How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

voting under the founders in not a right, if you read the founders letters and early court cases where people have sued because they could not vote, the court, says, in its rendering........you sold you land, and you not paying taxes no longer, therefore you have no longer have a vote.

the constitution just states the people will vote, voting is regulated..... it does not put any right into the Constitution for that.....voting is a privilege as spelled out by the founders.

Who or what defines that, so called, privelege?

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Who or what defines that, so called, privelege?

that is the problem we have, today it is defined that being an American you have a right to vote.

the founders did not go into detail on voting, they left it in the states hands to determine its regulation, because it is not an enumerated duty of the federal government.

the states regulated it by.... owning of land, and do you pay taxes, they wanted people with skin in the game...aka. america .........to be the ones to vote.

example: if i own nothing, and pay no taxes, ...do i care if taxes go up, if i myself am not paying them, and some politican is promising to spread that tax money out to me?

today we have some people voting in elections ,who are simply voting for free stuff politicians are promising them if elected, by taking it from another citizen.

voting was a privilege based on ownership, but it was not to be based on race or gender, the founders never talk about it based on those --->two things.

if it was to return to a privilege and regulated ,you would see more americans voting in elections.....because today people take it for granted.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

remember that anything outside of the first ten amendment to the Constitution can be repealed..... the BOR cannot ...according to the founders.

the 14th could be repealed and done away with ,so it does not bestow any rights, because government cannot create them........they are only privileges............as in civil rights........they are not rights but civil privileges created by government.

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The (regulation) of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

translation of Madison below:

the right to voting is fundamental in Republican constitutions, but it regulation is a delicate thing, if we allow voting to property owners only, the rights of all the people may be oppressed, the middle age feudal policies of the monarchies proves that........ BUT if we give it to all the people, then the rights of property and those who own it, may be overruled by the majority rule vote (democracy) without property, they will seek injustice against those that do own property.....there is abundant proof of this in democratic government, and in our time under other government.....particularly in laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

the founders wanted the American people to use contract law, with many aspects of our life's.....

Of course the 14th is unconstitutional. I mentioned the 14th to highlight the words "right to vote".

Injustice and unconstitutionality prevail throughout the country. In seeking justice and constitutionality I think we, citizenry, should key in on what is written in the 1787 Constitution and Bill of Rights and lean away from other musings that are outside what is written in the Constitution. Too much unconstitutionality in the remaining parts of the Constitution which easily misleads. What our government is created to do and supposed to do, plus citizens moral obligations of citizenship are all written in the body and Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Of course the 14th is unconstitutional. I mentioned the 14th to highlight the words "right to vote".

Injustice and unconstitutionality prevail throughout the country. In seeking justice and constitutionality I think we, citizenry, should key in on what is written in the 1787 Constitution and Bill of Rights and lean away from other musings that are outside what is written in the Constitution. Too much unconstitutionality in the remaining parts of the Constitution which easily misleads. What our government is created to do and supposed to do, plus citizens moral obligations of citizenship are all written in the body and Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

what do you think about the federalist papers, since they were written before the ratification of the Constitution, and were to inform the population and those of state legislatures, of what the constitution means.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is the problem we have, today it is defined that being an American you have a right to vote.

the founders did not go into detail on voting, they left it in the states hands to determine its regulation, because it is not an enumerated duty of the federal government.

the states regulated it by.... owning of land, and do you pay taxes, they wanted people with skin in the game...aka. america .........to be the ones to vote.

example: if i own nothing, and pay no taxes, ...do i care if taxes go up, if i myself am not paying them, and some politican is promising to spread that tax money out to me?

today we have some people voting in elections ,who are simply voting for free stuff politicians are promising them if elected, by taking it from another citizen.

voting was a privilege based on ownership, but it was not to be based on race or gender, the founders never talk about it based on those --->two things.

it it was return to a privilege and regulated ,you would see more americans voting in elections.....because today people take it for granted.

When the republican majorities of some states tried to make it more difficultfor minorities to vote by enacting laws, it backfired.

It actually made people more determined to vote and helped obama get re-elected. Go figure.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

what do you think about the federalist papers, since they were written before the ratification of the Constitution, and were to inform the population and those of state legislatures, of what the constitution means.

I think the Federalist Papers are a very reliable, maybe the only reliable, source that explains the Constitution. Any serious study of the Constitution cannot be done without referencing the Federalist Papers.

