roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
imported post
wylde007 wrote:
wylde007 wrote:
Yeah, except most grade schools don't teach civics any more....
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Constitutional Carry in Virginia
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
roscoe13 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:
You'll hear no argument from me on that point.
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
wylde007 wrote:
Civics was a 12th grade class at my school. It focused on doing the right thing for the benefit of society, not the individual.
Much of it was touchy-feely feel-good stuff focusing on worrying about people rather than individuals. Talking with the teacher for that class, worrying about myself first before worrying about my neighbors showed that I wasn't very civically minded.
Not my cup of tea. Though I'll make you a cup of tea... if I have enough to share. Damn that taking care of myself/ my house first upbringing.
wylde007 wrote:
Civics was a 12th grade class at my school. It focused on doing the right thing for the benefit of society, not the individual.
Much of it was touchy-feely feel-good stuff focusing on worrying about people rather than individuals. Talking with the teacher for that class, worrying about myself first before worrying about my neighbors showed that I wasn't very civically minded.
Not my cup of tea. Though I'll make you a cup of tea... if I have enough to share. Damn that taking care of myself/ my house first upbringing.
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
darthmord wrote:
I shudder to think what a hatchet job was done on other subjects at whatever school you attended.
Yipes.
darthmord wrote:
You and I both know that has nothing to do with civics.
I shudder to think what a hatchet job was done on other subjects at whatever school you attended.
Yipes.
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
imported post
Until recently, I was not so radical. The words: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" cannot be misinterpreted or misconstrued, only ignored. How do we reconcile the dangerous vilolent criminal and the insane with firearms ownership? I am not so wise as to have that answer. Perhaps in an armed society that situation would manage to work itself out with a healthy dose of self interest, who can say?.
Until recently, I was not so radical. The words: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" cannot be misinterpreted or misconstrued, only ignored. How do we reconcile the dangerous vilolent criminal and the insane with firearms ownership? I am not so wise as to have that answer. Perhaps in an armed society that situation would manage to work itself out with a healthy dose of self interest, who can say?.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
user wrote:
In his book Origins of the Bill of Rights, Leonard Levy briefly relates that James Madison borrowed the language from the rights in the first VA constitution (1776).
The main problem I cannot yetsolveis that the VA Declaration of Rights, includedin the first VA constitutiondid not include the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure how that phrase made it into the US Bill of Rights, or into later versions of the VA Constitution.
user wrote:
AbNo wrote:Constitution of Virginia, Article 1, Section 13.user wrote:Cite, please? This could be very useful.
...
In his book Origins of the Bill of Rights, Leonard Levy briefly relates that James Madison borrowed the language from the rights in the first VA constitution (1776).
The main problem I cannot yetsolveis that the VA Declaration of Rights, includedin the first VA constitutiondid not include the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure how that phrase made it into the US Bill of Rights, or into later versions of the VA Constitution.
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
It wasn't a separate "right" It is incorporated into the Constitution in Article I, Section 13.
From the Virginia Constitution, ratified in 1776:
It wasn't a separate "right" It is incorporated into the Constitution in Article I, Section 13.
From the Virginia Constitution, ratified in 1776:
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
It's those parts AFTER the emphasized part I wish held more sway.
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
wylde007 wrote:
Thing was... it was an 'English' class of allthings.
The other subjects I attended at that school were done okay as far as I could tell. I opted for the harder topics that required thought and reason (electrical engineering, chemistry, algebra/trig, English Composition, etc).
The teacher for the Civics class was one who was very anti-individual. She was all for group-think sorts of things. Kinda scary as I had her a few years earlier as a student teacher and she was a goodteacher. Not sure what changed between being a student teacher and a full-fledged one.
Loved my Government teacher. She was all fire & brimstone to any who would dare disparage or otherwise disrespect / ignore the Constitution.
wylde007 wrote:
Thing was... it was an 'English' class of allthings.
The other subjects I attended at that school were done okay as far as I could tell. I opted for the harder topics that required thought and reason (electrical engineering, chemistry, algebra/trig, English Composition, etc).
The teacher for the Civics class was one who was very anti-individual. She was all for group-think sorts of things. Kinda scary as I had her a few years earlier as a student teacher and she was a goodteacher. Not sure what changed between being a student teacher and a full-fledged one.
Loved my Government teacher. She was all fire & brimstone to any who would dare disparage or otherwise disrespect / ignore the Constitution.
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
The Wolfhound wrote:
The Wolfhound wrote:
I agree strongly, and suggest that judicial opinions that use the word, "interpretation" are disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. The "plain meaning rule" applies, and there's no way around theexpression of intent made clear in that sentence.
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
imported post
+1
I do always enjoy pointing out in conversation that most of the ammendments begin "Congress shall make no law........"and the 2nd is only the right shall not be infringed. Not by anyone, at any level, ever, is my plain language interpertation.
+1
I do always enjoy pointing out in conversation that most of the ammendments begin "Congress shall make no law........"and the 2nd is only the right shall not be infringed. Not by anyone, at any level, ever, is my plain language interpertation.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
The Wolfhound wrote:
I am with you Wolfhound. We all know what it means. So why do we need MacDonald v. Chicago? Shall not be infringed is much broader than Congress shall make no law.
Simple 2A litmus test - Does the legislation infringe upon the RKBA? Yes - unconstitutional, no - constitutional (from 2A point of view). Anything more is just freedom hating judicial activism.
The Wolfhound wrote:
I am with you Wolfhound. We all know what it means. So why do we need MacDonald v. Chicago? Shall not be infringed is much broader than Congress shall make no law.
Simple 2A litmus test - Does the legislation infringe upon the RKBA? Yes - unconstitutional, no - constitutional (from 2A point of view). Anything more is just freedom hating judicial activism.
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
The Wolfhound wrote:
"being NECESSARY to the security of a free state."
Necessary. Ultimately important. Requisite.
The Wolfhound wrote:
It is also the only one that is quantified by the statement:
"being NECESSARY to the security of a free state."
Necessary. Ultimately important. Requisite.
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
The Wolfhound wrote:
Thank you for pointing that out. You have completely revised my thinking on a major point, and that includes application of the Second Amendment to the states.
I looked it up (kind of hard to do, really, the United States keeps the Constitution buried under "historical documents), and actually, only the First Amendment out of the Bill of Rights includes the specific prohibition with respect to the power of Congress. All of the others are absolute and unlimited. And in my (revised) opinion, apply to every governmental unit in the United States, states, municipalities, territories and what have you.
I am still opposed to the notion of "selective incorporation" and argue that the First Amendment does not apply to the states (most of which had official state religions at the time of ratification, after all). The Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause only relates to process, not substance and "substantive due process" is pure hogwash. That's all opinion and argument, you understand, and not consistent with standing precedent.
But I now take the position that, except for the First, all of the amendments forming the Bill of Rights apply to the states and are self-executing. This is a major flip-flop for me as to the Second Amendment.
The Wolfhound wrote:
Thank you for pointing that out. You have completely revised my thinking on a major point, and that includes application of the Second Amendment to the states.
I looked it up (kind of hard to do, really, the United States keeps the Constitution buried under "historical documents), and actually, only the First Amendment out of the Bill of Rights includes the specific prohibition with respect to the power of Congress. All of the others are absolute and unlimited. And in my (revised) opinion, apply to every governmental unit in the United States, states, municipalities, territories and what have you.
I am still opposed to the notion of "selective incorporation" and argue that the First Amendment does not apply to the states (most of which had official state religions at the time of ratification, after all). The Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause only relates to process, not substance and "substantive due process" is pure hogwash. That's all opinion and argument, you understand, and not consistent with standing precedent.
But I now take the position that, except for the First, all of the amendments forming the Bill of Rights apply to the states and are self-executing. This is a major flip-flop for me as to the Second Amendment.
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
I always believed them to be self-executing as the delegates from the states refused to ratify the Constitution without them. Similarly the Virginia ratification statement:
The emphasized part is the one that makes me so angry, all the time, regarding arguments that secession is not Constitutional, but that's a topic for elsewhere.
I always believed them to be self-executing as the delegates from the states refused to ratify the Constitution without them. Similarly the Virginia ratification statement:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
The emphasized part is the one that makes me so angry, all the time, regarding arguments that secession is not Constitutional, but that's a topic for elsewhere.
imported post
I believe that anyone who can legally own a gun should be able to carry that gun, whether openly or concealed without a permit, license, or permission from the government.
That being said once the drama that will surely play in the media is done I don't think it will make much of a difference. Those who want to carry a gun legally are already doing so.
The criminals who should not be allowed on the same sidewalks as the law abiding citizens will still be carrying guns and committing crimes.
I believe we need less gun control and more criminal control.
I believe that anyone who can legally own a gun should be able to carry that gun, whether openly or concealed without a permit, license, or permission from the government.
That being said once the drama that will surely play in the media is done I don't think it will make much of a difference. Those who want to carry a gun legally are already doing so.
The criminals who should not be allowed on the same sidewalks as the law abiding citizens will still be carrying guns and committing crimes.
I believe we need less gun control and more criminal control.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
roscoe13 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:
Which is why I was asking for some documentation on where the US Constitution was copied from the VA State one.