from law abiding citizens just makes shit worst.
Or in extreme cases like hurricane Katrina is possibly saved lives ...

The only people who would turn their guns to the police are law abiding citizens anyway. Criminals will still keep their guns.

2010-02-04 12:46:14

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7202|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

They should have made people show proof they had gun registration imo. Hell taking guns from law abiding citizens just makes shit worst.
Or in extreme cases like hurricane Katrina is possibly saved lives ...
The only people who would turn their guns to the police are law abiding citizens anyway. Criminals will still keep their guns.

Words are not your best friend today I see ... confiscate means taking the guns against the keepers will, doesn't matter if the keeper is criminal or not you know

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-04 15:14:06

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6545|what

Cybargs wrote:
Border Patrol lel.

Organized militia = Military
Unorganized Militia = Regular guy with a gun

To Aussie: not exactly vigilantism, but when you think about how much of the US doesn't have cops by land area (farmers etc) and would need weapons to defend their families if some shithead wants to start shit ya know.

No, organised militia =/= the military. Because the military issue their own weapons and nothing about the right to bear arms for the general population has anything to do with the current military structure in this case.

It is the right to form your own militia group and fight against the British, should they invade again. The right to form a local militia group and defend your home against an invading enemy. Do you still consider the US at threat from invasion, and not just invasion but of having the military rendered useless so locals must take up arms?

As I said, it's not needed.

I'd be happy for the Amendment to be re-written to something that makes sense.

JohnG@lt wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Euro's live in a nice urban environment where cops are effective. 95% of the US is still undeveloped land.
Vigilantism is still illegal in the US...?
Depends on how you define the word. Here, property rights are enshrined and trespassers can be shot. You are well within your rights to shoot someone if they enter your home without your permission. You may view that as barbaric, I view it as valuing the homeowners life more than the intruders, which is rational.

That's all well and good but "A well regulated Militia" isn't the group that is defending the intruder. There is no regulation or structure of militia in that case. Or if a militia were to form today, it would be seen as illegal and a dangerous vigilante group.

I don't have a problem with defending property rights, but it's the Second Amendment that needs to be re-written to reflect this.

2010-02-04 15:58:39

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Border Patrol lel.

Organized militia = Military
Unorganized Militia = Regular guy with a gun

To Aussie: not exactly vigilantism, but when you think about how much of the US doesn't have cops by land area (farmers etc) and would need weapons to defend their families if some shithead wants to start shit ya know.
No, organised militia =/= the military. Because the military issue their own weapons and nothing about the right to bear arms for the general population has anything to do with the current military structure in this case.

It is the right to form your own militia group and fight against the British, should they invade again. The right to form a local militia group and defend your home against an invading enemy. Do you still consider the US at threat from invasion, and not just invasion but of having the military rendered useless so locals must take up arms?

As I said, it's not needed.

I'd be happy for the Amendment to be re-written to something that makes sense.

JohnG@lt wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

Vigilantism is still illegal in the US...?
Depends on how you define the word. Here, property rights are enshrined and trespassers can be shot. You are well within your rights to shoot someone if they enter your home without your permission. You may view that as barbaric, I view it as valuing the homeowners life more than the intruders, which is rational.
That's all well and good but "A well regulated Militia" isn't the group that is defending the intruder. There is no regulation or structure of militia in that case. Or if a militia were to form today, it would be seen as illegal and a dangerous vigilante group.

I don't have a problem with defending property rights, but it's the Second Amendment that needs to be re-written to reflect this.

What do you think the National Guard is? It's basically a well organized militia. In the context of what it was the militia is referring to the military.

2010-02-04 16:01:46

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6545|what

Cybargs wrote:
What do you think the National Guard is? It's basically a well organized militia. In the context of what it was the militia is referring to the military.

So how is that related to the right to bear arms for someone who isn't in the National Guard?

2010-02-04 16:19:11

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6917|South Florida

No rules are rules. those are our rules.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2010-02-04 17:41:02

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6772|MN

Varegg wrote:
Words are not your best friend today I see ... confiscate means taking the guns against the keepers will, doesn't matter if the keeper is criminal or not you know

But they would only be able to confiscate the ones they know about. I doubt very much that criminals register their weapons.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-02-04 20:13:40

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6797|North Carolina

Interpretation is everything. Hence, we have a Supreme Court... and a process for passing Amendments...

2010-02-05 00:59:18

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
What do you think the National Guard is? It's basically a well organized militia. In the context of what it was the militia is referring to the military.
So how is that related to the right to bear arms for someone who isn't in the National Guard?

That refers to the unorganized militia, implying the average citizen has the right to bear arms in case the government becomes tyrannical since the organized militia would side with the tyrannical government. geddit?

"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."

So Militia guards the state (National Guard) and it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-02-05 01:00:43)

2010-02-05 01:15:46

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7202|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
What do you think the National Guard is? It's basically a well organized militia. In the context of what it was the militia is referring to the military.
So how is that related to the right to bear arms for someone who isn't in the National Guard?
That refers to the unorganized militia, implying the average citizen has the right to bear arms in case the government becomes tyrannical since the organized militia would side with the tyrannical government. geddit?

"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."

So Militia guards the state (National Guard) and it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The National Guard is not a millitia, it's part of the US army ... the term millitia in the bill of rights refers to armed groups of civilians and was allowed for the simple reason that the constitutional army wasn't large enough to defend the US alone ... today that is hardly an issue anymore and renders that particular bill obsolete.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-05 01:20:25

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

So how is that related to the right to bear arms for someone who isn't in the National Guard?
That refers to the unorganized militia, implying the average citizen has the right to bear arms in case the government becomes tyrannical since the organized militia would side with the tyrannical government. geddit?

"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."

So Militia guards the state (National Guard) and it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The National Guard is not a millitia, it's part of the US army ... the term millitia in the bill of rights refers to armed groups of civilians and was allowed for the simple reason that the constitutional army wasn't large enough to defend the US alone ... today that is hardly an issue anymore and renders that particular bill obsolete.

Although yes it is part of the military, but the National Guard is the regulated militia referred in the constitution, as their only job is to defend their respective state (Texas, Idaho etc...) They are not supposed to be sent outside the US. Remember, back then the US was more of a cluster of states than an actual country. Think of it like the current EU constitution where every state must abide to laws passed by the federal government.

The peoples right to bear arms was largely inspired by the minutemen who defended their towns whenever duty calls.

2010-02-05 01:27:43

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7202|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

That refers to the unorganized militia, implying the average citizen has the right to bear arms in case the government becomes tyrannical since the organized militia would side with the tyrannical government. geddit?

"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."

So Militia guards the state (National Guard) and it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The National Guard is not a millitia, it's part of the US army ... the term millitia in the bill of rights refers to armed groups of civilians and was allowed for the simple reason that the constitutional army wasn't large enough to defend the US alone ... today that is hardly an issue anymore and renders that particular bill obsolete.
Although yes it is part of the military, but the National Guard is the regulated militia referred in the constitution, as their only job is to defend their respective state (Texas, Idaho etc...) They are not supposed to be sent outside the US. Remember, back then the US was more of a cluster of states than an actual country. Think of it like the current EU constitution where every state must abide to laws passed by the federal government.

The peoples right to bear arms was largely inspired by the minutemen who defended their towns whenever duty calls.

Exactly ... but there are no minute men anymore AND the national guard is also used abroad ... besides the national guard now and the millitia referred to in the bill of rights have little or no connection anymore, the NG is more a proffesional unit while the millitia was more like weekend warriors ...

I was for many years part of the NG in Norway and we had many visitors from the US NG and I've personally seen the development from "weekend warriors" to up to date regular units over the years ... very few of them fall into the category portrayed in Rambo First Blood as an example ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-05 03:56:39

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6803|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

Any laws, bills or constitutions will at some point become old and needs to be changed and/or more up to date ... given the period of time most laws was written they reflect that very period and are often enough not needed anymore or are obsolete in the period we live in now ...

Which is why there is a mechanism for changing/updating the US Constitution--the Amendment process. It keeps it from becoming obsolete.

Which parts of the US Constitution--as it stands today--are not needed any more/obsolete (beyond the tired 2nd Amendment argument)?

If all you've got is the 2nd Amendment...you haven't got much of an argument for obsolescence at all.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-05 05:24:52

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7108

Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Varegg wrote:

The National Guard is not a millitia, it's part of the US army ... the term millitia in the bill of rights refers to armed groups of civilians and was allowed for the simple reason that the constitutional army wasn't large enough to defend the US alone ... today that is hardly an issue anymore and renders that particular bill obsolete.
Although yes it is part of the military, but the National Guard is the regulated militia referred in the constitution, as their only job is to defend their respective state (Texas, Idaho etc...) They are not supposed to be sent outside the US. Remember, back then the US was more of a cluster of states than an actual country. Think of it like the current EU constitution where every state must abide to laws passed by the federal government.

The peoples right to bear arms was largely inspired by the minutemen who defended their towns whenever duty calls.
Exactly ... but there are no minute men anymore AND the national guard is also used abroad ... besides the national guard now and the millitia referred to in the bill of rights have little or no connection anymore, the NG is more a proffesional unit while the millitia was more like weekend warriors ...

I was for many years part of the NG in Norway and we had many visitors from the US NG and I've personally seen the development from "weekend warriors" to up to date regular units over the years ... very few of them fall into the category portrayed in Rambo First Blood as an example ...

Well the NG is getting sent abroad after Vietnam War because of war dodging... People joined the NG so they won't get sent over to Nam. But the NG is still under the control by the governor of the state. The right to bear arms still strongly apply to the regular citizen by the second amendment.

2010-02-05 07:16:27

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5750|London, England

Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Varegg wrote:

The National Guard is not a millitia, it's part of the US army ... the term millitia in the bill of rights refers to armed groups of civilians and was allowed for the simple reason that the constitutional army wasn't large enough to defend the US alone ... today that is hardly an issue anymore and renders that particular bill obsolete.
Although yes it is part of the military, but the National Guard is the regulated militia referred in the constitution, as their only job is to defend their respective state (Texas, Idaho etc...) They are not supposed to be sent outside the US. Remember, back then the US was more of a cluster of states than an actual country. Think of it like the current EU constitution where every state must abide to laws passed by the federal government.

The peoples right to bear arms was largely inspired by the minutemen who defended their towns whenever duty calls.
Exactly ... but there are no minute men anymore AND the national guard is also used abroad ... besides the national guard now and the millitia referred to in the bill of rights have little or no connection anymore, the NG is more a proffesional unit while the millitia was more like weekend warriors ...

I was for many years part of the NG in Norway and we had many visitors from the US NG and I've personally seen the development from "weekend warriors" to up to date regular units over the years ... very few of them fall into the category portrayed in Rambo First Blood as an example ...

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
— Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’
— James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’
— George Mason

‘‘The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’’
— St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803

2010-02-05 07:40:34

13rin: Member; +977|6871

Varegg wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
It happened during Katrina. The mayor ordered the police to go around and "confiscate" peoples guns. The police should not have abided and the mayor. Those that did and the Nagan should have been arrested and brought up on charges. I'd a been killed by the police.
They should have made people show proof they had gun registration imo. Hell taking guns from law abiding citizens just makes shit worst.
Or in extreme cases like hurricane Katrina is possibly saved lives ...

Yea, saving the lives of roving bands of thugs preying upon the now disarmed law abiding public. What? You serious there? How is disarming law abiding citizens protecting their property/selves/family saving lives? Come on man.

Varegg wrote:

Any laws, bills or constitutions will at some point become old and needs to be changed and/or more up to date ... given the period of time most laws was written they reflect that very period and are often enough not needed anymore or are obsolete in the period we live in now ...

Edit: True enough -Thank Lord Google that Congress doesn't feel the way you do...

Oh and those that trample on the Constitution become obscure footnotes in history, examples set to others illustrating not to fuck with Citizens' guaranteed constitutional rights.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-02-05 07:53:23)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-02-05 07:45:38

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6934|Texas - Bigger than France

It's about the right to self defense. Arms includes shit beside guns BTW

2010-02-05 07:47:41

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5750|London, England

Yes.

https://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7716967/2/istockphoto_7716967-arms-up.jpg

Pages: 1 2 3

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Board footer