Mandatory gun ownership laws...

eye95 · Nov 16, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
W...and in the constitution it appears to me to mean branch of knowledge, like someone can be well trained in the discipline of martial arts...

Bravo Sierra. There may be a legitimate debate on whether the Constitution is meaning training or setting up rules with punishment or both, but only the most convoluted reading of that authority would produce "branch of knowledge." Here's a test, pull out the word "disciplining," and replace it with "branch of knowledge." Then see how it reads. Do the same with the other options. See which makes sense and which is nonsense!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

sudden valley gunner · Nov 16, 2013

eye95 said:
Bravo Sierra. There may be a legitimate debate on whether the Constitution is meaning training or setting up rules with punishment or both, but only the most convoluted reading of that authority would produce "branch of knowledge." Here's a test, pull out the word "disciplining," and replace it with "branch of knowledge." Then see how it reads. Do the same with the other options. See which makes sense and which is nonsense!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

When you are training or disciplining someone in the art of war you are instilling a branch of knowledge about how to be a soldier.

I am sure you are well disciplined in mathematics , or have an extensive branch of knowledge, being you were a teacher of mathematics.

My point is it isn't about punishment but about education and training. Although punishment can be part of that education and training.

eye95 · Nov 16, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
When you are training or disciplining someone in the art of war you are instilling a branch of knowledge about how to be a soldier.

I am sure you are well disciplined in mathematics , or have an extensive branch of knowledge, being you were a teacher of mathematics.

My point is it isn't about punishment but about education and training. Although punishment can be part of that education and training.

The point remains that that definition of "discipline" is obviously (to anyone who really reads what has been written on the page) not the one being used.

Anyway, I have refuted that contention. Folks can try the substitution that I have suggested above to see that the contention is absurd. Moving on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Daylen · Nov 16, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
What I am saying is that discipline can include punishment, but in a broader sense means training, and in the constitution it appears to me to mean branch of knowledge, like someone can be well trained in the discipline of martial arts.

Yet in 1792 there were no federal regulations to mandate gun ownership. This was a state issue. Mandating a personal property would be very much contrary to the principles of the federal constitution and to the declaration of independence.

It would be unconstitutional according to my state constitution too, because it says in article 1 section 1 that its the states jobs to protect my individual rights.

Did you not read the text of the Militia Act of 1792? It totally mandates members of the militia to procure a rifle or musket. If the act was such an attack on liberty why did Virginia not challenge it or use nullification in the 1700s? As far as only the state you live in safeguarding liberty, that argument was lost with the Articles of Confederation.

You still haven't cited anything for discipline, I'm waiting.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 16, 2013

Daylen said:
On my "misuse" of discipline, cite please, I've never heard such a limited definition of the word. Everything I've ever read about implicit authority and discipline from such times has indicated the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I think its fairly clear that while the founders tried to limit the federal government severely, and many were proponents of maximum liberty, they also seemed to think some individual liberty had to be sacrificed to duty in order to safeguard the rest as shown by such broad powers given over the militia and the enactment of the Militia Act of 1792. While in today's world it might seem horrific to hold someone to a duty of mutual self defense, in 1790 USA was barely more than a joke that might end with alot of hangings. If no-one showed up to defend the country, far more liberty would be lost than that sacrificed to duty in the constitution and subsequent acts. Of course the Anti-federalists were not so keen on the powers the federal govt has over the militia.

Sounds more like Joseph Stalin than Joseph Hewes. That is so contradictory and anti-liberty. "You must surrender your basic, fundamental rights to "us" so that "they" don't take them away." Either way, they are forcefully taken away. Whether it's by one government, or another, what difference does it make? Because one government will promise to only take away this set of liberties, while that government will take away another set? Stahp.

It also isn't necessarily on-topic for this thread. Mandatory gun ownership is wrong, because it is a violation of basic liberty, whether it's constitutional or not.

Daylen · Nov 16, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Sounds more like Joseph Stalin than Joseph Hewes. That is so contradictory and anti-liberty. "You must surrender your basic, fundamental rights to "us" so that "they" don't take them away." Either way, they are forcefully taken away. Whether it's by one government, or another, what difference does it make? Because one government will promise to only take away this set of liberties, while that government will take away another set? Stahp.

It also isn't necessarily on-topic for this thread. Mandatory gun ownership is wrong, because it is a violation of basic liberty, whether it's constitutional or not.

Your argument lost all meaning when the anti-federalists lost and the constitution was ratified. Many liberties were lost: economic freedom (taxation), individual property rights (eminent domain), sovereign property rights (states don't get to determine who can come within their boarders). Govt of any type takes away basic liberty. If you think my arguments have been statist or communist in bent, I think you need to read more from the 1700s. Plus it sounds like you're trying to live in a fantasy that exists in your own mind. Having a problem with a weak law that upholds a constitutional value of the duty of the individual to provide for his own and mutual self defense is picking nits. I'm a bit surprised you haven't had a heart attack since learning there are stiff penalties for making your own machine gun.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 16, 2013

Daylen said:
Your argument lost all meaning when the anti-federalists lost and the constitution was ratified. Many liberties were lost: economic freedom (taxation), individual property rights (eminent domain), sovereign property rights (states don't get to determine who can come within their boarders). Govt of any type takes away basic liberty. If you think my arguments have been statist or communist in bent, I think you need to read more from the 1700s. Plus it sounds like you're trying to live in a fantasy that exists in your own mind. Having a problem with a weak law that upholds a constitutional value of the duty of the individual to provide for his own and mutual self defense is picking nits. I'm a bit surprised you haven't had a heart attack since learning there are stiff penalties for making your own machine gun.

[strike]There is a difference between saying "what is" and "what should be"

I am living in no fantasy. I understand full-well that we do not have liberty as I am describing.

My argument lost no meaning when the anti-federalists "lost"

No more so than the arguments for self defense lose when someone is overcome by an attacker. [/strike]

Let's focus...

My point was simply this: regardless of any constitutional support for mandatory gun ownership, it is anti-liberty. You said yourself, liberties were lost. Effecting the loss of liberty is anti-liberty. That, is simple.

Daylen · Nov 16, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
[strike]There is a difference between saying "what is" and "what should be"

I am living in no fantasy. I understand full-well that we do not have liberty as I am describing.

My argument lost no meaning when the anti-federalists "lost"

No more so than the arguments for self defense lose when someone is overcome by an attacker. [/strike]

Let's focus...

My point was simply this: regardless of any constitutional support for mandatory gun ownership, it is anti-liberty. You said yourself, liberties were lost. Effecting the loss of liberty is anti-liberty. That, is simple.

So what? What are you going to do about it? The guys, who were so gung-ho on liberty they fought THE superpower of their time (who was also their king), thought the choice, of not owning and being proficient in arms, was a nonessential liberty that could be sacrificed to safeguard other more essential liberty; heck they gave authorization in the constitution for it.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 16, 2013

Daylen said:
So what? What you gona do about it? The guys who were so gung-ho on liberty they fought THE superpower of their time (who was also their king) thought mandatory ownership of and proficiency in was a nonessential liberty that could be sacrificed to safeguard other more essential liberty; heck they gave authorization in the constitution for it.

Wtf?

eye95 · Nov 16, 2013

I understood his post perfectly.

Daylen seems to like the Constitution as originally written. I do too. Some around here tend to bash it as anti-Liberty.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

stealthyeliminator · Nov 16, 2013

eye95 said:
I understood his post perfectly.

Daylen seems to like the Constitution as originally written. I do too. Some around here tend to bash it as anti-Liberty.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No, you're able to gather what he meant to say because you are like-minded. His post doesn't make any sense, so someone who is not of like mind is going to have a much harder time realizing what he means. I may be intellectually inferior (though I doubt that I am) but I am no idiot, and I truly do not understand what he is trying to say, or what the point of it is. Honestly, it sounds to me like he got pissed and just spouted off.

eye95 · Nov 16, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
No, you're able to gather what he meant to say because you are like-minded. His post doesn't make any sense, so someone who is not of like mind is going to have a much harder time realizing what he means. I may be intellectually inferior (though I doubt that I am) but I am no idiot, and I truly do not understand what he is trying to say, or what the point of it is. Honestly, it sounds to me like he got pissed and just spouted off.

I understand folks I disagree with quite clearly. Daylen's posts tend to be quite well-written. Any lack of understanding is coming from the other end.

Moving on, awaiting substantial comments, not just comments solely to denigrate someone with whom another poster disagrees.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

stealthyeliminator · Nov 16, 2013

eye95 said:
I understand folks I disagree with quite clearly. Daylen's posts tend to be quite well-written. Any lack of understanding is coming from the other end.

Moving on, awaiting substantial comments, not just comments solely to denigrate someone with whom another poster disagrees.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Give me a break. You know I'm not saying that I can't understand because I disagree, I'm saying I don't understand because of the lack of proper English. Now, there is no need to go through all my posts and point out all of the grammatical errors, so let's skip that step. I'd be more than happy to try to understand any point he was trying to make if he'd simply do me the favor of rephrasing.

Primus · Nov 16, 2013

Daylen said:
So what? What you gona do about it? The guys, who were so gung-ho on liberty they fought THE superpower of their time (who was also their king), thought mandatory ownership of and proficiency in arms was a nonessential liberty that could be sacrificed to safeguard other more essential liberty; heck they gave authorization in the constitution for it.

Daylen correct me if I'm wrong...

But it sounds like he's reitterating what he's been saying. The Con. MANDATED guys into the Militia like a draft. So basically having to give up some liberties to gain others. Giving up your liberty to tell the .gov to screw, so you can win independence and all the other liberties we gained.

His post was pretty clear.

Daylen · Nov 16, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Give me a break. You know I'm not saying that I can't understand because I disagree, I'm saying I don't understand because of the lack of proper English. Now, there is no need to go through all my posts and point out all of the grammatical errors, so let's skip that step. I'd be more than happy to try to understand any point he was trying to make if he'd simply do me the favor of rephrasing.

Oops, seems I had some missing punctuation and a missing word. There is no good excuse for bad grammar.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 17, 2013

eye95 said:
The point remains that that definition of "discipline" is obviously (to anyone who really reads what has been written on the page) not the one being used.

Anyway, I have refuted that contention. Folks can try the substitution that I have suggested above to see that the contention is absurd. Moving on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Um they were referring to discipline written somewhere else you didn't catch that?

Oh wait I used discipline in the matter you said it couldn't be used....

sudden valley gunner · Nov 17, 2013

Daylen said:
Did you not read the text of the Militia Act of 1792? It totally mandates members of the militia to procure a rifle or musket. If the act was such an attack on liberty why did Virginia not challenge it or use nullification in the 1700s? As far as only the state you live in safeguarding liberty, that argument was lost with the Articles of Confederation.

You still haven't cited anything for discipline, I'm waiting.

I am waiting for you to cite the constitution, I already countered this argument that "acts" are not necessarily constitutional.

You asking for a cite that it isn't is like me asking you for a cite saying were you are allowed to where a blue shirt.

It's like the tired old argument that says when SCOTUS decides something is constitutional it is......

Daylen · Nov 17, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I am waiting for you to cite the constitution, I already countered this argument that "acts" are not necessarily constitutional.

You asking for a cite that it isn't is like me asking you for a cite saying were you are allowed to where a blue shirt.

It's like the tired old argument that says when SCOTUS decides something is constitutional it is......

Um, I previously cited the constitution for where the authority comes from for the militia act. You have not refuted it other than saying something about discipline not meaning the feds can punish militia members.

Are you under the impression that all laws are unconstitutional and the only legal document is the constitution?

eye95 · Nov 17, 2013

Daylen said:
Um, I previously cited the constitution for where the authority comes from for the militia act. You have not refuted it other than saying something about discipline not meaning the feds can punish militia members.

Are you under the impression that all laws are unconstitutional and the only legal document is the constitution?

Your point that many of the same folks who had a hand in writing the Constitution had a hand in writing the laws of the day, including the original militia act, is being totally ignored.

I kinda suspect that those folks understood the Constitution better than any of us here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

stealthyeliminator · Nov 17, 2013

eye95 said:
Your point that many of the same folks who had a hand in writing the Constitution had a hand in writing the laws of the day, including the original militia act, is being totally ignored.

I kinda suspect that those folks understood the Constitution better than any of us here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

It isn't being 'ignored,' it doesn't address my position. My position is founded on principles of liberty, not on the constitution. I will find anti-liberty portions of the constitution of the United States of America in the same way I will fight anti-liberty portions of my city ordinances, state statutes, state constitution, etc. That isn't not dishonest or inconsistent. It would be dishonest if I submitted that the constitution is perfect, which I have not. That I will use what is available to protect myself and my liberty, even when portions of whatever that is I may not agree with (eg. use the second amendment to protect my liberty but oppose another portion of the constitution), is not dishonest and in fact it is perfect consistent with my stated beliefs. That the basis of my position is the principles of liberty, not the constitution. If the constitution can be used to support and protect liberty, great. Otherwise, I see no dishonesty in opposing it.

Mandatory gun ownership laws...

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member