I've heard/read to gain a working knowledge of the Constitution requires a five year study and to become expert requires a fifteen year study. Well, I am a dummy as I've studied the Constitution for over twenty five years and still far from being an expert on it.

I have many of the founding documents, or copies, on my computer. I have them each in one document which makes them easy to search for a word or term. The 85 Federalist Papers are all in one document on my computer.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

When the republican majorities of some states tried to make it more difficultfor minorities to vote by enacting laws, it backfired.

It actually made people more determined to vote and helped obama get re-elected. Go figure.

when one person has something another person does not have, it motivates people to do something about it.

if voting was regulated again( which it shall not), you would see people do things get the privilege to vote, and the voter roles would increase, more people involved in elections and what is going on.

example: marriage, people see some (benefits) of marriage, and want gay marriage......they see tax benefits and social benefits.........back in the 70's gay people ,thought of marriage as revolting

marriage is not a right, because it requires a third entity to preform that contract to be fulfilled, no right can be compulsory on another person or entity.

marriage is privilege dispensed by government if you follow their rules, anything licensed is a privilege or if you have to follow rules laid down, to get it.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I think the Federalist Papers are a very reliable, maybe the only reliable, source that explains the Constitution. Any serious study of the Constitution cannot be done without referencing the Federalist Papers.

I've heard/read to gain a working knowledge of the Constitution requires a five year study and to become expert requires a fifteen year study. Well, I am a dummy as I've studied the Constitution for over twenty five years and still far from being an expert on it.

I have many of the founding documents, or copies, on my computer. I have them each in one document which makes them easy to search for a word or term. The 85 Federalist Papers are all in one document on my computer.

yes i have then too, and my primary focus has been on ........republican government.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

when one person has something another person does not have, it motivates people to do something about it.

if voting was regulated again( which it shall not), you would see people do things get the privilege to vote, and the voter roles would increase, more people involved in elections and what is going on.

example: marriage, people see some (benefits) of marriage, and want gay marriage......they see tax benefits and social benefits.........back in the 70's gay people ,thought of marriage as revolting

marriage is not a right, because it requires a third entity to preform that contract to be fulfilled, no right can be compulsory on another person or entity.

marriage is privilege dispensed by government if you follow their rules, anything licensed is a privilege or if you have to follow rules laid down, to get it.

Tell me something I don't know.

Class warfare has been going on since the beginning of time.

Who is to judge who is right and who is wrong? You?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

yes i have then too, and my primary focus has been on ........republican government.

Which means, "people".

for the public and not the private interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Tell me something I don't know.

Class warfare has been going on since the beginning of time.

Who is to judge who is right and who is wrong? You?

no ........what is written in the law.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

no ........what is written in the law.

That's an ambigious answer.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Which means, "people".

for the public and not the private interests.

Res publica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

its translation means the"public thing"

i have and never been for one, a few, or THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY RULING.

because anyone of those can be tyrannical...even "we the people", if they have total power.

the founders did not give " we the people" total DIRECT POWER, but power -------->directly, and indirectly, as to prevent majority rule.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

when one person has something another person does not have, it motivates people to do something about it.

if voting was regulated again( which it shall not), you would see people do things get the privilege to vote, and the voter roles would increase, more people involved in elections and what is going on.

example: marriage, people see some (benefits) of marriage, and want gay marriage......they see tax benefits and social benefits.........back in the 70's gay people ,thought of marriage as revolting

marriage is not a right, because it requires a third entity to preform that contract to be fulfilled, no right can be compulsory on another person or entity.

marriage is privilege dispensed by government if you follow their rules, anything licensed is a privilege or if you have to follow rules laid down, to get it.

Yes, the citizenry is terribly mislead and know not what they are doing in the political arena. It ain't what we know that causes problems, it is what we know that just ain't so that causes problems.

Voters are voting away the Republic. Christians are voting away religious freedom. The citizenry is inebriated on religion and politics and addicted to enemy owned major news media, Hollywood, and TV.

Thank goodness for the Net for there are a few on the Net speaking and writing to debunk enemy propaganda and outright lies. But, not yet saying much, if anything, about what the citizenry can "constitutionally" do about what they report.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That's an ambigious answer.

in republican governments, the people can vote on just about anything.....(except), they cannot vote on the rights of other people...........meaning their body, property, their natural rights.

the people cannot gather to vote on how a bushiness owner runs his property, unless the owner's actions violates the rights of other people.....

smoking bans, affirmative action, minimum wage laws.... are unconstitutional

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No. Article I. Section8. Clause 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;

It is the same militia referenced in Amendment 2. The terms are identical. The Constitution is clearly giving Congress the power to regulate the arming of the militia - of which we are all said to be members.

You must have missed the part that says of the militia... "... governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." That part of the militia they government is the part that is in the National Guard and other services...

The rest of the militia ... the part that they have no authority to "regulate" in any form, are the part that "we" (and I use that term loosely with you) are members of.

Your own citation condemns your argument.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Which means, "people".

for the public and not the private interests.

Res publica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Throughout history there were many Republics and to my knowledge the Republic as created by the U.S. Constitution is unlike any other. I trust the Founders on this as they were well informed on various forms of governments.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

in republican governments, the people can vote on just about anything.....(except), they cannot vote on the rights of other people...........meaning their body, property, their natural rights.

That may be correct in State and local elections but is not correct in federal elections. "Constitutionally" U.S. citizen's vote in federal elections does only one thing, elect a Representative.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Who or what defines that, so called, privelege?

anything a government dispenses to people, licensing, services or something you have to do to get authority from government to act on.

rights are an absolute, and require no authority to act on.

an example of a right:.......if i HAD a right to go into a business which was not mine..........then i would legality enter the business at 3 am, even though it closed at 9pm...because its absolute and must be honored.

but in our world you have no right to enter a business, its a privilege the owner allows you.......which he can take away at anytime.

this is why discrimination laws placed on people or business is unconstitutional, because it override the natural rights of the business owners......government cannot make laws which take away people's property rights.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That may be correct in State and local elections but is not correct in federal elections. "Constitutionally" U.S. citizen's vote in federal elections does only one thing, elect a Representative.

well yes on a state level, however the people thru their representatives in the house, which is the only bit of democracy our government, could seek to vote on things to violate people rights, ...but the senate which was in states hands...not the people's hands was meant as a block.... to stop the democratic majority from creating unconstitutional violations.

because congress is totally in the hands of the people through direct elections today, this has allowed the people, to vote to violate the rights of other people, and because the government is outside the confines of the constitution doing things they were never intended to do, and dispensing free stuff, the election for the president, even though not a direct vote, is still like a direct vote, because the people are voting for a president who has promised to do something for them.

before the government expanded, the people voted for the president on who they thought was best to run the affairs of our nation, ...not on dispensing free handouts.

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

We differ on "chosen", I believe it is a Right and one of only two Rights that has a force with it (not counting the Right of defense from physical attack, arms). Chosen has the force of unseating an Incumbent "Lawmaker" and the jury boxes have the force to forbid the courts unjustly punishing the accused (nullify legislation). There are regulations concerning "chosen" or voting, but regulations and courts cannot amend the constitution, and particularly of this discussion Article I, Section 2, clause 1; reference Article V. Citizens are the only entity that has the Right/power of "chosen" and use the of the jury boxes. Of interest, Amendment 14, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,.

"CHOSEN" is not a term designating a right. The use of "Chosen" in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 is merely indicating the means by which the government offices are constituted. The most it says there, addressing the House of Representatives, is "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Rights in this country are individual rights, exclusive to and executed by the individual, and not by "the people" as a whole. This has nothing whatsoever to do with voting being a right. If voting were as much of a right as you say, with "force" to it, then it would certainly be among the listed rights in the Bill of Rights, but it's not even there! Even throughout the entirety of the Constitution, there is no express "right" to vote! Each time suffrage is addressed, it is expressed as the terms by which voting cannot be denied, but never is voting expressed as any sort of a "right". The Fifteenth Amendment and Nineteenth Amendment prohibit the use of race or sex as qualifications to vote, but its not expressed as any sort of positive right. The Twenty-sixth Amendment provides that states may not set age requirements higher than eighteen years, but still no positive right to vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment bars states from using the payment of a tax as a voter qualification in federal elections, but still no positive right to vote. The Constitution does not directly guarantee the franchise to anyone, much less everyone, not even "citizens".

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

well yes on a state level, however the people thru their representatives in the house, which is the only bit of democracy our government, could seek to vote on things to violate people rights, ...but the senate which was in states hands...not the people's hands was meant as a block.... to stop the democratic majority from creating unconstitutional violations.

because congress is totally in the hands of the people through direct elections today, this has allowed the people, to vote to violate the rights of other people, and because the government is outside the confines of the constitution doing things they were never intended to do, and dispensing free stuff, the election for the president, even though not a direct vote, is still like a direct vote, because the people are voting for a president who has promised to do something for them.

before the government expanded, the people voted for the president on who they thought was best to run the affairs of our nation, ...not on dispensing free handouts.

We agree on Amendment 17, it is, no matter the intent, unconstitutional. "Constitutionally" in federal elections the citizenry's vote only elects Representatives and never has elected a President, the electoral college elects the President since 1804; reference Amendment 12.

In electing Officials, federal, State, and local, citizens' vote only elects the Official. In some States there may be on the ballot some legislation the citizenry can vote to pass or not pass, bear in mind that vote has not the same purpose as voting to elect Officials.

Voters are mislead, and outright lied to, about political issues and lied to in campaign promises. What examples would express that without writing a book?

How abortion? The citizenry is split about 50/50 on that issue. So, voters vote for the candidate that is on their side of the issue, which is a wasted vote. "Constitutionally" elected Officials are elected to do only one thing, take the Oath of Office.Taking the Oath of Office is required by the Constitution; reference Article VI, clause 3, & citizens cannot change the Constitution; reference Article V.

Citizens are mislead by what is called false flag operations so government can gain citizens support for some government unconstitutional acts. Pearl Harbor was orchestrated by FDR to get the peoples support to get into WWII. Civil Rights was orchestrated by government to gain the peoples support so government could nullify constitutional Rights. If Constitutional America is to survive citizens need to wake up as to exactly what their vote does, especially when electing Officials.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"CHOSEN" is not a term designating a right. The use of "Chosen" in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 is merely indicating the means by which the government offices are constituted. The most it says there, addressing the House of Representatives, is "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Rights in this country are individual rights, exclusive to and executed by the individual, and not by "the people" as a whole. This has nothing whatsoever to do with voting being a right. If voting were as much of a right as you say, with "force" to it, then it would certainly be among the listed rights in the Bill of Rights, but it's not even there! Even throughout the entirety of the Constitution, there is no express "right" to vote! Each time suffrage is addressed, it is expressed as the terms by which voting cannot be denied, but never is voting expressed as any sort of a "right". The Fifteenth Amendment and Nineteenth Amendment prohibit the use of race or sex as qualifications to vote, but its not expressed as any sort of positive right. The Twenty-sixth Amendment provides that states may not set age requirements higher than eighteen years, but still no positive right to vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment bars states from using the payment of a tax as a voter qualification in federal elections, but still no positive right to vote. The Constitution does not directly guarantee the franchise to anyone, much less everyone, not even "citizens".

There are 435 Representatives and all the people do not choose all 435 Representatives. Representatives are chosen from 435 districts and only the people of each district are eligible to choose one Representative from their district. Groups do not elect government Officials, individual voters, hence individual Rights, do elect all U.S. Lawmakers.

In your anti-Constitution anti-Right rant you missed the 14th which uses the word Right in regards to Representative and voting; "Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,"

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Will the word "chosen" as in Article I, Section 2, clause 1, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," force an Incumbent from office if not chosen for another term?

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

There are 435 Representatives and all the people do not choose all 435 Representatives. Representatives are chosen from 435 districts and only the people of each district are eligible to choose one Representative from their district. Groups do not elect government Officials, individual voters, hence individual Rights, do elect all U.S. Lawmakers.

In your anti-Constitution anti-Right rant you missed the 14th which uses the word Right in regards to Representative and voting; "Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,"

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

Yes, I ACKNOWLEDGED that the word "right" is used in description of voting. It's still not expressed as a positive right, but rather a negative prohibition to not deny the ability to vote based on certain parameters, such as race, gender, previous condition of servitude, etc.

None of that dump from you shows voting to be "a right" as you allege, not even the Voting Rights Act, nor the 14th Amendment.

If only we had literacy tests for those posting on forums.

Anti-Constituton anti-RIght rant? you're a piece of work. What you mean is that I don't agree with your limited understanding of the Constitution, not to mention your asinine assertion that "chosen" somehow indicates a right. And I'm getting a lecture on 'rights' from a guy who has "eclectic distaste" for Jews, and thinks that the Noahide laws are some ominous plot by those e-vil people.