Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution

  1. #1
    Regular Member Tricorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    898

    The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution

    The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution
    What the historical evidence says about the Second Amendment and individual rights.
    By Damon Root (Reason)
    http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/th...bill-of-rights

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    it is quite interesting to read about purported 'historical rantings' w/o one shred of viable footnote cite to research the quotes.
    for example:
    1. article tucker quote: The right of self defence is the first law of nature. unquote

    what tucker actually stated: The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. (Document 7, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300)

    2. article quote: That the want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed System, is a solid objection to it. unquote

    What DeWitt put to paper:That the want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed System, is a solid objection to it, provided there is nothing exceptionable in the System itself, I do not assert. (To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts, October 27, 1787 http://www.constitution.org/afp/dewitt02.htm)

    3. article quote: I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights. unquote

    what Madison stated to the First session of the First Congress:

    I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.
    (The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session, pp 448-460. http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html)

    4. the other article's commentary on individual colony state's comments on ratification of the constitution have similar out of context or missing commas or other nuances which have the opportunity to change the meaning of the sentiment being stated. if truly interested: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Am...ates_state.htm

    sorry your prize non-peered article is nothing more than worthless BS being pushed for a specific agenda ~ poorly at that if it didn't stand up to this individual's minimal scrutiny.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 06-20-2016 at 05:38 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    SNIP sorry your prize non-peered article is nothing more than worthless BS being pushed for a specific agenda ~ poorly at that if it didn't stand up to this individual's minimal scrutiny.

    ipse
    Oh, I dunno.

    I didn't get the idea it was intended to be a scholarly article or footnoted white paper.

    I'll use myself as an example. I make tons of posts referring to history--without citations. Am I dumb enough to expect people to believe them without citation just because of my incredible good looks, encyclopedic knowledge, unparalleled command of the facts, and bottomless humility? No. What I hope for is to jog something for the reader. If all I accomplish is a reader who says to himself, "Hmm. That's interesting. I'm going to file that away under "pending corroboration of Citizen by independent source"--if that is all I accomplish, great! The alternative would be to spend twice as long composing posts, citing sources, adding superscript numbers to direct the reader to the appropriate footnote, etc., etc. And, of course, there is then the whole question of whether I correctly followed one of the nine or twelve academically acceptable methods for formatting a citation.

    I do agree with you on a certain level. For example, the "wall of separation" between church and state. Plenty of numbskulls try to apply this metaphor literally without knowing the full context (Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc.). So, yeah. It would be better if the blogger had made it a scholarly paper--no doubt whatsoever. On the other hand, the lack of citations--heck, even the fact that it is a blog post instead of a pdf of a white paper--tells readers that things are possibly skewed.

    I do appreciate that you supplied the source material and straightened out the context. The only one I didn't have to research was the objections to the constitution. Well, that and the Blackstone quote about the first law of nature. That is one of those self-evident* truths that is sufficiently sweeping to have multiple positive uses. So, thanks for doing the research work and providing citations and links. Genuinely appreciated.




    *Well known is that Thos. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that Ben Franklin made editorial suggestions after Jefferson drafted it.** Somewhere I have a biography of Jefferson with a number of photographs in the center of the book. Do you know that some lucky devil has the original rough draft of the Declaration of Independence? A photograph of it is in that biography. On that one piece of paper appears the handwriting of two American giants--Thos. Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Franklin made his editorial suggestions by drawing a line through the word(s), and writing his suggestion above or below. Self-evident is Franklin's suggestion. Jefferson originally wrote: "We hold these truths to be axiomatic..." What does axiomatic mean? Self-evident. I think ol' Ben made the right suggestion.

    **I have come across one source that said Jefferson and Franklin were both assigned to write the Declaration of Independence by the congress. If true, I can only imagine the conversation where they decided how to divide up the labor. Separately, can you imagine telling Ben Franklin, "Well, Dr. Franklin, I think I got this under control. What if I write it initially, and you look it over and change what you like." Jefferson was what? 32 years old? 36? Not, me, mister. I woulda said something more along the lines of, "Have at it, Dr. Franklin. I'll check it over for spelling and punctuation."
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-20-2016 at 08:37 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, I dunno.

