Am I A Libertarian?

[VanceMack]

The constitution had to be re-interpreted and then legislated from the bench using jurisprudence to get where we are today. It's all criminal if you ask me.

Its ironic that you can take the direct verbiage of a specific amendment which directly and specifically enumerates rights guaranteed to citizens and take those words and twist and manipulate them int something they were OBVIOUSLY never meant to be, and yet you can manipulate and warp the 14th into any special interest or cause you like.

 

[blaxshep]

most of it is not part of the delegated powers of the constitution

Its ironic that you can take the direct verbiage of a specific amendment which directly and specifically enumerates rights guaranteed to citizens and take those words and twist and manipulate them int something they were OBVIOUSLY never meant to be, and yet you can manipulate and warp the 14th into any special interest or cause you like.

Gun control is the most obvious, not only do they twist the 2nd but they have used the commerce clause to justify gun regulation even given the fact that gun regulation is NOT an enumerated power.

 

[Master PO]

Gun control is the most obvious, not only do they twist the 2nd but they have used the commerce clause to justify gun regulation even given the fact that gun regulation is NOT an enumerated power.

this is true, they are restricted by the 2nd amendment, but states were not

 

[cabse5]

this is true, they are restricted by the 2nd amendment, but states were not

This thread jumps from topic to topic, doesn't it? The Constitution is not a document that concerns itself with state government. Your post, here, is trivial.

If second amendment advocates would read the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1789 like they wish to read the history of the passage of, say, the fourteenth amendment in 1868, there would be a truer interpretation of these amendments as the writers of the amendments wished them to be interpreted. If so, there wouldn't be, for example, an individual right for gun ownership nor would there be anchor babies or gay marriage.

The writers of the second amendment changed the original wording of the second submitted by J. Madison in 1789 so it could be passed by congress. The meaning of the second amendment is for a militia right for gun ownership not for an individual right for gun ownership. Yes, a more current judiciary has bastardized The Constitution with its interpretation of an individual right for gun ownership.

Don't wish to take my word for it? Read "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

 

[Master PO]

This thread jumps from topic to topic, doesn't it? The Constitution is not a document that concerns itself with state government. Your post, here, is trivial.

If second amendment advocates would read the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1789 like they wish to read the history of the passage of, say, the fourteenth amendment in 1868, there would be a truer interpretation of these amendments as the writers of the amendments wished them to be. The writers of the second amendment changed the original wording of the second in 1789 so it could be passed by congress. The meaning of the second amendment is for a militia right for gun ownership not for an individual right for gun ownership.

Don't wish to take my word for it? Read "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

wrong the 2nd is a restriction on federal power, to create no law concerning a militia of a state, and the keeping and bearing of firearms of the people.

read your bill of rights preamble, and the founders on the 2nd in their debate on the floor of congress.

 

[cabse5]

wrong the 2nd is a restriction on federal power, to create no law concerning a militia of a state, and the keeping and bearing of firearms of the people.

read your bill of rights preamble, and the founders on the 2nd in their debate on the floor of congress.

I agree with the bolded. The rest is not true. Militias were the armies of the US before the US created standing armies. The restriction on the federal government to impede the bearing of arms is for militias because militias were the armies of the US at that time and individuals brought their own weapons. Heck, the second amendment actually wasn't necessary (in the minds of the writers and passers of the second) after the US provided standing armies and provided the weapons for those standing armies.

 

[Master PO]

I agree with the bolded. The rest is not true. Militias were the armies of the US before the US created standing armies. The restriction of the bearing of arms is for militias because militias were the armies of the US at that time and individuals brought their own weapons.

the u.s. has always had an army, always, at times it has been very small, but it increased in size during 1800 to 1810.

the bill of rights does not apply to state governments in early america

the 1792 militia act, stated that when the state signed you up in the militia you must have a firearm.

the federal government had no power over militias of states until the state governments would approve the president's request --insurrection action on 1807 milita act 1792 and 1795

a well regulated miltia is an organized militia and not a rabble, the federal cannot regulate them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I was told by a local radio host during a private discussion recently that I am more of a Libertarian, than conservative. I have known the guy for many years and he is a self proclaimed libertarian My reply to him was the usual sarcastic ........ "your nuts" We both laughed and parted ways shortly.

After thinking about it for the past 6-7 days, I am thinking that he might be right?

My views:

Military:
Remove all non essential US troops from foreign soil.
Stop using US troops for security and nation building.
Renegotiate the policy that requires the US Navy's Mediterranean patrolling, and place the responsibility with the Euro's
No more nonsensical wars like Iraq.
No meddling in cases like Libya. egypt, etc. etc.

Immigration
Secure the borders......not necessarily a wall
Remove illegals that have committed crimes immediately.
Allow pathway to citizenship to those who have proven to be hard working, and crime free.
Inside track to citizenship for community service, or military service.
No immigration for non vetted individuals.

War On Drugs

Legalize marijuana
Assist addicts with getting cleaned up........whatever it takes.
No prison for nonviolent drug addicts/users for possession.
Assist the Mexican and Central American governments with cleaning out the cartels.

LBGT

Live your life the way you want, but I would appreciate a little modesty in public from people of any sexual preference when children are present.
I don't agree with a 4th grader having self determination on whether how he/she identifies sexually. Let them mature and see what shakes out.

Education

No bailouts for college loans, but I do agree with deferments during illness, job loss, or taking time off for assisting family members.
Work for school......exchange of community service for a certain amount of secondary education.
Bring back vocational courses in our schools.
Community vocational and remedial training for those in poverty or extended unemployment.........Detroit anyone?

2nd Amendment

No restrictions on open carry or concealed carry nationwide for non criminals.
AR15's are semi autos .....just like other semi autos........leave em alone.
Keep the automatic firearm regulations as they are.
Restore gun rights to nonviolent offenders........case by case.


Voting

Let the states decide, as long as they do not discriminate. Requiring ID cards is not discrimination in my opinion.

Police

99% of them are great people.
Some of them will make mistakes......sometimes tragic.
Police are often victims themselves of local governments who want the crime element cleaned up for political reasons. (Baltimore anyone?)

Privacy

The government has no business tracking banking or credit card transactions for non criminals.
The government has no right to snoop on citizens with no criminal background.
No cherry picking judges to serve warrants.
I do support "stop and frisk" of proven gang members and violent individuals.

So.......is my friend correct with his assumption?

You and I don't have a lot of disagreement--we could find a few of those issues to debate--but IMO you do hold some Libertarian views and a lot of libertarian (little "L") i.e. classical liberal views. There is a difference between those two things.

 

[cabse5]

this is true, they are restricted by the 2nd amendment, but states were not

Are you implying that if the federal government were to pass gun control legislation, you would encourage states to become 'sanctuary states' to allow the personal use of weapons?

 

[Master PO]

Are you implying that if the federal government were to pass gun control legislation, you would encourage states to become 'sanctuary states' to allow the personal use of weapons?

the bill of rights was written restrict to federal powers, not state powers...Barron vs baltimore 1833

the federal government is supposed to make no laws concerning firearms of the people, thats a state power.

 

[cabse5]

the u.s. has always had an army, always, at times it has been very small, but it increased in size during 1800 to 1810.

the bill of rights does not apply to state governments in early america

the 1792 militia act, stated that when the state signed you up in the militia you must have a firearm.

the federal government had no power over militias of states until the state governments would approve the president's request --insurrection action on 1807 milita act 1792 and 1795

a well regulated miltia is an organized militia and not a rabble, the federal cannot regulate them.

I'm not sure I know what you said there. Are you even disagreeing with my post you quoted?

 

[cabse5]

the bill of rights was written restrict to federal powers, not state powers...Barron vs baltimore 1833

the federal government is supposed to make no laws concerning firearms of the people, thats a state power.

Oh, so the fourteenth amendment, for example, held no weight if a southern state wanted to withhold citizenship from a former a slave?

 

[cabse5]

the bill of rights was written restrict to federal powers, not state powers...Barron vs baltimore 1833

the federal government is supposed to make no laws concerning firearms of the people, thats a state power.

Are you crudely trying to interpret the tenth amendment? That any unenumerated power is a state power? If you are, the second amendment was originally set up as a restriction of the federal government of the arming of militias. That is documented. Again, if you want proof read "The First Congress", by Bordewich.

 

[Master PO]

Oh, so the fourteenth amendment, for example, held no weight if a southern state wanted to withhold citizenship from a former a slave?

the 14th amendment made former slaves federal subjects......u.s. [c]itizens, and stated that state governments could not discriminate by denying this former salves their privileges [civl rights] and their [natural rights] life liberty and property.

[C]itizens of the u.s. are state Citizens, not federal subjects.......USSC slaughterhouse case 1873

the federal government has no police powers in 1873 to regulate inside of a state or the Citizens of states

 

[Master PO]

Are you crudely trying to interpret the tenth amendment? That any unenumerated power is a state power? If you are, the second amendment was originally set up as a restriction of the federal government of the arming of militias. That is documented. Again, if you want proof read "The First Congress", by Bordewich.

the federal government can arm militias however they must be "called into service" by the president AFTER he gets the states permission.

 

[VanceMack]

This thread jumps from topic to topic, doesn't it? The Constitution is not a document that concerns itself with state government. Your post, here, is trivial.

If second amendment advocates would read the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1789 like they wish to read the history of the passage of, say, the fourteenth amendment in 1868, there would be a truer interpretation of these amendments as the writers of the amendments wished them to be interpreted. If so, there wouldn't be, for example, an individual right for gun ownership nor would there be anchor babies or gay marriage.

The writers of the second amendment changed the original wording of the second submitted by J. Madison in 1789 so it could be passed by congress. The meaning of the second amendment is for a militia right for gun ownership not for an individual right for gun ownership. Yes, a more current judiciary has bastardized The Constitution with its interpretation of an individual right for gun ownership.

Don't wish to take my word for it? Read "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

Who was 'the militia'?

That is answered in the 2nd itself. The rights of 'the people' shall not be infringed. And in this we kind of have common ground. The 2nd was ABSOLUTELY meant for the citizens of this country (the militia) to keep and bear military grade weapons to be used to secure a free state. Anyone that tries to convince you that what the founding fathers meant was a standing army and not the individual citizens of the country is a liar and driven solely by what they want the Amendment to mean, not what it actually means.

 

[cabse5]

Who was 'the militia'?

That is answered in the 2nd itself. The rights of 'the people' shall not be infringed. And in this we kind of have common ground. The 2nd was ABSOLUTELY meant for the citizens of this country (the militia) to keep and bear military grade weapons to be used to secure a free state. Anyone that tries to convince you that what the founding fathers meant was a standing army and not the individual citizens of the country is a liar and driven solely by what they want the Amendment to mean, not what it actually means.

You can cherry pick words in The Constitution to satisfy your ideology. Heavens sake, progressives have massacred the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments to satisfy their gay marriage and anchor baby aspirations. Neither you, progressives nor some judges seem to care about the original meaning of the 235+ year old document known as The Constitution.

If you wanna know The Constitution's original meaning. If you care about its original meaning, read the history of it. Specifically the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1789. Read "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

But I don't suppose you care about the history of the second amendment. I think you'd rather bastardize the second amendment to fit your own ideology. As many others have.

You realize progressives have used the very same technique to cherry pick the words of The Constitution to fit their own ideologies of legalized gay marriage and anchor babies being automatic American citizens. Did you learn this technique from progressives or did progressives learn this technique from you?

 

[blaxshep]

Who was 'the militia'?

That is answered in the 2nd itself. The rights of 'the people' shall not be infringed. And in this we kind of have common ground. The 2nd was ABSOLUTELY meant for the citizens of this country (the militia) to keep and bear military grade weapons to be used to secure a free state. Anyone that tries to convince you that what the founding fathers meant was a standing army and not the individual citizens of the country is a liar and driven solely by what they want the Amendment to mean, not what it actually means.

Especially given that the FF wrote extensively on their opposition to a standing army.

 

[cabse5]

Especially given that the FF wrote extensively on their opposition to a standing army.

Since you and Mack are theorizing on the second amendment, let me also guess that if the founding fathers allowed a standing army (and there was a standing army not soon afterward, the War of 1812 pointed out the need for one), the FF wouldn't have thought there would've been a need for the second amendment since the federal government provided the army and the arms No militia needed to defend the country. No need for individuals to not be restricted from gun ownership.

 

[VanceMack]

You can cherry pick words in The Constitution to satisfy your ideology. Heavens sake, progressives have massacred the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments to satisfy their gay marriage and anchor baby aspirations. Neither you, progressives nor some judges seem to care about the original meaning of the 235+ year old document known as The Constitution.

If you wanna know The Constitution's original meaning. If you care about its original meaning, read the history of it. Specifically the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1789. Read "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

But I don't suppose you care about the history of the second amendment. I think you'd rather bastardize the second amendment to fit your own ideology. As many others have.

You realize progressives have used the very same technique to cherry pick the words of The Constitution to fit their own ideologies of legalized gay marriage and anchor babies being automatic American citizens. Did you learn this technique from progressives or did progressives learn this technique from you?

I have the written record of the intent of the founding fathers. Now why is it that you would ignore the intent as cited by this that actually WROTE it and passed it in favor of an author that might present a case more favorable to your interpretation?

Who is 'the militia'?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

Since you and Mack are theorizing on the second amendment, let me also guess that if the founding fathers allowed a standing army (and there was a standing army not soon afterward, the War of 1812 pointed out the need for one), the FF wouldn't have thought there would've been a need for the second amendment since the federal government provided the army and the arms No militia needed to defend the country. No need for individuals to not be restricted from gun ownership.

See...there you go again. I'm not 'theorizing' on the 2nd Amendment...I'm addressing the written word and intent as fact.

Who is 'the militia'? And how do you get an amendment with a specified right of 'the People' in The Bill of Rights and think you can manipulate that into a government entity while at the same time take a vague amendment such as the 14th, make it mean gay marriage, and create a right that overrules the states governing authority?

You are simply a hypocrite. Worse...you are an unoriginal hypocrite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cabse5]

I have the written record of the intent of the founding fathers. Now why is it that you would ignore the intent as cited by this that actually WROTE it and passed it in favor of an author that might present a case more favorable to your interpretation?

Who is 'the militia'?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The written word by the founding father that affected the second amendment would be the words from James Madison, period, because he was the one who introduced the second amendment.

See, the thing is, the congress in 1789 that passed the second amendment changed the wording of Madison's intent of the second before they would pass it. Restrictions on the federal government to restrict arms ownership was a militia right and not an individual right as seen by those congressmen who passed the second amendment into law in 1789.

One can cite the Declaration of Independence. One can cite the, for example, Virginia Constitution. One can cite the Magna Carta. One can even cite the thoughts of the founding fathers. All these documents or ideas don't matter. What matters is the intent of the second amendment as it was passed into law in 1789. Unless one is not an originalist of The Constitution as you seem not to be. Then you twist and turn the wording of The Constitution to benefit your own ideology.

 

[cabse5]

See...there you go again. I'm not 'theorizing' on the 2nd Amendment...I'm addressing the written word and intent as fact.

Who is 'the militia'? And how do you get an amendment with a specified right of 'the People' in The Bill of Rights and think you can manipulate that into a government entity while at the same time take a vague amendment such as the 14th, make it mean gay marriage, and create a right that overrules the states governing authority?

You are simply a hypocrite. Worse...you are an unoriginal hypocrite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since The Constitution is a document that spells out the rights of the federal government and 'wrongs' of the federal government, what is the federal militia? Hum?
Answer: our federal standing armies...no longer militias. The navy fits into that category. So does the National Guard.
Not the state police or state militia, for examples. Here, you name another federal militia that would come under the guidance of the edict of the second amendment.

 

[VanceMack]

Since The Constitution is a document that spells out the rights of the federal government and 'wrongs' of the federal government, what is the federal militia? Hum?
Answer: our federal standing armies...no longer militias. The navy fits into that category. So does the National Guard.
Not the state police or state militia, for examples. Here, you name another federal militia that would come under the guidance of the edict of the second amendment.

First...you ignore the reality of the words written by the founding fathers. WE are the militia. Their spoken intent was absolute and clear.
Second...it's obvious you haven't read the US Code which defines the militias...TODAY...right now. The US code very clearly delineated the standing military from 'the militia' as completely separate entities. Additionally, the US code defines the components OF the militia...both the official entity which we know as the State guards and the unorganized militia which is the rest of us. US Citizens even today are very clearly 'the militia'.

Your interpretations remain fantasy based on what you WANT things to be and not what they are. It's inane that you would take the Bill of Rights...a component of the Constitution SPECIFICALLY written to enumerate the rights of THE PEOPLE And claim they were written to protect the rights of a government entity. Inane. On the other hand...it's not just inane that you would use that logic and apply it to the 2nd while applying completely unintended meaning to the 14th as gospel to fit your special interest wants...it's corrupt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cephus]

Since The Constitution is a document that spells out the rights of the federal government and 'wrongs' of the federal government, what is the federal militia? Hum?
Answer: our federal standing armies...no longer militias. The navy fits into that category. So does the National Guard.
Not the state police or state militia, for examples. Here, you name another federal militia that would come under the guidance of the edict of the second amendment.

Except that's not true. You have to look at the Constitution in the context of the day it was written. There was no standing army. The whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written was because, in times of local, state or national crisis, able-bodied men were expected to come to the rescue and bring their own weapons because none were provided by the government. That's the whole reason the "militia" part appears in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't about self defense, it wasn't about protecting yourself from the government, it was ONLY about local, state and national defense. The need for that simply went away when you got an organized military and organized local and state police forces and the national guard. There was no more need for rank and file men to take out their trusty shotguns and fight. But instead of recognizing that, most gun rights crazies simply excise the entire first half of the amendment and try to forget all about it.

That's just not honest.