mooreshawnm
New member
Wordy lawyerish lingo like this is great but many words can be used to confuse the audience. BoR is pretty basic if you ask me....let's keep it that way!
Shawn
Shawn
Guns a collective or individual right?
- Thread starter leadcounsel
- Start date
Not a problem for me. We are afterall, talking about the Constitution from our own perspective, that is, our own opinions.publius42 said:
And while I appreciate your recognition of my new found status, I wasn't part of the staff at the beginning of this thread. Nor has it altered my views. And you are always free to disagree with my views, as I am free to disagree with yours.
Yes, such as the writings John Locke, particularly The Second Treatise of Government. Blackstone's Commentaries on English Common Law and the Roman Republic. There were others, but these, IIRC were the primary sources.
Perhaps. To some very limited extent I would agree. But then US Law and interpretation of the Constitution should never be given over to foreign law or interpretation. Precisely because we developed completely separate from such sources.
----
Hugh, I make the distinctions I do because the Constitution makes those distinctions. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, they always made distinctions between the general government and state governments. They always made distinctions between rights and powers. Powers were always in reference to either the general government or the state governments. Rights were always in relation to the people, the individual, a natural human being.
I am, I believe, a textual originalist. I try to take the words of the Constitution and use the common meanings of the time that they were written. Where the wording may still be ambiguous, I look further into the proceedings of the convention or to the federalist papers.
None of this means that your opinion and interpretation is wrong and mine, right. It just means that we differ. You appear to hold some sort of collective view of rights, where I believe all rights are individual.
We have both diverged from the primary topic, in search of a common understanding I think. So far, we don't seem to be able to meet upon that common ground. Perhaps we won't. Regardless, it has been a pleasure to debate with you. Thank you.
Since we can't seem to come to a mutual understanding at this point, I really think I need to simply agree to disagree with you.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Actually, when you read early Court cases...you will see tons of foreign law.....
Balckstone, common law, QB or KB cases...
WildjustansmallasideAlaska
I am sick of the notion of "limited" or "shared" sovereignty. If you're going to dissect sovereignty, then it's obviously split between yourself, everyone to whom you're bound under contract, city, state/province, country, and international law (treaties).Antipitas said:
What's the meaning of "limited sovereignty" when everyone and everything has it?
Nobody and nothing has supreme sovereignty over any individual or group, because that would imply slavery.
Hugh Damright
New member
I believe the way it was viewed by the Founders is that monarchy is slavery. King George being the supreme sovereign over Virginia was slavery. And Virginians being the supreme sovereign over Virginia is freedom.
Maybe I'll start a thread later on what a "free State" is.
Hugh Damright
New member
I guess if a person sees the Second Amendment as regarding an individual right to shoot burglars or whatever, then all this talk about the US being empowered by the people as fifty sovereignties must seem unrelated. But to me it is directly related. If the US is empowered by collectives, then it must be collectives which have the right to reclaim that power, and therefore it must be collectives that have the rkba to alter or to abolish the US. And if a person does not believe that the US is empowered by collectives, then his view cannot embrace the idea of collective rights, and he is forced to deny their existence.
Post # 6 nailed it as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is that people have the power to interpret the Constitution to say something it does not.
If the Founding Fathers knew what we know about the legal system today, they would have made the Constitution 1000 pages long so there would not be anything to "interpret"!!
The problem is that people have the power to interpret the Constitution to say something it does not.
If the Founding Fathers knew what we know about the legal system today, they would have made the Constitution 1000 pages long so there would not be anything to "interpret"!!
I'd like to give one of my opinions on this subject here. First, I take a special interest because my wife's great-grandmother's great-grandfather wrote it. I mean George Mason. Oh, he didn't write it in the constitution. In fact, he didn't sign the constitution because it did not contain the things in the bill of rights, which he wrote as the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. But the bill of rights is pretty much his authorship, with a little help from some guy named Madison.
I love to irritate my wife with all that.
However, I think much is either missed or ignored in these discussions. I don't know what was on page 3 because some wrote something that my computer won't let me read. In the same way that freedom of religion was intended to try and keep people from having wars over religion, among other things, the second admendment was also intended to prevent people from having private armies. In a way, the English experience during the civil wars of the 17th century influenced (negatively) the English, later British firearm laws, it also influenced American leaders and thinkers later on but in the opposite way.
George Mason, who was anti-Federalist, went to some length to state that nothing should be intrepreted as allowing private armies. But the thing that bothers me in most discussions like this is that a lot of people apparently intrepret the second admendment to read," a well-regulated militia, etc., there shall be no regulations on firearms ownership. Just something to think about.
George Mason was also against the formation of the District of Columbia and said it would become "santuary of the blackest crimes."
George Mason's granddaughter was married to Samuel Cooper, adjutant general of the Confederate Army. Samuel Cooper was from New York.
Save your Confederate money and bonds.
I love to irritate my wife with all that.
However, I think much is either missed or ignored in these discussions. I don't know what was on page 3 because some wrote something that my computer won't let me read. In the same way that freedom of religion was intended to try and keep people from having wars over religion, among other things, the second admendment was also intended to prevent people from having private armies. In a way, the English experience during the civil wars of the 17th century influenced (negatively) the English, later British firearm laws, it also influenced American leaders and thinkers later on but in the opposite way.
George Mason, who was anti-Federalist, went to some length to state that nothing should be intrepreted as allowing private armies. But the thing that bothers me in most discussions like this is that a lot of people apparently intrepret the second admendment to read," a well-regulated militia, etc., there shall be no regulations on firearms ownership. Just something to think about.
George Mason was also against the formation of the District of Columbia and said it would become "santuary of the blackest crimes."
George Mason's granddaughter was married to Samuel Cooper, adjutant general of the Confederate Army. Samuel Cooper was from New York.
Save your Confederate money and bonds.
Hugh Damright
New member
I read a book ("The Long Fuse" by Don Cook) that tells the story of American Independence from the British point of view. At one point in the story, the British planned to keep troops in the Colonies even though the French and Indian threat was diminished ... the British wanted to keep troops in the Colonies mainly to keep them under British control, and they expected the Colonies to pay for the expense. So Virginia declared that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State ... somehow I had never before put this in the context of it being a response to having British troops here under the guise of them being for our defense. Here's what appeared in the July 1775 issue of Gentleman's Magazine:
You will also note that the general practice of the time for the British Army was to house most of the troops in private houses, hence the prohibition of quartering troops in the bill of rights, in so many words. Coincidentally, the activities of the British Army in the north of Britain, which is Scotland, were very similar to those in this country, even though there were differences. Same for Ireland, although the differences are greater.
Generally speaking, laws are both passed and interpreted to suit the people who are in charge, whether they were elected by a narrow margin or a wide margin or if they came to power by other means. It is possible to attain an elected office in this country without your name even being on the ballot, but that is another issue. In other countries some politicians attain office by even more direct means. In any case, politicians are in office with the approval of at least some people, which is also another issue.
There is also the case of "regulations" entering into the issue. By regulations, I mean any rule that was created by other than a deliberative body. Such regulations have the force of law because they are written under the authority granted, ultimately, by a legislative body. Such rules can be a nightmare at times, as you can imagine. Sometimes rules can be written in such a manner as to pretty much eliminate rights guaranteed elsewhere or otherwise have that affect. I believe that many people will go along with such rules without realizing what they are doing, but perhaps they think they have no choice (which is probably the case--sort of a can't fight city hall problem).
Let us suppose, for instance, that you believe a person has a right to own a firearm. It is often regulated in a way to prevent certain kinds of firearms being owned: you name it--almost anything can be described in such a way as to sound "bad." Assault rifle, sniper rifle, Saturday night special (haven't heard that one for a while), cheap gun, and so on. But what about a "reasonable requirement" that a person have a training class or have a hunting license or be a member of a target shooting club or be over 21 or 18 or 16 1/2. At some point, every one of these requirements or limitation, in the case of firearm types, is a restriction on firearms ownership.
Reasonable or not?
As an unrelated note, there is a US Navy ship named the U.S.S. Gunston Hall (George Mason's estate), based in Virginia. It was built in New Orleans. I had the privelige of meeting some of the crew a couple of years ago.
Generally speaking, laws are both passed and interpreted to suit the people who are in charge, whether they were elected by a narrow margin or a wide margin or if they came to power by other means. It is possible to attain an elected office in this country without your name even being on the ballot, but that is another issue. In other countries some politicians attain office by even more direct means. In any case, politicians are in office with the approval of at least some people, which is also another issue.
There is also the case of "regulations" entering into the issue. By regulations, I mean any rule that was created by other than a deliberative body. Such regulations have the force of law because they are written under the authority granted, ultimately, by a legislative body. Such rules can be a nightmare at times, as you can imagine. Sometimes rules can be written in such a manner as to pretty much eliminate rights guaranteed elsewhere or otherwise have that affect. I believe that many people will go along with such rules without realizing what they are doing, but perhaps they think they have no choice (which is probably the case--sort of a can't fight city hall problem).
Let us suppose, for instance, that you believe a person has a right to own a firearm. It is often regulated in a way to prevent certain kinds of firearms being owned: you name it--almost anything can be described in such a way as to sound "bad." Assault rifle, sniper rifle, Saturday night special (haven't heard that one for a while), cheap gun, and so on. But what about a "reasonable requirement" that a person have a training class or have a hunting license or be a member of a target shooting club or be over 21 or 18 or 16 1/2. At some point, every one of these requirements or limitation, in the case of firearm types, is a restriction on firearms ownership.
Reasonable or not?
As an unrelated note, there is a US Navy ship named the U.S.S. Gunston Hall (George Mason's estate), based in Virginia. It was built in New Orleans. I had the privelige of meeting some of the crew a couple of years ago.
Last edited:
Here is another twist on the issue: is the right to keep and bear arms in any way conditional?
Should firearms ownership be limited to individuals who have passed a safety course? To land owners or property owners? To members of clubs, either hunting, target shooting or collecting (or country clubs)?
What about age?
What if you are an ex-convict? What if you live in another state? What if you are an immigrant?
Lest you ask, "Do you mean legally own?" I mean exactly that. What I am asking is, if an individual has a right to own arms (any, not just firearms), should there be any restrictions on such ownership.
For that matter, should government (state, local or federal) be limited in ownership of weapons, which may have more meaning if you only think of the local government.
And what about private companies? To what extent should a private company be allowed to own firearms and arm employees? Is that a private army?
Hate to muddy the water but all sorts of interesting issues keep popping up.
Should firearms ownership be limited to individuals who have passed a safety course? To land owners or property owners? To members of clubs, either hunting, target shooting or collecting (or country clubs)?
What about age?
What if you are an ex-convict? What if you live in another state? What if you are an immigrant?
Lest you ask, "Do you mean legally own?" I mean exactly that. What I am asking is, if an individual has a right to own arms (any, not just firearms), should there be any restrictions on such ownership.
For that matter, should government (state, local or federal) be limited in ownership of weapons, which may have more meaning if you only think of the local government.
And what about private companies? To what extent should a private company be allowed to own firearms and arm employees? Is that a private army?
Hate to muddy the water but all sorts of interesting issues keep popping up.
MicroBalrog
New member
And why not?
I mean, if Joe, Mike, and Bill can own guns separately and train together.. why shouldn't BigCompany, Inc, give out guns to Joe, Mike, and Bill and train them - as long as it breaks no laws?
mooreshawnm
New member
I don't think BlueTrain was asking about companies having armed employees along side of armed citizens...that should not be a problem. The problem is when the companies (or rich actors or politicos) have armed employees while the citizens are disarmed and therefore helpless.
Shawn
Shawn