Members banned from this thread: KnotaFrayed


View Poll Results: If a child hits another child with a stick.

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Give every child a stick.

    0 0%
  • Give a few people concealed sticks and stick training.

    1 9.09%
  • Take away the stick

    10 90.91%
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 104 of 104
Thanks Tree73Thanks

Thread: If a child hits another child with a stick.

  1. #101
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,374
    Thanks
    535

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    You are still dodging and presenting NO material debate or argument. You're simply denying and tossing things out into the air, perhaps hoping they mean anything related to the discussion.

    https://www.archives.gov/education/l...ification.html

    Virginia's Declaration of Rights, which INCLUDED language that is nearly word for word the same as Amendment II was unanimously adopted by the Fifth Virginia Convention in 1776! Fundamental Documents: Virginia Declaration of Rights

    Madison was from Virginia and Amendment II still refers to "a well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE". Individual ownership of arms has NOTHING to do with the security of a free state, BUT in the context of "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" and it is a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" that is "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, NOT citizens rushing "tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." The Avalon Project : Federalist No 28

    You ignore ALL references to citizen soldiers and the NEED for training in arms and the entire raison d'etre for Amendment II, ARMING "a well regulated Militia", BECAUSE it is "necessary to the security of a free state. Because well regulated Militia is comprised of citizen soldiers (NOT professional soldiers) to allow infringements on the citizen soldiers of "a well regulated Militia", because to do so, would neutralize their capacity to perform their purpose and duty.

    BTW, asking you what we should call you is a question for YOU to answer, NOT an "ad hominen" and the suggestion of ad hominen makes no sense unless there is NO debate or argument against what you are saying and that was NOT the case. You seem to like to toss things out, but seem to have little understanding of or lack thought about what you are trying to posit.

    The Militia Act of 1792 takes away from your contention because it"

    ONE: Describes a lawful duty that NO LONGER exists and has NOT for many years now.

    TWO: DOES NOT describe EVERY person (an assumption some try to make currently that "the people" means everyone)......ONLY able bodied free white males between the ages of 18 and 45. NOW, NO ONE is required to enroll and train with others, as "well regulated Militia, but within the requirements of fitness and age for duty in a well regulated militia, there is NOTHING stopping anyone from volunteering for duty in "a well regulated Militia and they STILL are considered "necessary to the security of a free state". NO WHERE in the ratified Constitution, in its preamble, its main body, the Bill of Rights and any subsequent amendments, is an "individual right to self defense" or individual right to keep and bear arms, mentioned OR conferred. There is no reason to restrict or limit an individual right to self defense, because as mentioned, it is NOT connected to the type of arms one uses to defend themselves. One can use ANY types of arms, as mentioned, from their own physical arms and firsts, to any implement. They have a right to defend themselves. What they do NOT have an unlimited right to is possession of certain arms, especially under the concept such weapons are "necessary" for their individual/personal defense.

    A mere child could grasp reasons why individuals do not need nukes for their personal/individual/self defense......They could likely also grasp why fully automatic weapons are NOT a necessity for an individual to "defend themselves". especially when weighted against the risk of, as with nuclear weapons, the amount of destruction just ONE person (think Las Vegas and that NOT being fully auto weapons) who keeps such arms who uses them for bad, can wrought. When someone can still effectively defend themselves with a bat, a knife, a revolver, there is NO need for them to have a fully auto weapon or weapons designed for military assault. THERE IS a need for those engaged in military assaults, to KEEP and bear, such weapons. The Second Amendment, protects the right of "a well regulated Militia, because it is "necessary to the security of a free state". "A well regulated Militia, is, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights points out, IS "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms". It does NOT exist, without what it is "composed of".

    13. That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
    Fundamental Documents: Virginia Declaration of Rights

    The Virginia Declaration of Rights, is a model for the reason for the Amendment II right. In order for "a well regulated Militia" to function, "the people" "a well regulated Militia" is composed of, MUST not have their right to keep and bear arms, infringed. There is NO reason, for all others to have or need this right, as they are NOT "necessary to the security of a free state."......."A well regulated Militia" IS!

    In 1792, the Militia Act (an act of Congress as Article I, section 8, charges them with doing) defined the "well regulated (organized) Militia" as including all able bodied, free white males between the ages of 18 and 45........In 2018, the organized ("well regulated") "Militia" is defined (by Congress) by the following.

    10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
    US Code
    (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.
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)


    The importance (necessity) of "well regulated Militia" has not changed, "well regulated Militia" are STILL, made up of citizen soldiers. They STILL represent individual state units. The ONLY differences (differences/changes Congress are perfectly allowed to make) are, NO ONE is REQUIRED by law to enroll and participate in a "well regulated Militia" and arms are NOT the responsibility of those "people" "a well regulated Militia" is composed of.

    It is MORE than clear, what the founders of the nation thought of "well regulated Militias" and not just their importance, but their NECESSITY. It is MORE than clear what the base requirements of "well regulated Militia" are......Citizen soldiers and units under state command when used domestically, federal command, ONLY when needed for foreign defense purposes.

    Three: DOES NOT speak to the highest level of arms during the day (cannon,mortars, grenades), but to "common use" arms (musketry and bayonets of any military troops, based on being able to defend AGAINST professional military. There were specific requirements (that do not exist today) that had NOTHING to do with personal use firearms or the requirement of regular training in the use of those firearms (NOT REQUIRED today, BUT of people in duty to "a well regulated Militia", as it was then).

    Both examples you give with regard to Rhode Island and Virginia, as well as Madison's language and the current Amendment II, INCLUDE, specifically, the NECESSITY of "a well regulated Militia", tying the right, to what is necessary, RELATIVE to, "a well regulated Militia, NOT merely based on "a right or the people to keep and bear arms". The right is based on what "well regulated Militia are "COMPOSED OF". If they intended the right to apply to an individual right to self defense (which is different than a right to keep and bear arms) since anyone can defend themselves using ANYTHING, including their two arms.) all that needed to be said, was "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It does NOT and it ties the right to "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". There is no mistaking, what the founders meant, when they spoke of "a well regulated Militia" and why they were to be composed of citizen soldiers and why each state should have their own units, with officers selected by those states.

    With regard to what was NOT ratified, do you often try to argue what was tossed in the trash can should mean more than what was approved (ratified)?

    You're arguing that what was rejected, should be considered, OVER and above, what was finally agreed to.
    Madison was from Virginia and Amendment II still refers to "a well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE". Individual ownership of arms has NOTHING to do with the security of a free state, BUT in the context of "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" and it is a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" that is "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, NOT citizens rushing "tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." The Avalon Project : Federalist No 28
    I am not sure what point you are trying to make by editing Federalist No. 28 to make the opposite of what it actually means or what a document written before the Second Amendment has to do with the Second Amendment.

    Unedited Federalist No. 28:

    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, 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.
    Thanks from pragmatic

  2. #102
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,473
    Thanks
    13046

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I am not sure what point you are trying to make by editing Federalist No. 28 to make the opposite of what it actually means or what a document written before the Second Amendment has to do with the Second Amendment.

    Unedited Federalist No. 28:

    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, 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.
    You appear to have trouble with the English language and noting where quotation marks are as well as comprehension. Why is that?

    What Hamilton is pointing out is the value of the "well regulated Militia" of each state, because they would present a true defense to professional (full time), trained troops under a usurped (tyrannical) central or federal command. If there were no "well regulated Militia" of each state, it would merely be "the citizens" rushing "tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." (please note where the quotation marks are). The word "rushing" does not change the meaning of "must rush". It simply says what they would be doing in response....... "without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." To say, "the citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." is to say the same thing, in the absence of "a well regulated Militia" "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms" <-----the latter, describes "a well regulated militia" as does the Declaration of Rights in Virginia. "A well regulated Militia" is defined by Congress as is their Preamble charge and Constitutional power to do. NOTHING has changed with regard to "a well regulated Militia" being composed of "the body of the people, trained to arms".........meaning citizen soldiers. The only thing that has changed, is a legal requirement who is to be a citizen soldier. ONCE AGAIN, in 1792, that included ALL able bodied free white males between the ages of 18 and 45. THAT, by congressional changes under Article I, Section 8, has changed to only those who VOLUNTEER to their states National Guard units. They are STILL citizen soldiers, they are STILL trained in arms......they STILL need concert, system and resources and they STILL need arms.....in order to have a chance in hell of defeating or defending against military troops composed of professional soldiers who are ALSO trained in arms, have concert, system and resources, but have little or NO connection to the people of the state they may be ordered (under a tyrannical central government) to attack.

    He is saying armed citizens who have NO training (concert) no system (training, command and plan for communicating with each band or one another) with no resources (like a state that would back them up with supplies)......they would be quickly overrun by troops that do have all of the above. He says unless there is luck, described as "a peculiar coincidence of circumstances" (please note where the quotations are) a "success to the popular resistance" is unlikely because of what "the military force in the possession of the usurpers" (please note the quotation marks) are able to do.

    Section 8 - Powers of Congress
    The Congress shall have the power

    1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

    2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

    3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

    4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

    5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

    6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

    7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

    8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

    9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

    10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

    11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

    12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

    13. To provide and maintain a navy:

    14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

    15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

    16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

    17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

    18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp

    Why your own Constitution and founders words must be explained to you and why you can't note where quotations are or what they mean and seem to struggle with English comprehension, is strange and leads one to wonder how educated or how American, you may really be.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 1st March 2018 at 05:37 AM.

  3. #103
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,374
    Thanks
    535

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    You appear to have trouble with the English language and noting where quotation marks are as well as comprehension. Why is that?

    What Hamilton is pointing out is the value of the "well regulated Militia" of each state, because they would present a true defense to professional (full time), trained troops under a usurped (tyrannical) central or federal command. If there were no "well regulated Militia" of each state, it would merely be "the citizens" rushing "tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." (please note where the quotation marks are). The word "rushing" does not change the meaning of "must rush". It simply says what they would be doing in response....... "without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." To say, "the citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." is to say the same thing, in the absence of "a well regulated Militia" "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms" <-----the latter, describes "a well regulated militia" as does the Declaration of Rights in Virginia. "A well regulated Militia" is defined by Congress as is their Preamble charge and Constitutional power to do. NOTHING has changed with regard to "a well regulated Militia" being composed of "the body of the people, trained to arms".........meaning citizen soldiers. The only thing that has changed, is a legal requirement who is to be a citizen soldier. ONCE AGAIN, in 1792, that included ALL able bodied free white males between the ages of 18 and 45. THAT, by congressional changes under Article I, Section 8, has changed to only those who VOLUNTEER to their states National Guard units. They are STILL citizen soldiers, they are STILL trained in arms......they STILL need concert, system and resources and they STILL need arms.....in order to have a chance in hell of defeating or defending against military troops composed of professional soldiers who are ALSO trained in arms, have concert, system and resources, but have little or NO connection to the people of the state they may be ordered (under a tyrannical central government) to attack.

    He is saying armed citizens who have NO training (concert) no system (training, command and plan for communicating with each band or one another) with no resources (like a state that would back them up with supplies)......they would be quickly overrun by troops that do have all of the above. He says unless there is luck, described as "a peculiar coincidence of circumstances" (please note where the quotations are) a "success to the popular resistance" is unlikely because of what "the military force in the possession of the usurpers" (please note the quotation marks) are able to do.

    Section 8 - Powers of Congress
    The Congress shall have the power

    1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

    2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

    3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

    4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

    5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

    6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

    7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

    8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

    9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

    10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

    11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

    12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

    13. To provide and maintain a navy:

    14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

    15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

    16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

    17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

    18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    Avalon Project - U.S. Constitution : Article I

    Why your own Constitution and founders words must be explained to you and why you can't note where quotations are or what they mean and seem to struggle with English comprehension, is strange and leads one to wonder how educated or how American, you may really be.
    You edited Federalist No, 28 to cause it to give the opposite meaning of the essay.

    The essay is very simple: there is a federal check on insurrection if a state cannot end and the private ownership of firearms can be used if there is tyranny in the government. It means no more and means no less.

    There is nothing in Article I that has any bearing on the Second Amendment, but the Ninth Amendment prevents any Article I power to be interpreted beyond its limited and explicit scope.

    The first ten amendments are pretty simple to understand as they are no more than restrictions on the federal government.

    Textualism dictates that the use of definite and indefinite articles in Article I and the Second Amendment are crucial.

    The "common defense" and "general welfare" clauses in paragraph one of Article I are not grants of power.
    Last edited by Tennyson; 1st March 2018 at 12:36 PM.

  4. #104
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    23,757
    Thanks
    12403

    From
    USA
    Thread Ban Notice

    KnotaFrayed has been banned from this thread. Please do not respond to his/her posts. Thank you for your cooperation.


Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 224
    Last Post: 13th January 2016, 01:22 AM
  2. When is it okay to hit a child?
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 14th October 2014, 04:03 PM
  3. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 15th September 2014, 05:44 AM
  4. Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?
    By Gnostic Christian Bishop in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12th December 2013, 05:50 AM
  5. Replies: 200
    Last Post: 14th August 2013, 08:55 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed