Sometimes stupid loses

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040901260927544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-08 22:44:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 13:18:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:



Not exactly a "natural" right. It is part of a political philosophy
going back some thousands of years, but best spelt out by John Locke,
and used by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" to nudge our little
revolution along.

Actually the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is not one of
the "inalienable" or "natural" rights as espoused in the Declaration
of Independence, or the Constitution. It is a legal right established by
charter. That is what the Constitutional Amendments
are. They establish Constitutional legal rights and changes to the
basic original document, not "natural" or "inalienable" rights.

The "inalienable" or "natural" rights, of which there are three, are
the following, and you should be familiar with them. They are the
rights established before the writing and application of Law:

1: Life
2: Liberty, conditioned on non-conflict with the first right.
3: Estate, conditioned on non-conflict with the first two rights.
(replaced by Jefferson as "the Pursuit of Happiness")

And the second amendment helps insure, "life". For sure, the police can't
do this.

Wrong again.

If you are going down that road, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to
"insure life". It was to enable and ensure "Liberty".

Hmm. I think a right to life at least implies a right to self-defense, and
therefore to suitable weapons.

And a right to liberty does too, of course, as indicated by the first part
of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, . . ."

On 2011-04-09 12:53:55 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040901260927544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-08 22:44:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 13:18:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:



Not exactly a "natural" right. It is part of a political philosophy
going back some thousands of years, but best spelt out by John Locke,
and used by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" to nudge our little
revolution along.

Actually the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is not one of
the "inalienable" or "natural" rights as espoused in the Declaration
of Independence, or the Constitution. It is a legal right established by
charter. That is what the Constitutional Amendments
are. They establish Constitutional legal rights and changes to the
basic original document, not "natural" or "inalienable" rights.

The "inalienable" or "natural" rights, of which there are three, are
the following, and you should be familiar with them. They are the
rights established before the writing and application of Law:

1: Life
2: Liberty, conditioned on non-conflict with the first right.
3: Estate, conditioned on non-conflict with the first two rights.
(replaced by Jefferson as "the Pursuit of Happiness")

And the second amendment helps insure, "life". For sure, the police can't
do this.

Wrong again.

If you are going down that road, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to
"insure life". It was to enable and ensure "Liberty".

Hmm. I think a right to life at least implies a right to self-defense, and
therefore to suitable weapons.

The 2nd Amendment does not address the issue of "Life".


And a right to liberty does too, of course, as indicated by the first part
of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, . . ."

....and that is the point.
A free society and citizenry should not be deprived of the means of
defending the security of a free state. Therefore they should have the
right to possess and bear arms necessary for the provision of security
for that free state.
The other benefits and liabilities of that possession and bearing of
arms is secondary and not addressed by the 2nd Amendment.

It does not state anything about the right to defend the "Life" or
security of the individual. There is no mention that those arms be used
for hunting, or target shooting. Hell! it isn't even specific as to the
type of arm, but that is implied. (even back in 1776 not too many folks
had access to a pike or a cannon.) It is the security of a "free state"
which requires the right to arm its citizenry.
The intent was to allow the infantry arsenal of our "free state" to be
contained within the homes of our citizens. That is not a bad idea.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040914330637709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-09 12:53:55 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040901260927544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-08 22:44:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 13:18:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:



Not exactly a "natural" right. It is part of a political philosophy
going back some thousands of years, but best spelt out by John Locke,
and used by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" to nudge our little
revolution along.

Actually the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is not one of
the "inalienable" or "natural" rights as espoused in the Declaration
of Independence, or the Constitution. It is a legal right established
by
charter. That is what the Constitutional Amendments
are. They establish Constitutional legal rights and changes to the
basic original document, not "natural" or "inalienable" rights.

The "inalienable" or "natural" rights, of which there are three, are
the following, and you should be familiar with them. They are the
rights established before the writing and application of Law:

1: Life
2: Liberty, conditioned on non-conflict with the first right.
3: Estate, conditioned on non-conflict with the first two rights.
(replaced by Jefferson as "the Pursuit of Happiness")

And the second amendment helps insure, "life". For sure, the police
can't
do this.

Wrong again.

If you are going down that road, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to
"insure life". It was to enable and ensure "Liberty".

Hmm. I think a right to life at least implies a right to self-defense,
and
therefore to suitable weapons.

The 2nd Amendment does not address the issue of "Life".

Correct. But as you've pointed out, life is one of the things natural rights
are about. It seems to me that self-defense is one of the considerations
relevant to the Second Amendment even if it doesn't specifically mention it.
I think you'll agree that self-defense (usually implying some sort of arms)
has to do with the right to life.



And a right to liberty does too, of course, as indicated by the first
part
of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, . . ."

...and that is the point.
A free society and citizenry should not be deprived of the means of
defending the security of a free state. Therefore they should have the
right to possess and bear arms necessary for the provision of security for
that free state.
The other benefits and liabilities of that possession and bearing of arms
is secondary and not addressed by the 2nd Amendment.

Not specifically addressed by it, correct.


It does not state anything about the right to defend the "Life" or
security of the individual. There is no mention that those arms be used
for hunting, or target shooting. Hell! it isn't even specific as to the
type of arm, but that is implied. (even back in 1776 not too many folks
had access to a pike or a cannon.) It is the security of a "free state"
which requires the right to arm its citizenry.
The intent was to allow the infantry arsenal of our "free state" to be
contained within the homes of our citizens. That is not a bad idea.

Right. Note, though, that some of the states' constitutions, written at
around the same time and later, and by similarly-minded people, provide for
a right to keep and bear arms for defense of the state AND the individual
citizen. I don't think you can say the two are unrelated.

Examples from states' constitutions:

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the
military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the
civil power.

1777 Vermont: Identical to the above.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are
dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall
be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power.

1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of
himself and the State.

1818 Connecticut: Identical to the above.

1819 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of
himself and the state.

1820 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for
their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of
government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that
their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be
questioned.

And so on.

Some other states don't mention anything about personal defence, or say "for
the common defence," which I suppose is open to interpretation.

My point is that most of the states' constitutions had something similar to
the Second Amendment, often combined with some related thing such as
prohibition of a standing army, which was often a very serious concern. With
many states, the right of arms for personal defense was specifically
included with defense of the state, with others it was not, but clearly the
two were associated in the minds of many of the authors.

On 2011-04-09 19:27:37 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040914330637709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-09 12:53:55 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040901260927544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-08 22:44:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 13:18:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:



Not exactly a "natural" right. It is part of a political philosophy
going back some thousands of years, but best spelt out by John Locke,
and used by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" to nudge our little
revolution along.

Actually the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is not one of
the "inalienable" or "natural" rights as espoused in the Declaration
of Independence, or the Constitution. It is a legal right established
by
charter. That is what the Constitutional Amendments
are. They establish Constitutional legal rights and changes to the
basic original document, not "natural" or "inalienable" rights.

The "inalienable" or "natural" rights, of which there are three, are
the following, and you should be familiar with them. They are the
rights established before the writing and application of Law:

1: Life
2: Liberty, conditioned on non-conflict with the first right.
3: Estate, conditioned on non-conflict with the first two rights.
(replaced by Jefferson as "the Pursuit of Happiness")

And the second amendment helps insure, "life". For sure, the police
can't
do this.

Wrong again.

If you are going down that road, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to
"insure life". It was to enable and ensure "Liberty".

Hmm. I think a right to life at least implies a right to self-defense,
and
therefore to suitable weapons.

The 2nd Amendment does not address the issue of "Life".

Correct. But as you've pointed out, life is one of the things natural rights
are about. It seems to me that self-defense is one of the considerations
relevant to the Second Amendment even if it doesn't specifically mention it.
I think you'll agree that self-defense (usually implying some sort of arms)
has to do with the right to life.



And a right to liberty does too, of course, as indicated by the first
part
of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, . . ."

...and that is the point.
A free society and citizenry should not be deprived of the means of
defending the security of a free state. Therefore they should have the
right to possess and bear arms necessary for the provision of security for
that free state.
The other benefits and liabilities of that possession and bearing of arms
is secondary and not addressed by the 2nd Amendment.

Not specifically addressed by it, correct.


It does not state anything about the right to defend the "Life" or
security of the individual. There is no mention that those arms be used
for hunting, or target shooting. Hell! it isn't even specific as to the
type of arm, but that is implied. (even back in 1776 not too many folks
had access to a pike or a cannon.) It is the security of a "free state"
which requires the right to arm its citizenry.
The intent was to allow the infantry arsenal of our "free state" to be
contained within the homes of our citizens. That is not a bad idea.

Right. Note, though, that some of the states' constitutions, written at
around the same time and later, and by similarly-minded people, provide for
a right to keep and bear arms for defense of the state AND the individual
citizen. I don't think you can say the two are unrelated.

Examples from states' constitutions:

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the
military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the
civil power.

1777 Vermont: Identical to the above.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are
dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall
be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power.

1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of
himself and the State.

1818 Connecticut: Identical to the above.

1819 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of
himself and the state.

1820 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for
their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of
government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that
their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be
questioned.

And so on.

Some other states don't mention anything about personal defence, or say "for
the common defence," which I suppose is open to interpretation.

My point is that most of the states' constitutions had something similar to
the Second Amendment, often combined with some related thing such as
prohibition of a standing army, which was often a very serious concern. With
many states, the right of arms for personal defense was specifically
included with defense of the state, with others it was not, but clearly the
two were associated in the minds of many of the authors.

....and therein lies the issue of States' Rights.
Their rights permit them to modify elements of the U.S. Constitution
provided that modification does not deny any of the rights as stated in
the Constitution or the Amendments.

Each of those sections of State Constitutions meets the constitutional
requirements of the United States.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-09 12:53:55 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040901260927544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-08 22:44:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-04-08 13:18:39 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:



Not exactly a "natural" right. It is part of a political
philosophy going back some thousands of years, but best spelt out
by John Locke, and used by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" to
nudge our little revolution along.

Actually the 2nd Amendment and the "right to bear arms" is not
one of the "inalienable" or "natural" rights as espoused in the
Declaration
of Independence, or the Constitution. It is a legal right
established by charter. That is what the Constitutional Amendments
are. They establish Constitutional legal rights and changes to the
basic original document, not "natural" or "inalienable" rights.

The "inalienable" or "natural" rights, of which there are three,
are the following, and you should be familiar with them. They are
the rights established before the writing and application of Law:

1: Life
2: Liberty, conditioned on non-conflict with the first right.
3: Estate, conditioned on non-conflict with the first two rights.
(replaced by Jefferson as "the Pursuit of Happiness")

And the second amendment helps insure, "life". For sure, the
police can't do this.

Wrong again.

If you are going down that road, the 2nd Amendment was not intended
to "insure life". It was to enable and ensure "Liberty".

Hmm. I think a right to life at least implies a right to
self-defense, and therefore to suitable weapons.

The 2nd Amendment does not address the issue of "Life".


And a right to liberty does too, of course, as indicated by the
first part of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, . . ."

...and that is the point.
A free society and citizenry should not be deprived of the means of
defending the security of a free state. Therefore they should have the
right to possess and bear arms necessary for the provision of security
for that free state.
The other benefits and liabilities of that possession and bearing of
arms is secondary and not addressed by the 2nd Amendment.

It does not state anything about the right to defend the "Life" or
security of the individual. There is no mention that those arms be
used for hunting, or target shooting. Hell! it isn't even specific as
to the type of arm, but that is implied. (even back in 1776 not too
many folks had access to a pike or a cannon.) It is the security of a
"free state" which requires the right to arm its citizenry.
The intent was to allow the infantry arsenal of our "free state" to be
contained within the homes of our citizens. That is not a bad idea.

We agree on something again! - In fact, it is an excellent idea.