The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 18, 2012, 11:01 AM   #26
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Errrr...ummm.. Awkward. What about it don't you like? It is this document that gives you the RKBA.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 11:11 AM   #27
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I suspect he just worded the OP poorly, and hope he will clarify.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 11:31 AM   #28
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,301
The problem with "reciprocity" is that it preserves and confirms the validity of a licencing system on a right.

We don't need a bill or a Constitutional amendment; we need an affirmation of the right to bear arms. That'll come in the courts.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 12:28 PM   #29
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
The problem with "reciprocity" is that it preserves and confirms the validity of a licencing system on a right.

We don't need a bill or a Constitutional amendment; we need an affirmation of the right to bear arms. That'll come in the courts.
BINGO!
shootniron is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 12:56 PM   #30
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,361
Double bingo.

Short (intermediate?) term, I agree that the full faith and credit clause should result in national reciprocity. Long term, I also agree that there should not be any need for reciprocity because the language of the 2nd Amendment leaves no room for licenses.

"... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It just doesn't get any clearer than that.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 02:14 PM   #31
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
We already have the right... We just need to get the executive and legislative branches to have no choice but to acknowledge that they have limits to their power... they simply cannot legislatively and through imperial decree (executive order) make guns go away....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 02:21 PM   #32
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
I've merged the two threads as the OP has made them close enough to be the same... At least in the basic idea.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 02:33 PM   #33
2GunCorcoran
Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 41
Quote:
You don't like the Constitution?

That's rather un-American. Are you an American citizen?
Yes, I am a natural-born U.S. citizen.

As I said before, the Constitution supported slavery at one time. Does being a "real American" mean you have to agree with everything your government does?
__________________
"It's a hell of thing--killing a man: You take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have."
2GunCorcoran is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 03:07 PM   #34
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Absolutely not! But the American way is to go along with the majority, once they have had their say. However, I will have to say it is a messy, inefficient system, compared to, say, a monarchy. A monarchy is a system of government in which the son becomes head of state after his father, which would never happen in this country.

Would it?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 04:02 PM   #35
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Because the Constitution supported slavery? This is why you don't like it? Or you don't like that part of it? I don't agree with everything my Country has done, yet to me, The Constitution is perhaps one of the finest things ever put in writing. I'll even say it is major cornerstone of this society, which I'll take over any other out there. Does it make one "un-American" to disagree with parts? Nope. But to say you don't like it as a whole...well I guess the Constitution allows for that as well
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 04:36 PM   #36
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It just doesn't get any clearer than that.
Yet SO many forget those all-important first words, and before we get into the bit how everyone is de facto in a militia, no they are not. The whole quote, can therefore be argued to limit this right to those in the organized States' militia who (especially at the time), had more power than the Federal government - and should in today's world as well, regardless of new rulings.

This argument has come up here a hundred times before
oneounceload is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 07:03 PM   #37
2GunCorcoran
Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 41
Quote:
Because the Constitution supported slavery? This is why you don't like it?
No, that is not true. I dislike the Constitution because in article 1 section 8 it gives Congress an unlimited power to tax. We need a Constitutional limit on how high the taxes can go during peacetime.
__________________
"It's a hell of thing--killing a man: You take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have."
2GunCorcoran is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 07:21 PM   #38
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
We constantly judge the past by the standards of our time and yet it would be difficult for any of us to understand the standards that they lived with and why they were the way they were... Lots of things happen in history, and if appologies need to happen then everyone pretty much needs to appologize to everybody. I am aware of no race, color or lack of color, of any people on the face of the earth that have not been enslaved at one time or another or in some way treated as a serious underdog.

The Constitution was a product of the beliefs at the time and despite its good and its bad parts it has led us to being the most advanced society this planet has ever seen.... and previous to the last two decades enjoying some of the greatest freedoms on earth.

Certainly like all nations at some point near or far others will judge our nation for the beliefs we had in given time periods, should we hope they will be charitable or maybe they should condem us for not understanding what future beliefs will bring as we seem to like to do to our ancestors..
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; January 18, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 09:42 PM   #39
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,301
Quote:
No, that is not true. I dislike the Constitution because in article 1 section 8 it gives Congress an unlimited power to tax.
OK, so let's throw it out and start from scratch. Who wants to guess how the new one will be written, and how it will work?

Few things frighten me more.

Except maybe sharks.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 07:54 AM   #40
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
And circus clowns
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 08:30 AM   #41
Don V.
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2012
Posts: 31
I don't wish to offend anyone, but I'm always amazed by people that quote the Constitution, but really don't know anything about it. Obviously that's not everyone, but in my experience it's most people.

If you have never read the Federalist Papers, The Virginia Plan or The Ratification Debates, you really have no context to quote the Constitution from. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the end of a sentence that begins with, "A well regulated Militia being necessary."

Quoting the second amendment without reading or studying the context in which it was written, and how it fits in to the Bill of Rights is really doing yourself a disservice. Regardless of your position, this is where the knowledge is at to support and defend the position you take. A prime example, what did the "right of self preservation" mean at a time before there was such a thing a police force? This very thought was argued at that time. Besides, it's pretty good reading.

Last edited by Don V.; January 19, 2012 at 08:38 AM.
Don V. is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 09:13 AM   #42
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I agree, yet the Federalist Papers, for instance, were not voted for by the people; neither was the constitution, even though it starts out, if I remember correctly, "We, the people." Those were radical days and not at all conservative in the sense we use the word now. All of the conservative people either left the country or kept their mouth shut. Some just moved further west.

You may recall that the constitution was not the first attempt at organizing the government of the United States. The previous one resulted in too weak a federal government. But still, it starts out, "to form a more perfect union," not "a more powerful and stronger government." It did work out that way, though. All revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of government.

The constitution did not support slavery, it merely accepted it. It was an issue that was not resolved with the constitution, which may be just as well, since it didn't solve all the other problems either. These days, were a new constitution to be written, I suspect it would be a hundred times longer.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 11:37 AM   #43
Don V.
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2012
Posts: 31
BlueTrain, good stuff.

Even though there were comprimises that had to be made to ratify the Constitution it was revolutionary. It is often said that "it's a document of it's time," "They couldn't forsee the future," etc, in reality it's true, but functionally they really are not true statements. It was believed when the Constitution was being debated and written, that they were really writing a "living document." "Living document" meaning it was based in principle and that it wasn't a "contract," outlining rights and responsibilities while dividing advantages between different groups or individuals. The radical concept was that right and wrong would always be right and wrong--yesterday, today and tomorrow. Regardless of the words, the principles of right and wrong would always stand the test of time. How do we live with each other beyond the god given inalienable rights.

The failure of the Constitution is also it's strength. Different people have different opinions of what right and wrong are. At one time people debated the virtues and evils of slavery, as already mentioned, just as today people debate the virtues and evils of guns. Unlike other documents like the Magna Carta, the Constitution does not tell us what the 2nd amendment means. We get to tell ourselves what it means. You're absolutely right that the people who debated, wrote and signed the constitution were radicals and progressives. They were not conservative. They believed it was a fluid document, but they also believed that if the day came that we decided that it is firm and hard as many today believe it to be, we have the right to that also.

That's the point of my earlier post and why knowing the context of the document is so important. The principles behind the document are way more important then the words. The context is in the principles. When you debate the principles, there is faith in each other. When you argue the words, you lose the faith in each other. Madison or Adams, I think?

Takes me back to my Master's Thesis on Economics, Environmental Regulations and Constitutional Authority. The Authority part put me in the middle of a circular firing squad of advisors. None of them agreed.
Don V. is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 12:26 PM   #44
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Well, yes and no.

The intent of the constitutional convention was to come up with something that worked better than what they already had, the Articles of Confederation. States rights are all fine and dandy but if you don't hang together, you all...well, you know the rest. It was not an attempt to cover everything for all times and all places. In fact, as soon as the ink was dry, there were already planning changes. Did you know the first copy was published in German, by the way?

Some of the original provisions were quite novel, like having the runner-up in the presidential election become the vice-president. But then, given as how most countries around the world were monarchies, everything about the document was novel. That's probably why no one ever thought about political parties and how they would fit in to our political life. There had never been any before.

While I said they were radical and not conservative in our contemporary sense, the still represented the gentry of the country. The leaders of the new country had been the leaders of the country before the revolution. It was not so much a revolution as a colonial war (and probably the first one at that). It was the new government that was revolutionary. The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, now those were revolutions.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10836 seconds with 7 queries