Home Page link

Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local Clark F Morris 11-10-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Clark F Morris on November 10, 2007, 7:32 pm
wrote:

>"Pat"> wrote
>
>There's an aspect of homeschooling known as *unschooling* and this is the
>process some people go through after leaving the public prisons, er,
>schools.
>You see, the schools fill the students, and their parents, heads with some
>much bullshit it can takes years, decades and sometime forever, to get past
>this massive handicap.
>I too was subjected to this insanity and recognized it at the time and many
>years went by as I went through the *unschooling* process.
>Let me perfectly clear, *education* has nothing at all to do with *school*.
>
>Now, gently, I'm going to help Pat a little in his *unlearning* process, and
>if he's a good boy he'll get a nice big fat juicy gold star for his
>aptitude!
>
>> For example the 2nd amendment says Don can
>> keep a gun.
>
>The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the sort and can't I imagine how you can
>go from the very precise wording of the statement to where you ended up at,
>if you have in fact ever read and understood the thing.
>
>Have you read it?
>Do you understand it?
>
>If so, then please explain *what* right the 2nd is speaking of when it says
>'...the right of the people....'.
>
>Is this saying that prior to the writing of that amendment in 1787 that no
>right to bear arms existed?
>
>Or is it saying that the right to bear arms was *already* existing, and
>therefore the gov't has no right to infringe upon this pre-existing right?
>
>> By taking a strict constructionalist argument, you would
>> also have to say that it does NOT say that Don can keep bullets.
>
>(I don't know what you mean by *constructionalist* but....)
>
>None of the amendments say I can keep a toaster either but I have one.
>Should I be sent to gitmo for this heinous infraction?

Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and
reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it
clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious
armament. We know from history there were United States based
privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the 10
amendments.
>
>The
>> 9th amendment gets rid of problems like that. Just because the right
>> is not enumerated, it does not mean it does not exist.
>
>Well which is it, does it exist or doesn't it?
>Lemme clear this little thing up for you, and I'll even lead you to water,
>but you have to do the drinking on your own.
>
>You are confusing *rights* with *priviledges*.
>Rights are inherent, they cannot be taken away except by criminals with
>force.
>Your son has the right to life, you can't take it away if he doesn't do his
>homework.
>Your son has a cellphone as a priviledge which you can remove from him for
>any reason you see fit.
>
>You see the diff?
>You can't take his right, but you can take his priviledge.
>Nobody can take someones natural rights except through criminal force.
>In defense of ones rights they may use defensive force.
>Now do you see why your assertion that an education is a *right* is silly?
>
>Regardless of constitutional bearing, rights and priviledges should be
>taught to all kids from an early age and they should be constantly reminded
>of them cause we all know how forgetful kids can be.
>

Posted by Kris Krieger on November 17, 2007, 7:00 pm

>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Pat"> wrote
>>>
>>>There's an aspect of homeschooling known as *unschooling* and this is
>>>the process some people go through after leaving the public prisons,
>>>er, schools.
>>>You see, the schools fill the students, and their parents, heads with
>>>some much bullshit it can takes years, decades and sometime forever,
>>>to get past
>>>this massive handicap.
>>>I too was subjected to this insanity and recognized it at the time
>>>and many
>>>years went by as I went through the *unschooling* process.
>>>Let me perfectly clear, *education* has nothing at all to do with
>>>*school*.
>>>
>>>Now, gently, I'm going to help Pat a little in his *unlearning*
>>>process, and
>>>if he's a good boy he'll get a nice big fat juicy gold star for his
>>>aptitude!
>>>
>>>> For example the 2nd amendment says Don can
>>>> keep a gun.
>>>
>>>The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the sort and can't I imagine how
>>>you can go from the very precise wording of the statement to where
>>>you ended up at,
>>>if you have in fact ever read and understood the thing.
>>>
>>>Have you read it?
>>>Do you understand it?
>>>
>>>If so, then please explain *what* right the 2nd is speaking of when
>>>it says
>>>'...the right of the people....'.
>>>
>>>Is this saying that prior to the writing of that amendment in 1787
>>>that no right to bear arms existed?
>>>
>>>Or is it saying that the right to bear arms was *already* existing,
>>>and therefore the gov't has no right to infringe upon this
>>>pre-existing right?
>>>
>>>> By taking a strict constructionalist argument, you would
>>>> also have to say that it does NOT say that Don can keep bullets.
>>>
>>>(I don't know what you mean by *constructionalist* but....)
>>>
>>>None of the amendments say I can keep a toaster either but I have
>>>one. Should I be sent to gitmo for this heinous infraction?
>>
>> Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and
>> reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it
>> clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious
> ^^^^^^
>
>> armament. We know from history there were United States based
>> privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the 10
>> amendments.
>
> Lets be clear, the amendments don't *give* anything to anybody or
> *allow* anybody to do anything.
> Rights are *inherent* and not given or allowed by anybody.
> The amendments place *restrictions* on what the gov't CAN and CAN'T
> do. Read that last sentence again.

Yup.

It's written down because that is supposed to keep things consistent. It
doesn't mean that the writing-down is the "grantor", so to speak. WHat
it is, is keeping a record of what is and is not agreed upon as being
law, so that the Law can be applied consistently.

So, if people agree that murder is against the law, and agree that to be
murder, the killing has to be pre-meditated and done deliberately (i.e.,
not an accident), it's just common sense to write it down and maintain it
as an official document, so that it won't be forgotten or mixed-up.

I think mot people forget that there is a difference between saying
"Constitutionally guaranteed rights" and "Constitutionally granted
rights" - the latter is not the correct statement. And even the
"guarantee" part relies upon people not only recording the law, but
respecting it.

In essence, it is a contract outlining the agreement between the People,
and those elected to government and what *they* (the gov.t) cannot do.
But this has gotten twisted up and turned around so that now, people
mistakenly think that the Cnstitution is the *origin* of rights and that
it delineates what *the People* cannot do.

So, when it says that the people have a right to bear arms, what it is
actually saying is that the governemnt cannot legitimately take armaments
away from the People. Of course, there is a problem now because back
then, "arms" meant pretty much flintlockl rifles and pistols, whereas
today, we have Mac-10's and AK-47's and so on, so it *might* be
legitimate to argue that automatic weapons are not exempt from giv.t
seizure, but it *cannot* be legitimate that the gov.t can legitimately
keep *all* arms out of the hands of the People.

But that is the point, that difference between the Constitution as a
contract defining, and often limiting, the actions of the goverenment;
and the mistaken idea that the Constitution is the source of rights and
therefore can also be used to remove rights from the People.


>
> But you know what?
> The ink was barely dry on the parchment before them politicians
> started ignoring it.
> Jefferson himself should have been shackled in the village stocks and
> beaten with axehandles.
> Perhaps that might have changed the tide.
>
>
>>>The
>>>> 9th amendment gets rid of problems like that. Just because the
>>>> right is not enumerated, it does not mean it does not exist.
>>>
>>>Well which is it, does it exist or doesn't it?
>>>Lemme clear this little thing up for you, and I'll even lead you to
>>>water, but you have to do the drinking on your own.
>>>
>>>You are confusing *rights* with *priviledges*.
>>>Rights are inherent, they cannot be taken away except by criminals
>>>with force.
>>>Your son has the right to life, you can't take it away if he doesn't
>>>do his
>>>homework.
>>>Your son has a cellphone as a priviledge which you can remove from
>>>him for any reason you see fit.
>>>
>>>You see the diff?
>>>You can't take his right, but you can take his priviledge.
>>>Nobody can take someones natural rights except through criminal
>>>force. In defense of ones rights they may use defensive force.
>>>Now do you see why your assertion that an education is a *right* is
>>>silly?
>>>
>>>Regardless of constitutional bearing, rights and priviledges should
>>>be taught to all kids from an early age and they should be constantly
>>>reminded
>>>of them cause we all know how forgetful kids can be.
>>>
>
>
>


Posted by Clark F Morris on November 17, 2007, 9:50 pm
wrote:

>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Pat"> wrote
>>>>
>>>>There's an aspect of homeschooling known as *unschooling* and this is
>>>>the process some people go through after leaving the public prisons,
>>>>er, schools.
>>>>You see, the schools fill the students, and their parents, heads with
>>>>some much bullshit it can takes years, decades and sometime forever,
>>>>to get past
>>>>this massive handicap.
>>>>I too was subjected to this insanity and recognized it at the time
>>>>and many
>>>>years went by as I went through the *unschooling* process.
>>>>Let me perfectly clear, *education* has nothing at all to do with
>>>>*school*.
>>>>
>>>>Now, gently, I'm going to help Pat a little in his *unlearning*
>>>>process, and
>>>>if he's a good boy he'll get a nice big fat juicy gold star for his
>>>>aptitude!
>>>>
>>>>> For example the 2nd amendment says Don can
>>>>> keep a gun.
>>>>
>>>>The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the sort and can't I imagine how
>>>>you can go from the very precise wording of the statement to where
>>>>you ended up at,
>>>>if you have in fact ever read and understood the thing.
>>>>
>>>>Have you read it?
>>>>Do you understand it?
>>>>
>>>>If so, then please explain *what* right the 2nd is speaking of when
>>>>it says
>>>>'...the right of the people....'.
>>>>
>>>>Is this saying that prior to the writing of that amendment in 1787
>>>>that no right to bear arms existed?
>>>>
>>>>Or is it saying that the right to bear arms was *already* existing,
>>>>and therefore the gov't has no right to infringe upon this
>>>>pre-existing right?
>>>>
>>>>> By taking a strict constructionalist argument, you would
>>>>> also have to say that it does NOT say that Don can keep bullets.
>>>>
>>>>(I don't know what you mean by *constructionalist* but....)
>>>>
>>>>None of the amendments say I can keep a toaster either but I have
>>>>one. Should I be sent to gitmo for this heinous infraction?
>>>
>>> Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and
>>> reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it
>>> clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>>> armament. We know from history there were United States based
>>> privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the 10
>>> amendments.
>>
>> Lets be clear, the amendments don't *give* anything to anybody or
>> *allow* anybody to do anything.
>> Rights are *inherent* and not given or allowed by anybody.
>> The amendments place *restrictions* on what the gov't CAN and CAN'T
>> do. Read that last sentence again.
>
>Yup.
>
>It's written down because that is supposed to keep things consistent. It
>doesn't mean that the writing-down is the "grantor", so to speak. WHat
>it is, is keeping a record of what is and is not agreed upon as being
>law, so that the Law can be applied consistently.
>
>So, if people agree that murder is against the law, and agree that to be
>murder, the killing has to be pre-meditated and done deliberately (i.e.,
>not an accident), it's just common sense to write it down and maintain it
>as an official document, so that it won't be forgotten or mixed-up.
>
>I think mot people forget that there is a difference between saying
>"Constitutionally guaranteed rights" and "Constitutionally granted
>rights" - the latter is not the correct statement. And even the
>"guarantee" part relies upon people not only recording the law, but
>respecting it.
>
>In essence, it is a contract outlining the agreement between the People,
>and those elected to government and what *they* (the gov.t) cannot do.
>But this has gotten twisted up and turned around so that now, people
>mistakenly think that the Cnstitution is the *origin* of rights and that
>it delineates what *the People* cannot do.
>
>So, when it says that the people have a right to bear arms, what it is
>actually saying is that the governemnt cannot legitimately take armaments
>away from the People. Of course, there is a problem now because back
>then, "arms" meant pretty much flintlockl rifles and pistols, whereas
>today, we have Mac-10's and AK-47's and so on, so it *might* be
>legitimate to argue that automatic weapons are not exempt from giv.t
>seizure, but it *cannot* be legitimate that the gov.t can legitimately
>keep *all* arms out of the hands of the People.

As I said in another posting the United States Constitution has among
the powers of Congress the right to grant letters of marque and
reprisal. This was a license for a ship owner to go out and capture
enemy vessels. This in turn meant that the ship owner was assumed to
have some fairly serious armament (cannons, etc.). In short it was
assumed one could own a war ship, maybe even the equivalent of a
guided missile cruiser. Chuck Stevens who posted on comp.lang.cobol
pointed this out in one of the off topic postings.
>
>> rest snipped

Posted by Kris Krieger on November 20, 2007, 5:51 pm

> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:35:48 -0500, "Don"
>>>>
>>>>>"Pat"> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>There's an aspect of homeschooling known as *unschooling* and this
>>>>>is the process some people go through after leaving the public
>>>>>prisons, er, schools.
>>>>>You see, the schools fill the students, and their parents, heads
>>>>>with some much bullshit it can takes years, decades and sometime
>>>>>forever, to get past
>>>>>this massive handicap.
>>>>>I too was subjected to this insanity and recognized it at the time
>>>>>and many
>>>>>years went by as I went through the *unschooling* process.
>>>>>Let me perfectly clear, *education* has nothing at all to do with
>>>>>*school*.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, gently, I'm going to help Pat a little in his *unlearning*
>>>>>process, and
>>>>>if he's a good boy he'll get a nice big fat juicy gold star for his
>>>>>aptitude!
>>>>>
>>>>>> For example the 2nd amendment says Don can
>>>>>> keep a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the sort and can't I imagine how
>>>>>you can go from the very precise wording of the statement to where
>>>>>you ended up at,
>>>>>if you have in fact ever read and understood the thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you read it?
>>>>>Do you understand it?
>>>>>
>>>>>If so, then please explain *what* right the 2nd is speaking of when
>>>>>it says
>>>>>'...the right of the people....'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this saying that prior to the writing of that amendment in 1787
>>>>>that no right to bear arms existed?
>>>>>
>>>>>Or is it saying that the right to bear arms was *already* existing,
>>>>>and therefore the gov't has no right to infringe upon this
>>>>>pre-existing right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> By taking a strict constructionalist argument, you would
>>>>>> also have to say that it does NOT say that Don can keep bullets.
>>>>>
>>>>>(I don't know what you mean by *constructionalist* but....)
>>>>>
>>>>>None of the amendments say I can keep a toaster either but I have
>>>>>one. Should I be sent to gitmo for this heinous infraction?
>>>>
>>>> Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and
>>>> reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it
>>>> clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious
>>> ^^^^^^
>>>
>>>> armament. We know from history there were United States based
>>>> privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the
>>>> 10 amendments.
>>>
>>> Lets be clear, the amendments don't *give* anything to anybody or
>>> *allow* anybody to do anything.
>>> Rights are *inherent* and not given or allowed by anybody.
>>> The amendments place *restrictions* on what the gov't CAN and CAN'T
>>> do. Read that last sentence again.
>>
>>Yup.
>>
>>It's written down because that is supposed to keep things consistent.
>>It doesn't mean that the writing-down is the "grantor", so to speak.
>>WHat it is, is keeping a record of what is and is not agreed upon as
>>being law, so that the Law can be applied consistently.
>>
>>So, if people agree that murder is against the law, and agree that to
>>be murder, the killing has to be pre-meditated and done deliberately
>>(i.e., not an accident), it's just common sense to write it down and
>>maintain it as an official document, so that it won't be forgotten or
>>mixed-up.
>>
>>I think mot people forget that there is a difference between saying
>>"Constitutionally guaranteed rights" and "Constitutionally granted
>>rights" - the latter is not the correct statement. And even the
>>"guarantee" part relies upon people not only recording the law, but
>>respecting it.
>>
>>In essence, it is a contract outlining the agreement between the
>>People, and those elected to government and what *they* (the gov.t)
>>cannot do. But this has gotten twisted up and turned around so that
>>now, people mistakenly think that the Cnstitution is the *origin* of
>>rights and that it delineates what *the People* cannot do.
>>
>>So, when it says that the people have a right to bear arms, what it is
>>actually saying is that the governemnt cannot legitimately take
>>armaments away from the People. Of course, there is a problem now
>>because back then, "arms" meant pretty much flintlockl rifles and
>>pistols, whereas today, we have Mac-10's and AK-47's and so on, so it
>>*might* be legitimate to argue that automatic weapons are not exempt
>>from giv.t seizure, but it *cannot* be legitimate that the gov.t can
>>legitimately keep *all* arms out of the hands of the People.
>
> As I said in another posting the United States Constitution has among
> the powers of Congress the right to grant letters of marque and
> reprisal. This was a license for a ship owner to go out and capture
> enemy vessels. This in turn meant that the ship owner was assumed to
> have some fairly serious armament (cannons, etc.). In short it was
> assumed one could own a war ship, maybe even the equivalent of a
> guided missile cruiser. Chuck Stevens who posted on comp.lang.cobol
> pointed this out in one of the off topic postings.

If there was a time-limit on those letters, specifying a given situation
and/or time frame, it's not reasonable to assume it means that private
citizens *today* should own, for ex., unlicensed hand granades. I don't
muind the idea of gun licensing, *IF* it is used to insure that people
have some level of training before buying a gun.

In any event, in the end, the vital point is the degree to which people
are reasonable, or the degree to which they're ruled by personal emotions
and personal demons and a desire to dominate others. The ideal behind
"the rule of law" is that one maniac can't just up and subjugate his
neighbors simply because he has a bigger gun so to speak.




Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 22, 2007, 2:22 pm

snip
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It is udderly amazing how quickly and totally you have come to accept/
> adopt to your new, rural, redneck home.

OK. As the group's now self-appointed malaprop-cop, I'm righting you up for
that bovine remark ; )



Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: The value of shopping local November 11, 2007, 12:34 am
Re: The value of shopping local November 11, 2007, 12:47 am
Re: The value of shopping local November 13, 2007, 6:50 pm
Re: The value of shopping local November 15, 2007, 7:30 pm
Re: The value of shopping local November 15, 2007, 7:36 pm
Re: The value of shopping local November 15, 2007, 7:43 pm
This is a local bar in a town of 300 May 23, 2007, 4:40 pm
How to find a local architect April 18, 2008, 1:15 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap