What actions or qualities would Tea Partiers decry in the Founders if they were currently in office?

[Susanann]

.“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed”

@StusBlues

Did you mean to put smilies on this, or is this just so poorly thought out that it invites ridicule?

You should be able to figure it out yourself

[StusBlues]

@Susanann

***Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, *

Now, now, be honest. Jefferson’s proposal ended with the following qualification: “…within his own lands or tenements.” I think Jefferson’s implication here that one MAY have one’s firearms rights limited AWAY from home works away from your point, such as it is.

[StusBlues]

@Susanann

You should be able to figure it out yourself

Um, I was referring to the foolish Merry Christmas part that you omitted in quoting yourself. Again, be honest, ma’am.

[Susanann]

@StusBlues

Now, now, be honest. Jefferson’s proposal ended with the following qualification: “…within his own lands or tenements.” I think Jefferson’s implication here that one MAY have one’s firearms rights limited AWAY from home works away from your point, such as it is.

Really? I think YOU seem to think in a very “rights limited” manner. I dont get that at all from what Jefferson has said.

I also think Tom Jefferson was quite clear, not only in what he said about guns, but also in his total and complete refusal during his entire 8 years as president to even consider a single proposed gun control law, all the while fully knowing that all Americans were going about everywhere in our country while being armed.

Moreover, Tom Jefferson’s repeated clear verbal, and written, support of The Right To Bear Arms, is vastly overwelmed by the complete absence of any criticism of civilians with guns.

**“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
**
– Jefferson’s Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
– Jefferson’s Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house.”
– Jefferson’s Letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”
– Jefferson’s Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”
– Jefferson’s Letter 1803. ME 10:365

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”
– Jefferson’s Letter to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407
Quotations from the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, compiled and edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr. of Metairie, Jefferson Parish, La.

[Jas09]

And, of course, Federalist 46 doesn’t say what you claim either. Note that the arms-holding nature of the populace is considered an advantage in the context of defending against a usurping federal government under the organization and reguilation of a state militia…

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

And here is the part about other countries:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

And, lastly, to complete the triumvirate of bad cites, here is a reference pointing out that the Washington quote is unsourced and likely never happened: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

[5_time_champ]

@StusBlues

I think they’d think it was a reasonable compromise. It’s that autocratic Emancipation Proclaimation thing they’d have a problem with, as well as the utterly tyrannical requirement for former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. (Seriously, read a few of the Regnery Press’ Politically Incorrect Guides. That stuff’s in there.)

Thanks Stu, glad at least one person got my attempt at humor.

[RetroVertigo]

@Susanann

“the people” was written into several places in the Bill of Rights. Nowhere does it mean a collective, nor does the word: people = states.

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This question comes from complete ignorance on the subject.

Does the fact that the 2nd amendment quote you gave has the word People capitalized, make it different in meaning, then the other quotes ?

[Jas09]

@RetroVertigo

This question comes from complete ignorance on the subject.

Does the fact that the 2nd amendment quote you gave has the word People capitalized, make it different in meaning, then the other quotes ?

There were various versions published and distributed, and not all of them have “people” capitalized in the 2nd.

In the end, the difference between the use of “the people” in the 2nd and the other amendments comes down to the fact that the 2nd has an introductory clause explaining it’s purpose. Some (like Susanann) believe this clause is completely irrelevant. Others believe that it in some ways constrains the right granted.

The court has recently ruled that it is a personal right, but has not yet enumerated its limitations (i.e. exactly what restrictions would be considered unconstitutional if enacted by the federal or state governments).

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

@Susanann

You could change the first part to say:
“In order to make sure everyone has a Merry Christmas”…
…“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed”

…and it will not make any difference, nor make the right any less clear.

But yet, they mentioned the whole thing about the militia. Why?

In any case, the whole argument is silly. I’m pretty sure that if the amendment was written like this: “Everybody can have as many arms as they wish and carry them around anywhere they want, loaded or unloaded.”, most people would still have a problem with it. And if I filled up my garage with nuclear weapons, rocket launchers and grenades, even the strictest 2nd amendment advocate in my neighborhood would be calling the police on me.

[villa]

@Jackknifed_Juggernaut

And if I filled up my garage with nuclear weapons, rocket launchers and grenades, even the strictest 2nd amendment advocate in my neighborhood would be calling the police on me.

Ordnance, not arms, my friend.

[gitfiddle]

@Jas09

And, of course, Federalist 46 doesn’t say what you claim either. Note that the arms-holding nature of the populace is considered an advantage in the context of defending against a usurping federal government under the organization and reguilation of a state militia…

And here is the part about other countries:

And, lastly, to complete the triumvirate of bad cites, here is a reference pointing out that the Washington quote is unsourced and likely never happened: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Here is an actual Washington

[quote]
(http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/peacedoc.htm), from a document called the “Peace Establishment,” on the Army website:

It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency, for these purposes they ought to be duly organized into Commands of the same formation; (it is not of very great importance, whether the Regiments are large or small, provided a sameness prevails in the strength and composition of them and I do not know that a better establishment, than that under which the Continental Troops now are, can be adopted. They ought to be regularly Mustered and trained, and to have their Arms and Accoutrements inspected at certain appointed times, not less than once or twice in the course of every [year] but as it is obvious, amongst such a Multitude of People (who may indeed be useful for temporary service) there must be a great number, who from domestic Circumstances, bodily defects, natural awkwardness or disinclination, can never acquire the habits of Soldiers; but on the contrary will injure the appearance of any body of Troops to which they are attached, and as there are a sufficient proportion of able bodied young Men, between the Age of 18 and 25, who, from a natural fondness for Military parade (which passion is almost ever prevalent at that period of life) might easily be enlisted or drafted to form a Corps in every State, capable of resisting any sudden impression which might be attempted by a foreign Enemy, while the remainder of the National forces would have time to Assemble and make preparations for the Field. I would wish therefore, that the former, being considered as a denier resort, reserved for some great occasion, a judicious system might be adopted for forming and placing the latter on the best possible Establishment. And that while the Men of this description shall be viewed as the Van and flower of the American Forces, ever ready for Action and zealous to be employed whenever it may become necessary in the service of their Country; they should meet with such exemptions, privileges or distinctions, as might tend to keep alive a true Military pride, a nice sense of honour, and a patriotic regard for the public. Such sentiments, indeed, ought to be instilled into our Youth, with their earliest years, to be cherished and inculcated as frequently and forcibly as possible.

Not only does it mention the responsibility of people to serve in what one might call a “well-regulated militia” (including the inspection of the arms by [scary voice]the government) but it also references the necessity of the wealthier among us to give up a part of their “property” for the benefit of the protection of the nation.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Susanann

Originally Posted by Susanann View Post
There is no such thing as “1/2 of the Second Amendment”.
It is a very short, simple, and well explained freedom.
You can try all you want to make it hard, or try to make it say something it does not say,but the meaning of the Second Amendment was perfectly clear to the Founding Fathers (according to their own words), and it is perfectly clear to me.

You could change the first part to say:
**“In order to make sure everyone has a Merry Christmas”…
…“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed” **
…and it will not make any difference, nor make the right any less clear.

As off base as Susan can be at times, I’m pretty sure that she has got you guys on this one.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Susanann

I dont understand your question. The Founding Fathers were obviously, and admittedly, trying to find some way to hold all the states together while at the same time trying to deal with, mitigate, and phase out, the existing British institution of slavery that they left us with. Britain was the one who “gave” slavery to the Americans. The United States did not create slavery, rather, it found slavery already there before the country was born. Not unlike finding out that your mother is a cigarette smoker 10 seconds after you are born. There was no way a “United States” could be formed in any other way than by the compromise that it made. Anything less, and the states would not have ratified the Constitution.

I don’t think you can dissect the slavery issue from the first 100 years of our history. We can’t foist off our responsibility for that on another country where slavery wasn’t even legal.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@StusBlues

I think they’d think it was a reasonable compromise. It’s that autocratic Emancipation Proclaimation thing they’d have a problem with, as well as the utterly tyrannical requirement for former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. (Seriously, read a few of the Regnery Press’ Politically Incorrect Guides. That stuff’s in there.)

Did you mean to put smilies on this, or is this just so poorly thought out that it invites ridicule?

The first clause is not the operative clause.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The Teabaggers would be very put off by the Founders’ atheism and disgust for for Christianity, by their respect for reason and science and by their classist elitism (only landowners can vote, etc.).

They would be sympatico with them on their racism, though.

[Argent_Towers]

Which of the founding fathers were atheists? Certainly not any of the Freemasons among them, as atheism is incompatible with that philosophy.

Atheist and deist aren’t the same thing, nor are atheist and agnostic.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Jackknifed_Juggernaut

But yet, they mentioned the whole thing about the militia. Why?

In any case, the whole argument is silly. I’m pretty sure that if the amendment was written like this: “Everybody can have as many arms as they wish and carry them around anywhere they want, loaded or unloaded.”, most people would still have a problem with it. And if I filled up my garage with nuclear weapons, rocket launchers and grenades, even the strictest 2nd amendment advocate in my neighborhood would be calling the police on me.

Noone who defends the second amendment thinks the second amendment is any more absolute than the right to free speech. There are limits despite the absolute language of the constitution. We recognize that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and I think most people would draw the line somewhere before explosives.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

As jaw-droppingly stupid as the tea-baggers are, I’m glad that we are getting more engagement. You think the neo-cons got people motivated and activated, wait until Palin is President, there will be no more vibrant democracy in the world. Everyone will be politically active.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I was using “atheism” somewhat facetiously, though I think some of them (Like Jefferson) were as minimimally deist as they could possibly get away with. A belief in a remote “creator” who no longer interacts with the universe (Jefferson’s belief) is functionally equivalent to atheism.

[Rhythmdvl]

Incorporation wasn’t part of the original plan. According to the Framers, the Bill of Rights did not apply to you. You have no Second Amendment protections from the Virginia legislature. They can take away your guns and there was nothing the Federal courts can do about it–there is nothing the Federal courts should do about it.

Of course, if you prefer those horrible activist courts and their willy-nilly interpretation of the Constitution, if you understand that buzzwords like textualist and originalist are inherently empty of meaning, then maybe you can make a case for having *Federal *Second Amendment rights that protect you from encroachments by state laws.