Impeach Gov. Andrew Cuomo 4 violating New Yorker's 2nd Amendment
- 01-22-2013, 09:30 AM
- 01-22-2013, 09:34 AM
- 01-22-2013, 09:35 AM
01-22-2013, 09:37 AM
01-22-2013, 09:40 AM
01-22-2013, 09:45 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, 09:51 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, 09:57 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, 10:07 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, 10:11 AM
Explain to me in detail how it is becoming nearly IMPOSSIBLE to own a firearm?
01-22-2013, 10:21 AM
how much detail,
background checks on the local, state and federal level, taxes and terrifs on the registration, purchase, and ownership of the weapon that must be renewed every so often, placeing manufacturing tarrifs on ammunition and also placing the taxes on ammo seperate from regular sales tax (federal ammo tax), and also calling for the registration of ammo purchases, not to mention they want to limit the amount of ammo we can purchase...and this is all to be funded by the purchaser? this could easily turn buying a gun that currently cost 400 dollars (about average SRV of a polymer handgun which is now being ruled an assault weapon by the current administration) into a an affair that could end up in the thousands depending on where the purchaser lives, which isnt all that far fetched for NY.
i know obsessive is a relative term but does that seem like a reasonable a
01-22-2013, 10:47 AM
I personally look at any gun control being an infringement of my 2nd amendment right.
As far as I'm concerned I have the right to bear (carry) arms (weapons). It does not say I have the right to carry certain firearms that the government sees fit and it does not say I have the right to bear arms only in certain states with certain permits.
Note I say INFRINGE not STRIP. Which is an important difference to point out because everytime someone says something about the 2nd amendment being infringed upon southpaw replies with "but you can still get guns." Yes, you're right. Certain people can get certain weapons depending upon the state they live in, but its still an infringement upon my 2nd amendment right as an American citizen.
01-22-2013, 10:51 AM
i dunno jimbo can you help me out?? or am i yankin an ass by his ears?
01-22-2013, 10:53 AM
However, if he is specifically talking about the constitution then that does not necessarily apply to the Bill of Rights. Also, he relies upon Jefferson's beliefs but completely ignores the fact that Jefferson was not the only founding father.
He voiced his beliefs and the others did not necessarily agree, because if they did they would have set it up the way Jefferson believed to be best.
01-22-2013, 10:54 AM
01-22-2013, 10:55 AM
01-22-2013, 10:56 AM
01-22-2013, 10:56 AM
01-22-2013, 10:56 AM
01-22-2013, 10:57 AM
I agree add Bloomberg.. I hate those two stupid sobs. That why there so much crime, everyone should own a gun. Automatic should be your choice not nys or NYC politicians choice.
01-22-2013, 10:57 AM
01-22-2013, 10:57 AM
It's not like the criminals will follow the law how ignorant are these politicians.
01-22-2013, 10:59 AM
01-22-2013, 11:00 AM
Gun control laws are only gonna keep certain guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals do not care about the previous laws that we had let alone the new gun laws. If a criminal wants a gun they will get any gun they want. Sure if they get caught it will be worse for them but has that ever stopped a criminal from committing a crime before?
01-22-2013, 11:01 AM
01-22-2013, 11:07 AM
he did advocate it but jefferson was also intellegent enough to admit that all laws and morals are based in religion, thats why the original laws of this country were based on the teachings of religous text, ie the Ten commandments specificallly.
also when jefferson called for the seperation of church and state, (not religion and state i might add) he was against a national/official religion or church being established, he was also against any church or religous organization being the legislative or ruling authority for the country.
01-22-2013, 11:13 AM
01-22-2013, 11:17 AM
Wow... what a cluster **** of a thread now.
God given, whose god, all god, your god, I have no god.
Glad we could stay on topic.
The Historic PES Legend
01-22-2013, 11:19 AM
01-22-2013, 11:21 AM
01-22-2013, 11:21 AM
so either your not human or you have a momma and a daddy.
not to get petty though.
and yes creator is subjective as to who a creator is, but it certainly isnt the governtment, which is the point the comment/reference was making. so even if you refer to you mother as the subjective creator, she is the one that has endowed those rights upon you, not the government.
i couldnt help but notice you chose to ignore the fact that jefferson made numerous specific reference to a diety or higher power in his letters.
01-22-2013, 11:23 AM
01-22-2013, 11:27 AM
01-22-2013, 11:27 AM
01-22-2013, 11:28 AM
01-22-2013, 11:32 AM
I have not said that once.
Also, it is his view that the right is God given, as he believes in God, is he not allowed to express his views because you don't believe in God?
You brought this God argument up over someone else's word choice and then attempted to say you didn't bring it up.
At this point I am positive that you are a troll, you never bring anything to the discussion. When other posters make a point in opposition to your views you refuse to acknowledge their views and begin to argue over semantics in an effort to show your percieved intellectual superiority.
Make an argument about the topic at hand or don't reply.
01-22-2013, 11:35 AM
The subject was brought up by Manotaur (my mistake not you), with his response..."ive tried pointing out that the 2nd ammendment right is a godgiven right." Which means he invited it into the discussion, I simply responded. You can insult me, I don't mind. I lol @ most of that stuff considering who's making the argument.
Just for clarification, you say I bring nothing to the discussion, yet I offered Thomas Jefferson's own words, and some of you offer nothing more than broad, simplistic interpretations based on opinion. And I'm the one who doesn't offer anything of substance to the discussion? Comedy.
01-22-2013, 11:38 AM
We get it, you don't believe in God. Good for you.
His point had nothing to do with God and the words "God given" can be interchanged with 'unalienable" if you prefer.
If you have an argument to make about the points at hand then make it. If not, go troll elsewhere.
01-22-2013, 11:40 AM
and there is a "wall of seperation of church and state", just because the laws of the land and the teachings of religous texts have common themes doesnt mean that a religion or church is the governing body
01-22-2013, 11:43 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By lartinos in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 02-02-2011, 09:01 PM
- By EPZ32 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 5Last Post: 08-03-2009, 03:54 PM
- By BigNemo in forum General ChatReplies: 41Last Post: 06-27-2008, 04:39 PM
- By cliff_vtr in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 06-20-2005, 06:02 PM