Impeach Gov. Andrew Cuomo 4 violating New Yorker's 2nd Amendment
- 01-22-2013, 09:37 AM
I'll simply repeat a line that you often toss out whenever I offer a counterpoint...."But you can't save everyone." "Oh but dat der constitution." Thomas Jefferson advocated strongly in his letters to Madison, that the constitution should remain a living document, reviewed every 19 years and revised to meet the needs of its current generation, not to be shackled by the needs of prior generations. He was ahead of his time.
- 01-22-2013, 09:42 AM
01-22-2013, 09:44 AM
01-22-2013, 09:50 AM
01-22-2013, 09:53 AM
01-22-2013, 09:59 AM
This is all kind of a moot argument.
The new laws being proposed are not sensible.
At least not in light of the bill of right, intentions of the second amendment, doctor patient confidentiality as well as the innocent until proven guilty portion of our rights.
First of all, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self defense or hunting.. people that throw that argument around needs to revisit their social studies classes in grade school. The 2nd amendment is well explained in the federalist papers as the last line of defense of a power hungry tyrannical government, which is why they define the militia as all able bodied men. The last stand against an overpowering centralized government, ensuring the freedom of the people was never taken away. Which is why they state that the right to bear arms shall never be infringed.
The new EOs signed by the President state to examine the HIPPA laws and ensure they have no privacy for Gun owners. Essentially the doc can tell big brother about gun owners. As well as the proposed National Gun Registry. That essentially labels each gun owner as a person of interest well before every committing any crimes.
People are relying on their Government as their personal baby sitter way to much. Personal liberty and responsibility are the people's to lose. And we are doing a damn good job of it.
The 2nd amendment is the only protectionary amendment to ensure the Gov. works for the people, by the people. Remove that protective layer and it can easily turn the tables the other way. The Constitution is a living document, but was never intended to be stripped of protections as people see fit.
Placing limits on the second amendment is the same as telling an artist what they can and cannot portray as art.
The entire debate is pointing fingers, and both sides are looking to limit your rights. Left wants to limit what they deem acceptable parts of the 2nd amendment, and right wants to limit what the entertainment industry can deliver to the American public via media and video games... an attack against the first amendment.
Why are people not more angry that they are now? Maybe it was taking the oath of enlistment that hits it so close to home, but people are too lackadaisical in giving up freedoms for the sake of giving themselves that warm and fuzzy.
The Historic PES Legend
01-22-2013, 10:06 AM
Respect your position, as there is an argument to be made on both sides. My question again is, who is excluded from purchasing/owning a firearm. I notice when I pose that question, it takes quite a long time to get back here with the answers. I guess the Alex Jones site must be down.
01-22-2013, 10:12 AM
01-22-2013, 10:19 AM
the constitutional stance is not weak, it is my countries belief and my belief.
What would you consider to be a rational argument. Maybe the fact that I am an able body american man, who wants to be ready to protect his country at a moments notice, but I feel like prosuing a carrier outside of the military.
I have the available income to buy an assult rifle, and I don't have any criminal convictions.
The american prison system is already overwhelmed, why add more unnecessary laws that would lead to the conviction of tax payers who fund the system.
The act of ceasing all of these weapons and inforcing the new laws would put a huge strain on the already exhausted national budget.
Theres four reasons for you.
Bigcountry's Getting a little smaller: Epi/Stano Log
01-22-2013, 10:21 AM
01-22-2013, 10:23 AM
Why the NICS system denies people is not well published. What is supposed to be the only limits are people underage and of violent crimes. Which we all know has been trampled on by multiple metro area's. In Chicago they had a 28 year ban on hand guns completely, a blatant disregard to what is supposed to be an inalienable right.
What people don't understand is the proposed legislation by Ms. Dianne is infringing on a civil right.
"Civil Right" - a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality.
This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press. Meaning limiting what make and model of rifle a citizen wishes to possess is a complete disregarding of a civil right.
I am not one to say the world is going to end tomorrow on this debate alone.. but allowing one more freedom to be restricted to those who believe they know better is just allowing Big Brother to run your lives.
I don't care if Hollywood makes another violent movie or GaGa wears her damn Abrams tank bra on stage... but I sure as well would stand next to them just to allow them to do so. Regardless of ones personal feelings on a subject, allowing freedoms to be restricted for any reason should be looked down upon with disgust.
The Historic PES Legend
01-22-2013, 10:24 AM
01-22-2013, 10:27 AM
01-22-2013, 10:29 AM
Problem is we haven't done so. I took an oath to protect our Constitution of the US... if that is replaced with another Constitution, then that will be the one to be protected.
It is the people's choice on how to proceed with the government. Instead of rewriting it, our previous generations just amended it to fit the current climate. Should we begin the process of getting 50 states to ratify a new consitution to fit our new climate, I am all for that. As long as peoples voices are heard.
Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to wipe out the laws of the land completely and start fresh.. considering some of the albatross laws out there today. Like jail time for non violent crimes like smoking a little dope.. come on now.
The Historic PES Legend
01-22-2013, 10:30 AM
01-22-2013, 10:30 AM
01-22-2013, 10:34 AM
01-22-2013, 10:35 AM
01-22-2013, 10:37 AM
01-22-2013, 10:40 AM
01-22-2013, 10:45 AM
i never said it was infallable, neither did jefferson, hence why he wrote his letters to madison. but jefferson was also an advocate of personal liberties and freedoms, and he knew that the constitution wasnt perfect nor comprehensive. he advocated a review of the consitution to make sure that ALL citizens have EVERY GOD GIVEN RIGHT available to them and that it would NOT BE INFRINGED UPON, be it by means of obsessive and undue legislation,or the govt creating laws to prevent these rights, hence my comment about slavery, suffrage, and so on and so forth
01-22-2013, 10:51 AM
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
[B]"[B]etween society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . y the law of nature, one generation is [therefore] to another as one independent nation to another."
01-22-2013, 10:57 AM
Jefferson examined the question of re-constitution especially closely. In his letter to Madison, he occasionally supplements his 'entailed estate' description of intergenerational relations with a description based more on the concepts and language of international law:
"[B]etween society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . [B]y the law of nature, one generation is [therefore] to another as one independent nation to another." f184Just as the entailed estate analogy, with its terminology of usufruct and waste, lends itself to issues of land use and property rights, the national sovereignty analogy is well suited to the analysis of power, control, and authority issues which arise between generations. To characterize generations as separate nations is to impliedly reject any generation's authority to legislate for a later generation. The analogy almost presupposes Jefferson's conclusion: that no constitution or law can be perpetual, that every constitution and law requires periodic re-ratification to remain effective.
Jefferson maintains that re-ratification of constitutions and other legislation is required once every generation, and he defines a generation as the period after which a majority of those alive at the time of a law's passage shall themselves have passed away. Applying tables of mortality from the period, Jefferson calculates that:
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." f185In addition to his philosophic argument for expiring old laws and constitutions, Jefferson makes certain practical arguments. Like Sidney, he stresses the need for governmental institutions to keep pace with the evolution of human reason and understanding, f186 and he identifies periodic re-constitution and re-legislation as mechanisms for insuring that evolution. On practical grounds, he rejects the opportunity for amendment or repeal as an adequate substitute for the requirement of expiration and re-ratification. f187
The same principles which invalidate perpetual constitutions and hereditary monarchies also invalidate, by implication, other perpetual legislation. Complementing the generational right of re-constitution, then, must be a generational right of re-legislation. Paine had applied the principle of generational sovereignty to ordinary legislation in a 1786 communication to the Pennsylvania legislature, in language which closely anticipated the tone of Jefferson's 1789 letter to Madison. Defending the state's right to revoke the Bank of North America's charter, Paine explained that a perpetual charter could not exist:
"As we are not to live for ever ourselves, and other generations are to follow us, we have neither the power nor the right to govern them, or to say how they shall govern themselves. . . . [It is] the summit of human vanity . . . to be dictating to the world to come." f188He went on to suggest that 30 years was the average length of a generation, that any public act could not be in force longer than that term, and that it would be useful to have an explicit notation to that effect in the constitution. f189
Reflecting the same general philosophy, numerous state constitutions forbade the legislative creation of perpetual or hereditary privileges. f190
01-22-2013, 11:07 AM
I understand what your saying about the inferring, but to a certain degree inferments have to be made as he is not here, to explain his thoughts and words and why he chose them when writing to madison, based on his other written works. Jefferson throught his life, was always an advocate of limited government-fewer laws, fewer lawmakers, fewer problems. he also taught that you cant rule morality.
the point that ax is trying to make is that the NY laws and the laws that obama administration are proposing are obsessive and intrusive. Yes they still have the right on paper to bear arms, but their laws and restrictions are making it next to impossible to own or purchase one. This is what jefferson was against.
also what ax is saying is that polliticians and lawmakers are smart and they know that "dat der constition" is a big problem in forcing their ideology and problems with guns on the rest of us. they know that they cant outright take guns away from people and make guns illegal (even though they have before, look at chicago) so they pass ridiculous laws and registration regulations and tariffs that make it unfeasable for most of the general public to obtain firearms
01-22-2013, 11:11 AM
Explain to me in detail how it is becoming nearly IMPOSSIBLE to own a firearm?
Similar Forum Threads
- By lartinos in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 02-02-2011, 10:01 PM
- By EPZ32 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 5Last Post: 08-03-2009, 04:54 PM
- By BigNemo in forum General ChatReplies: 41Last Post: 06-27-2008, 05:39 PM
- By cliff_vtr in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 06-20-2005, 07:02 PM