Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:22 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Van Canna wrote:
I doubt the founding Fathers were not smart enough to know this.

I'm sure they were smart enough to know that, but they were probably focused on the arms most effective at winning a battle.

From what I can find, "arms" seems to date to the Middle Ages, before the development of firearms. Obviously it shares a common root with "armor", "army", "arming", "armory", etc, all of which can be used in context with weapons other than firearms. Patrick Henry and others were likely just using it interchangably with firearms because that was the arms of choice at the time.

I imagine that in the "right to bear arms" the Founding Fathers would include weapons other than firearms, swords for example, but they would probably wonder why you would want to bear something other than a firearm...the 'never bring a knife to a gunfight' philosophy comes to mind. I don't think they were envisioning fighting the British army with farm implements...and then 200 years later there being schools devoted to learning to use of these farm implements for self defense while stories are told of how a great colonial master, the founder of the school's style, defeated 50 British musket-bearing soldiers with his special techniques... no, that could never happen...

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17138
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

I find the Supreme Court dissenting statement about the misrepresentation of history interesting in light of Patrick Henry's complaint that the goal of having every man armed who is able was not being met partly due to not everyone being able to afford a firearm. That would seem to indicate that they thought it fundamental.

And how long did it take you to find this, Glenn? Now people can see why "discussions" involving Glenn, Ian, and a few others go intense in just a few volleys.

But seriously...

If it took you half a day to find this, well then the nonsense about misrepresenting history turns out to be nothing more than post hoc rationalization. It's scary when you think about it. Judges aren't supposed to be making the law; they're supposed to be interpreting the constitution and how laws reconcile with it. But that wasn't the case here.

Can you say exposed?

Image

Not very flattering either.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17138
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Van Canna wrote:

I doubt the founding Fathers were not smart enough to know this.

Van, I'm always amazed when I find out just how smart they actually were.

Understand that many founding Fathers were fairly well educated. And their education had roots in Greek and Roman history, as well as the evolution of governments throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. And they tapped into the writings of Locke, Rousseau, and others.

Jefferson himself was a most remarkable renaissance man, who studied, traveled, and wrote extensively.

When you read some of the early documents such as the Declaration, you see how its elegant simplicity speaks volumes. The brilliance of the founding Fathers' work was in its brevity. The more succinctly they stated the principle, the more profound and timeless the impact.

Just in the past few days I was perusing the Wikipedia page on my new employer. Apparently some disgruntled individual found it "amusing" to vandalize it by replacing a description of their main element of commerce with a noxious pejorative. Well I've never done any Wiki editing, but this one seemed to be a no-brainer. So I reversed the edit, only to have my reversal reversed. This went on for a few tries, with the perp being identified only by his IP address. Well it didn't take long for me to reach out to the community that put a great deal of work into the expose. I calmly pointed out how any individual who spoke such slander in public would find that their worldly possessions would quickly be in jeopardy. The Internet? Sorry... it's no different.

And they agreed wholeheartedly.

And they put an elegantly thorough protection on the document, realizing that all who tolerated the misrepresentation could be at risk.

It comes down to a simple principle there. Don't knowingly communicate a lie that can harm someone's reputation. In the past that was grounds for a duel. The rule of law keeps us away from that kind of "solution" to a pretty clear problem.

This may seem more complex. But it really isn't. We're entitled to defend ourselves. And citizens of a Nation are entitled to protect their inalienable rights.

Even if that means protection against an unruly government. Jefferson was adamant about that last point. And that just doesn't sit well with people who believe in a powerful nanny-style government.

Too bad.

Go back to the founding principles of our government. They've served us pretty well so far.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30340
Just wondering why they did not include any other 'weapon' in the definition of 'arms' for self defense, such as a knife etc.

Did the old soldiers not carry any long blades?

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Van Canna wrote:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/03/post_700.html


One of my favorites comes to mind:

Quote:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand from Atlas Shrugged

_________________
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17138
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Van Canna wrote:

Did the old soldiers not carry any long blades?

If you lived outside the confines of (at the time) high class civilization, then you owned and carried a knife. It was a pretty basic tool.

Meanwhile... You may find some of these revolutionary war era blades interesting.

This auctioned knife was labeled a "fighting knife."

Image

Image


These are various tools. Some obviously could be used for self defense.

Image

Image

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Glenn wrote:
Even then there was no guarantee that the Constitution would be ratified by the states and the convention leaders went about launching a major campaign to sell it to the states. In the end at the states' ratification conventions, delegates from urban and eastern/coastal areas tended to vote for it while delegates from the rural and western/interior areas tended to vote against it. It took three years for the states to ratify the Constitution.


Trust me Glenn... I am well aware of the history. The Declaration of Independence was a wonderful document which the revolutionaries could "get behind". The Articles of Confederation were "loose" enough so that people weren't concerned with a Federal government overstepping it's bounds. The Constitution was too vague in many respects and even though it was written to create a stronger Federal bond/government, the wording was supposed to keep that strength in check and limit the powers of the Federal government. Even still, there were many observant people who saw how it could be subverted and they demanded the Bill of Rights before they would ratify the new Constitution. And yet... We have an out of control Federal government that has not been contained as it should have been and which has used the "Commerce Clause" as an excuse for every usurpation of individual rights that it possibly can. I used to be a minarchist... wanting to return to our original Constitutional Republic and dispose of the corruption we're faced with now. Then I realized that doing so would only allow for things to slide back down the slope to where we are.

Quote:
In short, the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was politics at its best and really no different from the process that led to the final product of the recent health care bill.


That is insulting to my intelligence. It is a wildly incorrect comparison... But I will respond by pointing out that the recent health care passage is exactly the type of corruption and power grab that we have slid to which makes me feel that the best option is to remove the entire current system. In the 1790s, any "government official" who even tried to propose such a thing would not have been re-elected, may very well have been impeached/recalled, and might not have completed their current term in office! I say, Rightfully So!

Glenn wrote:
Panther wrote:
If the Government has it... We, The People should be able to have it... PERIOD

Well OK, but don't expect a nuclear bomb to help your homeowner insurance rates! :D

The government has debt and the people have debt, we do have some parity I suppose...


I don't care if you want a nuke... How do I know that you don't own a small un-inhabitable atoll in the Pacific somewhere and just want to see a really big bang. Awful waste of money in my opinion, but as long as you don't harm someone else or violate someone else unalienable Rights which they were granted by their Creator... that's fine by me. (Now if you want to do someone else harm, then I have a problem with you. In the "old days" if someone was incompetent to have a weapon their family, friends, neighbors {or Darwinism... reference just for Ian :wink: } would keep them from having a weapon and hurting someone. If someone was trying to hurt someone or violate their Rights, then they were called "criminals" and could be dealt with by anyone with the means accordingly. Now, the lawful victims and would-be victims are treated like criminals while the true criminals get to have a whole list of excuses... from "society made me do it" to "just doing my job"... And with those excuses in hand, they get to walk with a slap-on-the-wrist while the lawful end up deprived of their belongings and/or their freedom by the advocate judges we have. :twisted:

_________________
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17138
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Panther wrote:

In the "old days" if someone was incompetent to have a weapon their family, friends, neighbors {or Darwinism... reference just for Ian :wink: } would keep them from having a weapon and hurting someone.

Therein lies the problem, Panther. With Great Society programs, the government took it upon itself to BE the family in terms of financial support. That in turn led to a catastrophic cultural collapse - particularly with African American families. Next thing we know, prisons are filled with young black males. And it isn't because our court systems discriminate. Take a poll in any prison. Ask the residents if they ever had a dad at home. I'm sure you'd soon detect a non-representative sample.

The more the federal government "does good", the more the family shirks its traditional responsibilities. And the more that happens, the more the government feels a need to step in and say what WE ALL can and cannot do.

And I'm not so sure the liberal-minded care. Just ask Hillary "It takes a village" Clinton. It's a mindset. Government knows better; government does better. And if we don't have that mindset, then we're obviously cold, callous, and ... and ... And of course sooner or later the race card gets dropped. And that's supposed to shut us all up.

I wonder if Lincoln (a Republican) or KKK-member Senator Byrd (a Democrat) would have envisioned our contemporary world. I imagine to them it would have looked all ass-backwards.

But after all the verbal fury, it gets down to some pretty basic concepts. What are the inalienable rights of man, and how do we protect said rights?

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Bill Glasheen wrote:
The more the federal government "does good", the more the family shirks its traditional responsibilities. And the more that happens, the more the government feels a need to step in and say what WE ALL can and cannot do.


Reagan put it best: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" That "truism" has been proven time and again... from Harlem, NY to Bear Creek, WV... and beyond.

Quote:
And I'm not so sure the liberal-minded care. Just ask Hillary "It takes a village" Clinton. It's a mindset. Government knows better; government does better. And if we don't have that mindset, then we're obviously cold, callous, and ... and ... And of course sooner or later the race card gets dropped. And that's supposed to shut us all up.


First, it seems that if they were to really care, they'd see the harm that's been done and back off. But just like "gun control" isn't about guns... this too is about control. I find that Hillary and ALL of the "It takes a village" types miss the truth that it doesn't take a village... It takes parents (preferably two) & family with good values! But Our government along with certain segments of "society" (hell-bent on the destruction of this country), with our tacit consent have spent the last 50+ years or so completely undermining and destroying both those values AND the family unit.

Quote:
But after all the verbal fury, it gets down to some pretty basic concepts. What are the inalienable rights of man, and how do we protect said rights?

- Bill


What really gets me is that those powers who had their plans to undermine our nation's values and family structure even TOLD us how they were going to do it! And then they DID it! Through patience and incremental-ism / gradualism, the plans that were laid out in published books & documents from early in the 20th century right through Khrushchev saying it openly in the UN to today have been carried out step by insidious step. Those are the very same people who want to ban private arms... because they know that slaves can not be allowed to have arms. Call it cliche' all you want, but I'll die on my feet before I live on my knees.

Oh... and those that mind, don't matter... and those that matter, don't mind!

_________________
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30340
Should the founding Fathers,in their wisdom, have foreseen the attacks upon the right to bear arms...and if they did...could they have drafted the Amendment differently?

How smart were they , really? :wink:

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
And how long did it take you to find this, Glenn? Now people can see why "discussions" involving Glenn, Ian, and a few others go intense in just a few volleys.

Now now, if you go back two pages you'll see I posted my skepticism of the reason for their descent way earlier, as soon as I read the article in fact. In the latter post you replied to I was just pointing out that Patrick Henry's quote would seem to support my skepticism...or are you saying discussions get intense because of the ease at finding information online these days?

_________________
Glenn


Last edited by Glenn on Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Quote:
That is insulting to my intelligence. It is a wildly incorrect comparison... But I will respond by pointing out that the recent health care passage is exactly the type of corruption and power grab that we have slid to which makes me feel that the best option is to remove the entire current system.

Sigh...for the last time, you and Bill can stop calling me to task by comparing their content since I did not do that, I was comparing the contentiousness of the debate over both and that is a valid comparison.

Quote:
In the 1790s, any "government official" who even tried to propose such a thing would not have been re-elected, may very well have been impeached/recalled, and might not have completed their current term in office! I say, Rightfully So!

Sure, someone has felt that way about pretty much every bill introduced over the past ~220 years. In the 1790s staunch supporters of the Articles of Confederation felt that the drafters of the Constitution should be punished for what they created. There is always going to be that dissent no matter what the proposition is.

Regarding the comments about more versus less government, roughly speaking about a third of the population strongly supports more and another third strongly supports less. Ignoring the third in the middle that really doesn't care one way or another and ends up swinging the vote one way or the other each election, how can the country find a common ground between those two positions? It would seem both cannot be satisfied at the same time, and thus at any given time the government is not representing the wishes of a significant portion of the population.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Van Canna wrote:
Should the founding Fathers,in their wisdom, have foreseen the attacks upon the right to bear arms...and if they did...could they have drafted the Amendment differently?

How smart were they , really? :wink:

I don't know, given the times and how necessary weapons were then for many reasons, I would be surprised if they envisioned a future where the legality of weapons would be debated.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17138
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

or are you saying discussions get intense because of the ease at finding information online these days?

Take a complement when handed to you, Glenn. What I'm saying is that both you and Ian are formidable debating partners. You do your homework, and come out shooting with both barrels.

It's a shame that - with all their help - a handful of our Supreme Court justices couldn't have done better than you and Ian can do with some basic knowledge and a touch of the old Google.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17138
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

I don't know, given the times and how necessary weapons were then for many reasons, I would be surprised if they envisioned a future where the legality of weapons would be debated.

You obviously haven't read enough Jefferson.

I irritate my dear friend Ian when I quote him. But I will... after a dinner that my karate class is putting on for me. 8)

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group