I do not want to take all weapons away from Americans; we have the privilege to hunt. However, Americans do not need assault weapons or even semiautomatics.Indignant anti-gunners. Is there anything they don't know?*
So I challenge Mr. Hannick to answer this question: What does he want a semiautomatic or an automatic for?
Perhaps he is going to hunt with it. If so, I would like to suggest the sport of hunting with dynamite.
Jori Byrne-Diakun
I also love her childish line: "A life is a life, and is the most precious thing in the world."
I wonder what she'd think if some latter day Gollum broke into her house, and was advancing on her, "My Precioussss..."
[ * Based on a Homer Simpson line about actors]
12 comments:
E David--you posted this under the wrong article--but I got your back...
E. David Quammen said...
"allowed" ?!
"privilege" ?!
Jori has some very misconstrued ideas of what a 'Right' and the Intentions of our Founders. She would do better, (and us as well), if she just went away. The sooner the better.
She reminds me of that clown politician, Rep. Dan Zwonitzer. How did he phrase it? Oh, yeah - "I won’t vote to strip away any current 'allowance'" and "or 'freedom is given'".
Where are they spewing these people forth from? And, more importantly, how can we seal the opening so that no more are spewed forth?
I wish I could find the source, but one of my favorite quotes applies to this one:
"Saying the Second Amendment is there so we can go hunting is like saying the First Amendment is there so we can write the sports page."
(can't even spell my own name... jeez...)
...firstly, I am not a she...but getting past your lack of gender discrimination, I will remind you that your rights end where someone else's begin. But I will not convince you of that, so I will just respond to your rather unimaginative attack on my position. And no...I won't just go away. The founding fathers no doubt did intend for citizens to be able to possess weapons with the express purpose of defending them from encroachment by a tyrannical government. That is why Ammendments I through VI were added to the Constitution of the United States. However, I will remind you that the founding fathers possessed weapons that could, but the best infantry in the world at the time (the British) only be fired between 3 and 5 times a minute. Do you know what the modern automatic machine gun can do. Times change Mr. Quammen, and with them the rules and yes rights too must also change. The founding fathers ment to protect the people from their creation (the federal government) not set them as prey to their fellow citizens. They based the Constitution, and yes the Bill of Rights too, on the principles of John Locke. He believe that government would be formed by the people to prevent conflict and for protection, but that that coalition (government) could be disolved by the people, if necessary. Today, the rules have changed. That gun now threatens the protection and stability of the people under the United States government far more than the single shot guns of the 18th century and certainly far more than the founding fathers could have dreamed. If they could have seen the staggering proportion of world gun violence deathes that the USA accounts for, I doubt that Amendment II would have been written as it was.
I apologize for the misprint ("but the best" should be "by the best").
My error.
Jori, I find it quite comical that you would espouse to know what the founders of this nation would have thought concerning the weapons technology of today. Talk about arrogance. I also find it saddening that people like you still don't 'get it' when it concerns the second amendment. It's not about crime, hunting, or even rebellion. The founders KNEW that standing armies were the bane of freedom and based on their experience and wisdom, they KNEW that a free people can only remain free if they have arms EQUAL to any standing army. Do we discard our rights because a handful of people abuse them? If so, we wouldn't have any rights left at all, zero.
You said my rights end where someone elses begins, but tell me how you can believe that when you are trying to deny me my rights? We define that as hypocrisy.
What does he want a semiautomatic or an automatic for?
I don't know about him, but I want them because they're better at killing people. Why are so many people afraid to say that? What's wrong with effectively defending yourself against aggression by killing an aggressor with a machine gun?
Could someone explain to me (and to Jori) how a firearm in my home or at my side, violates anyone else's rights? How does the mere presence of an armed individual infringe on Jori's rights?
I certainly understand and am not confused how the misuse of firearms would infringe on the rights of someone, especially someone's right to life. But I am confused about the fear one may have concerning firearms in the hands of citizens vs. firearms in the hands of government officers.
No, Jori, rights do not change based on the government on hand, nor due to technological advances. If that were the case, Gutenberg would have been hanged.
Thank you David, your a true gentleman and a scholar
'Jori', you might be worth listening to, if you knew what you were talking about...
Witness:
"Yet again, it cannot be stressed to strongly, "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They MUST be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other." - James Madison, Federalist #46
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803)
"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give SATISFACTION to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION."
Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature....
"...When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact...
"In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators....
"...The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule...."
"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the
grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation."
"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, (November 20, 1772) (You know, the guy called THE FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION).
"It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that THEIR LIBERTIES WILL BE PERPETUAL, (DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERPETUAL MEANS 'JORI'?),and this without endangering any part of the Constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption...."
"In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature."
-James Madison, June 8, 1789 House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 8 June, 21 July, 13, 18--19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424--50, 661--65, 707--17, 757--59, 766.
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not
confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps,
to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."
- James Wilson, from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792, 'Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
Mr. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In addition he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and SECURE the Blessings of LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
- Preamble to the United States Constitution.
"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1797
And last, but certainlt not least;
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.....
"....How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to PRESERVE TO THEMSELVES an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28
Would you like for me to continue 'Jory'? I can go on ALL DAY with this. But, this is my friend D
You were saying 'Jori'? Now, go run along and play....
Oooops! It cut me off at "Would you like for me to ontinue 'Jory'? I can go on ALL DAY with this. But, this is my friend David's Blog and it would be rude of me to hog all the space....
(You sure know how to strike the match David! Trust your not disappointed?)
If you really want to go back to the definitions, "well regulated" meant well drilled and trained, i.e. knew how to handle their weapons properly and able to shoot them as quickly and accurately has possible. As for "milita", that originally and later by law, was defined as the entire able bodied male population of the United states, except for a few public officials...but if someone wanted to reinterpret that to include every able bodied woman as well, that would double the size of the force that was intended to either defend against foreign invaders or put down would-be tyrants from within. That's what those terms legally meant at the time.
And later, they indeed did do just that:
"Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311
Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of FEMALE citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
But, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is entirely seperate from the Militia. Witness;
There are TWO distinctly separate clauses in the Second Amendment. With each clause having different INTENTIONS assigned to it, in its purposes.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights;
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
"..."and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution";
"DECLARATORY clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
RESTRICTIVE clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is Natural, Inherent, and God-given, it was assumed as being 'Self-Evident'. The intention of AMENDMENT II, was to remove that Right from any possible interference by government.
Post a Comment