Militia question 1

[shanek]

Look....either you point to the historical understanding of what a militia is

Already have.

You cannot play both sides.

Even when both sides are saying the exact same thing?

Weasel away...

 

[CFLarsen]

The various writings of the founders. It is clear. That is what I and Shanek have been saying. If you want to understand the Constitution the way a Justice would, you have to go back to those things.

I am not talking about the various writings of the founders. I am talking about legal documents.

Where does it say that Americans have the right to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment?

Simple question. Should be simple to answer.

 

[shanek]

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you and I are debating on a skeptics' forum. Where claims are met with demands for evidence.

That's correct. So where's yours?

 

[shanek]

Where does it say that Americans have the right to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment?

Irrelevant question, as the 9th Amendment confirms. It does not have to be in the Constitution to be a right of the people. But as the 10th Amendment confirms, it does have to be in the Constitution to be a power of the Federal government.

So, yet again, I ask you, where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to restrict private ownership of firearms?

 

[CFLarsen]

As has been pointed out to you several times, Article I Section 8 is a list of 18 things the government is allowed to do. If it's not in this list, and it's not in an amendment, the Federal government cannot do it.

Very well: The Federal government cannot regulate the Internet.

Have they? Just yes or no.

Is it legal? Just yes or no.

 

[Jocko]

Answer my question.

You are in no position to demand answers, unless you give them yourself.

Evasion noted.

Unless you want to claim some form of superiority, based on your Americaness.

No, that's your game. I merely claim the right to distinctiveness. That's why I'm an American and you're a Dane- but only one of us is finger-wagging at the other about how their country is run, Claus.

Just say the word, so we know where we stand.

Hmmm... elitist... snob... eurotrash... I think I've hit all the relevant words. Choose a favorite and we'll go with that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evasion noted.



No, that's your game. I merely claim the right to distinctiveness. That's why I'm an American and you're a Dane- but only one of us is finger-wagging at the other about how their country is run, Claus.



Hmmm... elitist... snob... eurotrash... I think I've hit all the relevant words. Choose a favorite and we'll go with that.

O........K. You want to spew bile against non-Americans, and that's all.

Have a nice life. As good as it can possibly get.

 

[Jocko]

O........K. You want to spew bile against non-Americans, and that's all.

I suppose it would be fine if I decided to dissect your nation's governing principles without bothering to learn them, decline polite invitations to learn about the subject, and the post my "bile" on a Dane-hosted board?

I've said it over and over, Claus: I don't care about Europe in general, Denmark in particular, or anything else you try to lay at my doorstep. Live your life your way. Run your government your way. I don't care, and more to the point, I'm not asking YOU to care.

You've displayed astounding ignorance and defended it the the proudest tradition of pigheadedness. That's not a comment about Euros, it's about you, Claus. Don't try to spread blame for your individual idiocy.

Have a nice life. As good as it can possibly get.

You can stop worrying about me and all Americans, Claus. The sooner the better. We can take care of ourselves, thanks, even without your peerless wisdom.

 

[Jocko]

I am not talking about the various writings of the founders. I am talking about legal documents.

Where does it say that Americans have the right to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment?

Simple question. Should be simple to answer.

This statement betrays your utter lack of understanding about how Americans define rights.

Pssst, here's a hint, you slack-jawed windbag: the government doesn't GIVE YOU RIGHTS.

 

[CFLarsen]

This statement betrays your utter lack of understanding about how Americans define rights.

Pssst, here's a hint, you slack-jawed windbag: the government doesn't GIVE YOU RIGHTS.

And all I was asking for, was a legal document that explained what rights the American population had to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment.

What do I get? Personal abuse. I sure as heck don't get an answer.

Go figure.

 

[Luke T.]

Where does it say that Americans have the right to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment?

Simple question. Should be simple to answer.

It was actually argued by some of our founders that there shouldn't be a Bill of Rights precisely because it implies that if rights aren't enumurated, they aren't granted. But in fact they are granted (inalienable) whether they are enumerated or not.

edited to add: James Madison was among those who opposed the Bill of Rights until Jefferson convinced him it was a bad idea to let rights be simply inferred.

 

[Ed]

Very well: The Federal government cannot regulate the Internet.

Have they? Just yes or no.

Is it legal? Just yes or no.

Depends on what basis they do it I suppose. If someone has a problem with what they are doing there will be a court case, maybe many. That takes years. The other point, of course, is that one who practices Constitutional Law must focus on the principles involved, not the specifics. The broad principles of Internet questions might be domestic and international commerce, speech, religion and so on. No one would be so narrow as to say that the Feds must ignore something that simply did not exist 250 years ago. Or they might and we get another court case.

Back OT, the right to bear arms is a basic right and does not need ennunciation. What enters into it are the writings, as I mentioned. As I also said, that right is not going to go away though it will certainly change around the edges.

 

[Jocko]

And all I was asking for, was a legal document that explained what rights the American population had to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment.

What do I get? Personal abuse. I sure as heck don't get an answer.

Go figure.

I gave you a hint. You have access to the internet. It's already been stated a thousand times on this very board. Care to explain to me exactly what about this scenario indicates you AREN'T a slack-jawed windbag?

 

[Ed]

And all I was asking for, was a legal document that explained what rights the American population had to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment.

What do I get? Personal abuse. I sure as heck don't get an answer.

Go figure.

Claus, does your government give you rights or are they yours naturally? In other words, where does the onus lie, with those doing the restricting or those being restricted?

A number of gun laws have been knocked down because one needed to show "why" they needed a firearm (as it is in the UK). Here, government must show why you cannot have one. In CT it is quite explicit.

 

[shanek]

Very well: The Federal government cannot regulate the Internet.

Have they? Just yes or no.

They've tried, but it keeps getting shot down.

Is it legal? Just yes or no.

No.

Now answer the question.

 

[shanek]

And all I was asking for, was a legal document that explained what rights the American population had to bear arms, if not in the 2nd Amendment.

Considering we don't need such a document, your request is irrelevant and only shows your ignorance of the American system, which now must be considered to be willful as it has been explained to you numerous times.

 

[shanek]

It was actually argued by some of our founders that there shouldn't be a Bill of Rights precisely because it implies that if rights aren't enumurated, they aren't granted. But in fact they are granted (inalienable) whether they are enumerated or not.

edited to add: James Madison was among those who opposed the Bill of Rights until Jefferson convinced him it was a bad idea to let rights be simply inferred.

Federalist #84 by Alexander Hamilton makes some excellent points about this and IMO should be required reading for anyone participating in this thread.

 

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sorry, but the Danish government cannot conduct searches of my home without a court order. Can they in your country?


Hmmmm...Note To Self:

When in Denmark, if one finds one's self the victim of a crime while in somebody's home, do not bother calling the police, since they are powerless to enter the premises to search for you without a court order.

But at least the Danish crime victims have the satisfaction of knowing that their killers, rapists, or whatever didn't have to rush the job for fear of a door being kicked in.


Unlike the USA, where the police can violate every principle of civilized decency by conducting searches when exigent circumstances present themselves (or with something called a 'search warrant', which bears no resemblance of any kind to a court order ... see below).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Search Warrant:
"An order signed by a judge that directs owners of private property to allow the police to enter and search for items named in the warrant. The judge won't issue the warrant unless she has been convinced that there is probable cause for the search -- that reliable evidence shows that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that the items sought by the police are connected with it and will be found at the location named in the warrant. In limited situations the police may search without a warrant, but they cannot use what they find at trial if the defense can show that there was no probable cause for the search."

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dicti....cfm/term/1AA3771F-388B-4F21-A85BD2834D3C4615

 

[Cynical]

Shanek, you made a huge mistake when you said the "E" word - Evidence. That word is sacred to Claus....if you can't produce it, you'd damn well better not utter the word.

It certainly appears that old Claus Flodin is in way over his head, especially now that Jocko has joined the discussion. But does Claus back down, or just say "whatever" and get over it? Nope - he just keeps on troddin' and ploddin' along....while the rest of us are noddin' with boredom...

 

[CFLarsen]

When in Denmark, if one finds one's self the victim of a crime while in somebody's home, do not bother calling the police, since they are powerless to enter the premises to search for you without a court order.

But at least the Danish crime victims have the satisfaction of knowing that their killers, rapists, or whatever didn't have to rush the job for fear of a door being kicked in.

This is not correct. If the police suspect that a crime has taken place, they can go anywhere.