    I didn't get the idea it was intended to be a scholarly article or footnoted white paper.

    I'll use myself as an example. I make tons of posts referring to history--without citations. Am I dumb enough to expect people to believe them without citation just because of my incredible good looks, encyclopedic knowledge, unparalleled command of the facts, and bottomless humility? No. What I hope for is to jog something for the reader. If all I accomplish is a reader who says to himself, "Hmm. That's interesting. I'm going to file that away under "pending corroboration of Citizen by independent source"--if that is all I accomplish, great! The alternative would be to spend twice as long composing posts, citing sources, adding superscript numbers to direct the reader to the appropriate footnote, etc., etc. And, of course, there is then the whole question of whether I correctly followed one of the nine or twelve academically acceptable methods for formatting a citation.

    I do agree with you on a certain level. For example, the "wall of separation" between church and state. Plenty of numbskulls try to apply this metaphor literally without knowing the full context (Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc.). So, yeah. It would be better if the blogger had made it a scholarly paper--no doubt whatsoever. On the other hand, the lack of citations--heck, even the fact that it is a blog post instead of a pdf of a white paper--tells readers that things are possibly skewed.

    I do appreciate that you supplied the source material and straightened out the context. The only one I didn't have to research was the objections to the constitution. Well, that and the Blackstone quote about the first law of nature. That is one of those self-evident* truths that is sufficiently sweeping to have multiple positive uses.

    *Well known is that Thos. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that Ben Franklin made editorial suggestions after Jefferson drafted it.** Somewhere I have a biography of Jefferson with a number of photographs in the center of the book. Do you know that some lucky devil has the original rough draft of the Declaration of Independence? A photograph of it is in that biography. On that one piece of paper appears the handwriting of two American giants--Thos. Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Franklin made his editorial suggestions by drawing a line through the word(s), and writing his suggestion above or below. Self-evident is Franklin's suggestion. Jefferson originally wrote: "We hold these truths to be axiomatic..." What does axiomatic mean? Self-evident. I think ol' Ben made the right suggestion.

    **I have come across one source that said Jefferson and Franklin were both assigned to write the Declaration of Independence by the congress. If true, I can only imagine the conversation where they decided how to divide up the labor. Separately, can you imagine telling Ben Franklin, "Well, Dr. Franklin, I think I got this under control. What if I write it initially, and you look it over and change what you like." Jefferson was what? 32 years old? 36? Not, me, mister. I woulda said something more along the lines of, "Have at it, Dr. Franklin. I'll check it over for spelling and punctuation."
    Citizen, i can not attest to your self proclaimed, quote: ...good looks, unparalleled command of the facts, and bottomless humility. unquote, however, what i can rely on is your bloody ability to quantify your knowledge professionally to readers. this coupled with the fact, i have found you present material in its entirety, not take historical statements out of context, as was done in the blog's article, to fit your perception of what you believe your readership wants to hear ~ biased, not particularly; emotionalized, eh no!!

    what is the crux of my contention is the blog's misstatement(s) & erroneous presumptions being spewed based on their perception of slices and dices of historical perspective taken out of context and attributed to known personages who were there to lend credence to support the hyperbole.

    am i looking for formalized APA, MLA, Chicago, Turabian, IEEE, etc., methodology to justify rantings ~ heavens no! however, authors should have the decency to provide some prudent providence to allow their readership to adjudicate the facts for themselves. therefore, my closing comment still stands...


    sorry your prize non-peered article is nothing more than worthless BS being pushed for a specific agenda ~ poorly at that if it didn't stand up to this individual's minimal scrutiny

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricorn View Post
    The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution
    What the historical evidence says about the Second Amendment and individual rights.
    By Damon Root (Reason)
    http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/th...bill-of-rights
    While its fun to read, just know that these things you list are just laws....they can be changed. Rights on the other hand are never subject to regulation.

    What would people argue if the 2nd amendment was repealed?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •