Jump to content

San Francisco Voters Pass Gun Ban


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the compliment.

I'll concede that the Founders were not soothsayers. Yet they displayed a remarkable foresight in their deliberate wording of the Constitution. They knew that while the country would change, human nature probably wouldn't. By all accounts, they seem to have been right.

One vehicle by which they future-proofed the Constitution was its relative lack of perod-centric specifics in many cases. Alot of it was left open-ended, allowing for future advancements. That they were very specific on the point about arms is telling in my view.

One last point about the militia: essentially any American with a gun is a potential militia member, if I understand the "Federalist Papers" correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The national guard is considered the Select Militia, not the militia.

The National guard was NEVER meant to replace the true militia, which is the people of the United States.

Every one of us is considered a militia member, and have responsibilities, such as owning and learning to use a firearm. That is why it is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.

With rights, come responsibilities, and the right called out for in the 2nd amendment tells us those responsibilities, when it says a Well regulated Militia, we are to not only learn how to use and own firearms, but it is our responsibility to know our neighbors and be prepared to fight alongside them, if it becomes necassary, in other words regulate ourselves into such groups to act if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law that states that the military cannot be used in the united states against it's own citizens is the Posse commitatus act. Enacted in 1878, after the civil war.

This site gives some very interesting information regarding the act, and how it has been weakened over the last 130 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nomad - you want to talk about a public uprising? Try telling Americans "Um, your Constitution is outdated and obsolete - we're ditching it." Wow, I really don't think the tech gap or equipment gap would matter. There would be a revolution regardless, and it would be HUGE.

The Constitution IS the U.S. In my opinion, you can't have one without the other. It is timeless and current for the most part. That people in government will often try to stretch its boundaries is of no import. It is the supreme law of the land, and NO ONE has enough power to abolish it. Too much blood has been spilled defending its basic principals to just blithely cast it aside.

Obsolete or not, the right to bear arms is a guaranteed right, and the principal of unalienable rights is the foundation of our way of life, not just a document. "The security of a free state" is not only limited to protection from tyranny, but protection from ALL threats, like terrorism and thugism (rioters and bandits).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Interesting. So am I right if I say that you should refocus on the current properties of the legal framework rather than keeping referring to an instrument, the Constitution, who suffered so many parallel interventions who diluted its spirit in some areas ?

It is clear to me that the right given to US citizens to bear arms under the principle to prevent government abuses is rather obsolete.

First for these juridical reasons. For every legal argument you would come with, you may expect the government to counter it with another one.

Third, Grizzle IMO is quite right to outline the differences at the time the Constitution was written, and actual capacities of contemporary military forces. If everybody was able to operate a musquet or a cannon in very short time 2 centuries ago, it is not the case nowadays. Firepower, range, hardware, mobility, speed of operation & battlefield real time information synthesis don't give the slighest chance to any rebellion, except if the military would massively turn against those ordering them to engage said rebels. Therefore, your best guarantee is represented by cultural popular cohesion rather than political, religious and economic bickering, and gun ownership who technically only represents a symbolic opposition capacity with no practical field of application given the dissimetry of ressources (or lack of it) available to both camps.


First: Constitutin CAN NOT be deluted, as ANY law that is passed that contradicts it, is ILLEGITIMATE. Ever heard laws questioned on the basis of being UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Yeah, that's what that means. Uconstitutional = illegitimate, kinda like your statement about constitution being deluted. But I know you are not from US, and don't know this countrys roots nor it's founding basis, so I'll let it go.

Second: Constitution CAN NOT be absolete. So it is CLEAR when you even say ludicrous things like that, shows not only how much you know, but that your whole argument thereafter bears NO relevance as your opinions have zero value when held against the US Constitution.

Third: No they CAN NOT come back with a counter argument. If your are going by the Original Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, theirs is the ABSOLUTE law, and you CAN NOT make such laws that contradict said documents. There's many laws that do, and like I have already told you, THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, people are just too apathetic to care, which brings up to point # 4.

Fourht: It doesn't matter who could operate a canon or a masquet. If you can not operate a gun, that's your problem, because there's millions of others who can. If you can't operate a tank, that's your problem too, not only because there's others that CAN (Jag for example), but the point of military use against it's own citizens is ILLEGAL still stands. So don't try to base your argument against gun ownership or that Constitutin given right to own a firearm is "obsolete" by going into some hypothetical argument about how there's a tech gap and any possible rebellion would be squashed. That's not only a poor argument against something, it also shows that you don't udnerstand the founding fathers reasons for creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the first place, and hence without that understanding you have no place arguing neither for nor against it.

So I will quote it again, from the Bill of Rights:

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,ÔÇôThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This GIVES us not only the right, but THE OBLIGATION to control and keep our government IN CHECK. And when US citizens do not know their own countrys three most important documents, it allows the government to get away with anything. That's ONE of the reasons why our public education is in such a decrepid state, the government simply does not want it's own citizens to know the powers that they hold.

But this statement: "...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Shows us that they KNEW that people will be dumbed down, and will be too ignorant, lazy or just plain out apathetic about the abuses the government will inflict upon the population, UP TILL the point where Enough will be ENOUGH. Also, notice the words that it is NOT only our RIGHT, but OUR DUTY to throw off such governments.

So Nomad, with this little education, maybe you now will understand why the technology gap between the common man and military is a NON ISSUE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said. You ever heard the word UNCOSTITUTIONAL? Do you understand what the word means? It means AGAINST CONSTITUTION as you just seem to fail to grasp it.

Here's the reasons you fail to grasp it.

Some of the ammendments are UNCOSTITUTIONAL. Like the abolishment of slavery for example. The reason it's uncostitutional because as you read the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" Which means, are you following me here, which MEANS that when those people were brought to America from Africa to be used as slaves, they are people right? right, so they have unalienable rights right? right, so the rights are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness right? right, you see where I am going with this? Slavery was the ABUSE OF POWER. Yeah, that's right, slavery was un-constitutional in the first place, and therefore the ammendment was un-needed because those actions were ILLEGAL, wrong, and a criminal act of GOVERNMENT in the first place. Which is what happens when people fail to keep their government in check with the Constitution. Which is what happens when you have ignorant popultion that went through public schools, whos PURPOSE is to breed ignorance for reasons that a person lacking the knowledge is the person who is a slave. A slave to society and to government. That's why I call us citizens slaves, because government is using them as such, in dozens of ways, one of wich is FORCIBLY taking their earnings and giving it to those who earned nothing. Only a slave does not get to keep the products of his labor.

Then there you go about how some countries have had more than one constitution. You think people of the United States of America care about that? Or do you even that it's a good comparison? Some countries have serfdoms, some countries have and still do marry at 12, some countries you can have 10 wifes, so what. That's the reason why we are the United States of America, and are THE BEST country in the world, and those other countries are nothing but a SOME COUNTRY.

As far as you saying that Constitution is "imperfect". How dare you..... some european liberal coming to this boards and telling the US citizens that their constitution is "imperfect". I would take it as an insult coming from someone living in the US, let alone from an ultra liberal all the way from the cesspool of civilized earth.

The Constitution has stood the test of time, has worked, works and WILL work the way it's supposed to. The reason US government is the mess that it is, is PRECESILY BECAUSE they have violated and ignored the Constitution, NOT because of it. And the reason they were allowed to violate and ignore the Constitution is because the people of the US are ignorant of their own countrys beginings, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence.

So things will continue going down and getting worse till such a time comes when the price of sitting on your butt or starting a revolution will be about equal. Then US citizens will realize that they it's bad no matter what, the price is the same, however sitting on their butts in day to day life will change nothing, while revolting and instituting a new government will give them a shot at better life. Then, and only then will it get better. The time to yank politicians back into their place has come and gone long ago. That's why they are afraid now, and that's why they want to be able to use military agains it's own people, to take away the guns from the people, and to shut up any kind of voice with common sence by labels of hate speech, intollerance and politically incorrect.

So, Nomad, francly the only thing you have done in this thread, is piss people off. You lack of knowledge on US and it's law is minimal to say the least, and your understading is non existent. You have no leg to stand when you discuss US laws, but those provided to you by your liberal views and life long experiences with socialism, seeing how US is neither one (or at least not yet) you should go do a little more studying and stop trying to compare the Constitution of the US to those of other countries all the while saying how it's obsolete based on your hatred of persons right to defend himself "(Posted by Nomad: It is clear to me that the right given to US citizens to bear arms under the principle to prevent government abuses is rather obsolete)". That's for US citizens to decide.

[ 11-11-2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, time ran out on the edit:

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

The tokens:

"unconstitutional amendments" "Constitution of the United States"

or

"unconstitutional amendment" "Constitution of the United States"

are such a relevant discussion subject among the 280 million US citizens and the 528,270 US lawyers that Google returns between 18 to 181 results.

