[GUN] 2nd Ammendment Continues To Prove Its Worth

[A4sForever]

Specifics?

I'll let you read the links I provided and then maybe I'll take a crack at and take the time to post "specifics" ... I'm not trying to be a wise-guy, but I don't have time to post what you-all should have learned in eighth grade US history. Think Federalist vs Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, the role of the Southern states for starters. And READ the Federalist Papers if you have not already.

I only have time ..... for limes .... :icon_rast

 

[nfo2b]

No, no, no, please don't misunderstand me. I just meant specifics on who's been wrong and how. I didn't think you were being a wise-guy, and I wasn't asking for a history lesson, I was just seeking your feedback or opinion on what had already been posted here.

FWIW, I think I have a pretty decent grasp on Constitutional history (although I concede that I don't know enough about the federalist papers), and I actually love Wikipedia (some of it--but we can save that debate for another thread).

 

[Steve Wilkins]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Controversy

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.

The Bill of Rights includes rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and freedom of assembly. It also includes a clause mandating that the Bill of Rights must not be interpreted as a comprehensive list of all rights had by Americans, but rather a list of just some of the most important rights.

Sounds like the 9th Amendment.

 

[jamnww]

OK, I am lost here, does anyone have any idea which things he thought were flat out wrong? I mean can we narrow the scope a bit?

 

[A4sForever]

From: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. ........

Hamilton was one of the biggest proponents of Federalism ... and one of the biggest critics of the Bill of Rights. An early-day "extremist" on the subject, one might say. Not exactly a "middle-of-the-road" figure to pick when discussing the Bill of Rights ... right ???

OK, I am lost here, does anyone have any idea which things he thought were flat out wrong? I mean can we narrow the scope a bit?

P.S. it doesn't matter what I think. Read the links .....

 

[jamnww]

[/i]
Hamilton was one of the biggest proponents of Federalism ... and one of the biggest critics of the Bill of Rights. An early-day "extremist" on the subject, one might say. Not exactly a "middle-of-the-road" figure to pick when discussing the Bill of Rights ... right ???



P.S. it doesn't matter what I think. Read the links .....

Thanks for the narrowing down, didn't say I would pay attention to what you think, but it will provide a framework to attack those sites...

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Hamilton was one of the biggest proponents of Federalism ... and one of the biggest critics of the Bill of Rights. An early-day "extremist" on the subject, one might say. Not exactly a "middle-of-the-road" figure to pick when discussing the Bill of Rights ... right ???

P.S. it doesn't matter what I think. Read the links .....

That's a good one, even clever for you A4's. You tell us we're "struggling" over the background of the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights, point us to a site that discusses the Bill of Rights in the context of Hamilton, tell us we should read the Federalist Papers (I've read them, and I agree, everyone should read them) of which 66 of the 85 papers were authored or coauthored (3) by Alexander Hamilton (that's roughly 78%). And now you tell us we shouldn't "pick" him when discussing the Bill of Rights.

p.s. I think we've already established in previous threads time and time again that it doesn't matter what any of us think.

 

[snow85]

don't forget about the Bill of Rights and enumeration in the prenumbras. you'd have the same 'rights,' even if the paper document didn't exist.

 

[A4sForever]

.....And now you tell us we shouldn't "pick" him [i.e., Hamilton] when discussing the Bill of Rights. .

Rights?? .... Don't Tread on Me ..... When has it ever mattered herein what I say? :icon_rast

The Second Amendment (thread origin) is good. Guns are good. Guns are righteous. Guns were amongst the most important tools that "made" this country and provide ongoing protection for it, on both a corporate and an individual basis. But "Rights" in general ? "RIGHTS" ??? That's right ... you shouldn't "pick" Hamilton as the focal point for arguing whether or not the BofR's was or was not "necessary". He was against them -- a BorR's -- on principle. He was a "big government" guy ..... some say a monarchist.

Rights??? Here's what I think about "rights" :
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;" -- Declaration of Independence

Hamilton was a great man ... no question on that score, but he is obviously not the final arbiter on "rights" or a "BofR's". I keep harping on reading the Federalist Papers which promoted the Constitution, not the BofR's to New York (specifically) to bring them onboard in the constitutional process. Hamilton even took credit for a few penned by Madison (!). Without New York onboard it was felt that the country and Constitution would not happen. The Federalist Papers also serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution -- not the BofR's.

An interesting read on this subject might be Federalist #7 or #84 wherein Hamilton spells out his view(s) on a generic "Bill of Rights". Again, it was about politics, power and control. When has it ever been any different???

Hamilton was also a bastard, an adulterer, and a lousy shot. However, in spite of all these shortcomings, he was still not a SWO .....

 

[Fly Navy]

Guns are good. Guns are righteous. Guns were amongst the most important tools that "made" this country and provide ongoing protection for it, on both a corporate and an individual basis.

A man after my own heart.

 

[Dunedan]

...second that. And add to the list: EXCELLENT STRESS OUTLET.

2 liter bottles of the world, you've been warned...

 

[nfo2b]

An interesting read on this subject might be Federalist...#84 wherein Hamilton spells out his view(s) on a generic "Bill of Rights".

Read it...don't agree with him (Hamilton) at all on this one.

Hamilton was also a bastard, an adulterer, and a lousy shot. However, in spite of all these shortcomings, he was still not a SWO .....

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Holy crap, not enough AW smileys for that one. I think I just peed myself.
Damn, A4s, that's fantastic! Can I use this quote in my sig? (j/k)

 

[eddie]

Expecting a thead split...

The Bill of Rights aside (we already know everyone's position ), who's smarter, Hamilton, or Jefferson? Why? We all know we're talking states rights/federalism (ok... that includes the BoR discussion too...) and agrarin/industrial mindsets, right?

 

[jamnww]

The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. - U.S. vs Cruikshan

I think this is the point that was being talked about earlier...

Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces - Joseph T. Chew

Love this one...

 

[A4sForever]

Very, Very TRUE! Guns are the best stress outlet I have ever found. .....

True story ... have you EVER seen someone coming off the firing range frowning??? I have not ....... and then can you say the same thing for guys coming off the golf course .... ???