Really a hot issue... And you are supposedly our specialist in Constitutional matters and pretend to know what people think ? LMAO !

The fact is that every Constitution represents an agreement between political entities in a given environment at a given time. If these entities agree to modify this document, who are you to say that's anticonstitutional ? A Constitution is only a contract defining the framework that people will implement to live and interact togheter, a bit like a marriage contract, at a much lower level, defines the rights and obligations of a couple.

Nomad, I don't profess to know every constitution on this planet, but I do know the one where I live. The U.S. is a constitutional republic not a constitutional democracy. What does this mean? The mob or the goverment does not rule the day. The U.S. constitution was framed around the individual not the mob. The U.S. constitution was not framed to form restrictions on rights but to protect rights. The only restrictions to this is as long as my rights doesn't infringe on the rights of others. However, sadly, year after year the U.S. has been slipping towards a constitutional democracy. This law that was just voted on in San Francisco proves just that: Government and mob trying to impose it's will the constitution be damned. However, there are checks and balances in our system. If they are working properly, this law will be overturned.

On this line of thought, I highly believe that smoking laws/bans are unconstitutional.

"George WashingtonÔÇÖs belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people."

"Benjamin FranklinÔÇÖs admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you, Nomad, fail to understand, is that the US Constitution was written to be UNDERSTOOD by the common man. Without the need for lawyers. If you need a lawyer to interpret for you the meaning of "All men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" then, like I have been saying over and over again, with your lack of knowledge on the most simple statement on this earth proves that you have no bussiness discussing US Constitution.

That's by the way why Europe is a cesspool that it is. Because they fail to recognize that men should be free to pursue their happiness and that those rights are UNALIENABLE (look it up). I pity any society that doesn't live by those words. And in this day, that includes even US.

LOL, needing lawyers to explain to me what "All men are created equal" and "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" means. Very sad Nomad, because it seems that most of US people have become so ignorant as to believe the same thing. Which explains all the corruption, abuse, and injustice...it comes from people like you and is inflicted upon people like me.

But, like I have been saying, or rather I have been quoting "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." and when that time comes, there will be hell to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a side note ...

quote:

"George WashingtonÔÇÖs belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people."

Probably a poor choice of words on the president's part, if he said it exactly that way. Historians disagree on what type of choppers George Washington really had but many believe his teeth were false. Admittedly, it could be an urban legend, perpetrated in a direct effort to negate the above quote.

quote:

"Benjamin FranklinÔÇÖs admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That very same quote was used all too often by opponents of the Patriot Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

What you, Nomad, fail to understand, is that the US Constitution was written to be UNDERSTOOD by the common man. Without the need for lawyers. If you need a lawyer to interpret for you the meaning of "All men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" then, like I have been saying over and over again, with your lack of knowledge on the most simple statement on this earth proves that you have no bussiness discussing US Constitution.

Well Soback, apparently the framers themselves could have used a small lesson in understanding what they wrote given that half of them were slave owners.

Not only that, but your incessant intolerance and disparaging remarks towards the "socialists", liberals, Europeans and effectively anyone who doesn't agree with you shows that YOU don't understand those words either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

.... a country should be ruled the way a majority of its citizens see it fit ....

At one point, the Majority thought that Women Shouldn't vote, that Blacks should be kept segregated and Child Labor was OK.

Clearly, sometimes the Majority "Herd" mentality needs to be overlooked or overridden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to drive that point home. Nomad is not getting it. Had the South succeeded in succession in 1861, the majority rule would have been that slavery remain. Mob rule is a terrible way to run a country.

Grizzle -

quote:

Well Soback, apparently the framers themselves could have used a small lesson in understanding what they wrote given that half of them were slave owners.

Now hold on there. Remember the context of the time. You cannot apply today's social standard to a different era - you need to understand the way things were back then.

Men who owned slaves inherited plantations that already had slaves on them. Even the "separate but equal" concept introduced was a radical departure for the time. Tha slavery was and still is an abhorrent practice is without question. Just don't be too quick to judge those back then without understanding the climate of the time. It was the same kind of visionaries as the framers that led to the abolishment of slavery. At the time of the revolution, it was a matter of priortiy - survival as a nation superceded all other issues.

100 years from now, people may look back at our society and scorn us as hypocrites for allowing anything as heinous as abortion to be legal. (As an example, not to turn this into an abortion debate...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

What you, Nomad, fail to understand, is that the US Constitution was written to be UNDERSTOOD by the common man. Without the need for lawyers. If you need a lawyer to interpret for you the meaning of "All men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" then, like I have been saying over and over again, with your lack of knowledge on the most simple statement on this earth proves that you have no bussiness discussing US Constitution.

Well Soback, apparently the framers themselves could have used a small lesson in understanding what they wrote given that half of them were slave owners.

Not only that, but your incessant intolerance and disparaging remarks towards the "socialists", liberals, Europeans and effectively anyone who doesn't agree with you shows that YOU don't understand those words either.


There are those who read Karl Marx, and those who understand Karl Marx.

I have LIVED under socialism. My cousins STILL LIVE under socialism. You think I don't understand it? The reason I hate socialism is BECAUSE, I understand it. And the reason I hate liberals is because they are the ones pulling and pushing this country towards socialism, and the reason I dislike Europeans, is because they are socialist.

And just for pre-emptive pursposes: Don't try to talk politically correct bs about how I am generalizing. Generalizations are based on MAJORITY not the whole 100% but maybe 90 or 80, and any smart individual would understand that when I say Europeans are socialist, I don't mean every single one of them, I mean the MAJORITY of them, and to prove my point, I don't see any conservative Europeans on this forums, however I have met two, and they HATE Europe and having to work and pay for every single bum. Europe WILL be imploding, and there will be some major changes within a decade or two, and that's not coming from me, that's coming from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as we know, Russia is at the pinnicle of acheivement.

Hate is a waste of energy and accomplishes little if not nothing.

And disliking or hating someone because of their politicle affiliation seems stunned.

Why does everyone bring up the so-and-so country/region will implode/die, as its going to happen to every sigle country that currently and will exsit.

Insert other random thoughts here. ( The arrows didn't work)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France has 30-40% unemployment in some areas, and no sense of security for millions held prisoner in their own homes by a few marauding thugs. Personal property is casually destroyed and no justice exists. Some might say that, in a manner of speaking, France has already imploded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback, I understand. I just find it interesting that you chose to quote that passage given that the concept of inalienable rights is central to the ideology of Liberalism, which you hate so much. The DOI goes on to state:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

It would seem that our forefathers thought the government should play a role in guaranteeing these basic rights and freedoms for all men (and since then, women). Yet in modern times, Liberalism has become a four letter word used by yourself and so many others to disparage anyone that actually believes in it. Does this concern you one bit? That you've been taught that it's the Liberals that are trying to destroy this country and the Conservatives who are trying to preserve it?

I'd suggest you lookup the definition of both terms and see for yourself which one more closely resembles the sentiments presented in the DOI.

Prez, yes, things were different back then so one must view the DOI and the Constitution in context.

Which is why it's confusing when some of you defend the Constitution to the letter. Just remember that even the framers had the foresight to allow amendments with the understanding that times do change and what once worked within their society and political landscape may not always work for future generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grizzle, your definition of MODERN liberalism is WRONG.

You are trying to equate the liberalism of the founding fathers with the liberalism as it is practiced today.

There is NOTHING equal or common about the 2.

They are 2 different things, opposite things as a matter of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't disagree with you Jag. The fact that some have corrupted the ideology of Liberalism doesn't change the fact that both "modern" and "classical" liberalism are based on the same principals. However misguided *some* modern liberals may be, it does not cast the whole of the ideology in a suspicious light.

Kind of like how the Neo-Cons have corrupted Conservatism, yet somehow a distinction has been drawn between the two. Whereas Liberals are seen as f'in Liberals and all of them are painted with the same brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag is right in one respect Grizzle. You are confusing liberalism, you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism. Those two are 180 degrees from each other. Liberalism is a cancerous ideology that fosters socialism, libertarianism can be looked like the base of conservatives and capitalism.

The government is to be instituted among men to protect their rights, not to take it away from them, which is what they are doing today, and have been since early 1900's.

Oh, and Aperson. Hate actually accomplishes a lot of things. Hate is what started the revolution in US. Hate is what started the communist revolution in Russia. Blind hate is destructive, while hate that is backed by knowledge is a powerfull enemy. Me, my hate for socialism is not blind, it's backed by knowledge and understanding of what socialism IS, by experience with it, and by what I learned so far over the course of my life. And therefore, as time goes by and I learn more, experience more, become smarter, my hate for socialism will surely not go by "accomplishing nothing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...