"Your rights end where mine begin"

[YoungConserv]

It worked for Australia.



Can we learn anything from the experiences of other nations?

It's an island with few points of entry of course gun control works there!

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's an island with few points of entry of course gun control works there!

Do you think all the guns winding up in the hands of the crooks and gangsters come in from Mexico and Canada?

 

[Master PO]

The Federalist Papers Summary No 28: Hamilton
December 26, 1787

This paper continues the discussion of standing armies in peace time with the admission that there may be times when a national government will be required to use force to suppress seditions and insurrections. If disturbances are small and contained within a portion of a State then State militias can quell the violence. However, as shown in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania when the insurrection pervades the whole state it becomes necessary for the State to raise troops to restore order. Logically then if the insurrection pervades an extent larger than a State a national force would be required to restore peace. Even critics opposing a standing national army in peace time must admit “there might sometimes be a necessity to make use of a force constituted differently from the militia to preserve the peace of the community and to maintain the just authority of the laws against those violent invasions of them which amount to insurrections and rebellions”.

Independent of all other reasoning the safeguard against the use of a national army against the people is because the power of the proposed government is in the hands of the representatives of the people. If the representatives betray the people then the only recourse left is self defense where the people take up arms against the national force. But the people would be in a better position if the extent of the hostilities included a large region of the country for that would give opportunity to organize and mobilize a united force rather than in a single State where the battle may be over before the people are aware of it. State legislatures would quickly become aware of a national intrusion and alarm the people. The result of these arguments is that the people would be better able to defend themselves against a national army usurping power than an army raised by a State and the national army under control of the representatives from the entire country would be less likely to endanger the people, therefore the critics are wrong in resisting a national army in peace time.


Is the whole discussion of standing armies out of date? Consider the rhetorical question asked in the last paragraph; “When will the time arrive that the federal Government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire who are in a situation through the medium of their State Governments to take measure for their own defense?”. Hamilton assumes never but if desired our military of a million could easily defeat and disarm the three hundred million people because of the vast advantage in fire power Hamilton could not have foreseen. Our safety now is dependent on the restraint by our military and no longer in an ability to defend ourselves against it.

 

[Master PO]

The Federalist Papers Summary No 29: Hamilton
January 9, 1788

It should be obvious from reading the last few summaries that having a standing army in peace time was a major concern for the population. The Revolutionary War which had just ended was a result of the British army controlling the people and forcing ever intrusive laws and regulations upon the public. Recall that the proposed constitution allowed for standing armies but only with approval and funding every two years from the representatives of the people. This paper attempts to further alleviate these fears by supporting State militias where the officers were chosen by the States but the organization and arming would be done at the national level for units placed into service of the country. Militias under national control in support of local magistrates to enforce the laws would replace the need for national armies.

The remainder of the paper justifies this idea. First, there has to be some means to enforce laws if necessary and what would be better than that of the local citizens in a disciplined militia? The militia would not train all citizens for the process is considerable and “would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss”. The plan calls for a select corps of moderate size of “well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it”. This group under the control of officers chosen by the States would substitute for a standing army and if for some reason a national army was to threaten the liberty of the people, they would have the means to protect themselves. What danger to the liberty of the people would arise from citizens chosen and living among them with the same habits and interests?

There is a belief among some on the left that the second amendment to the constitution giving the right to keep and bear arms only applies when a person is on duty as part of a well regulated militia and that the arms are actually owned by the State. This thought could be added to by reading Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution which states in part for congress “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”. But Hamilton makes clear in this paper that the citizens of a militia are expected to keep their arms when not on duty and be prepared to use them when called on. The sentence is” Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year”. If the arms were in a warehouse owned by the State why would the people have to be assembled to see if they were armed and equipped? Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty, it makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all times.

 

[Mach]

What is unethical about majority rules?

I'm surprised you are asking that. When the crowd wants to burn the witch, when the Nazis want to purge the Jews, when the mob wants "justice"....
Typically it's when the majority wants to trample individual rights is what's unethical about it, which is pretty much a constant throughout all socities.

 

[Master PO]

The Federalist Papers Summary No 46: Madison
January 29, 1788

This paper continues the discussion of the last paper by considering whether the Federal Government or State Governments will have the support of the people. Almost every argument assumes that the State Governments being closer to the people will obtain their support rather than the Federal Government should the Federal Government attempt to encroach upon State's authority. It is also assumed that the lives and interests of the people will be provided for by the States and therefore the people will be more friendly and conversant with those in the State Government. The argument is made that with the last Congress under the Articles of Confederation the attachment and attention of the people was toward their own particular Government.

A comparison is then made of the ability of federal and State governments to resist and frustrate the measures of the other. Points made above and in the last paper favor the State governments in this manner. Added to this is the bias that members will carry to the federal Government which will certainly favor the States from which they come whereas it would be rare that the bias would be in favor of the federal Government. More arguments are made using the theme that since the people are closer to the State Government the Federal Government will be unable to take authority from the States.

An hypothesis of interest today is suppose a regular army equal to the resources of the country was formed entirely devoted to the Federal Government. Madison argues that State Governments with people on their side in militias and armed would have more firepower than the regular army. He considers being armed an advantage that Americans have over the people of almost every other nation and that it “forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of”. Obviously our founders considered the right of the general population to bear arms as protection against dangers from an internal Federal Government as well as from attacks by external foes.

He summarizes the last two papers by saying “Either the mode in which the Federal Government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not.” If it is “it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents”. If it isn't “it will not possess the confidence of the people and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State Governments who will be supported by the people”. Isn't this last sentence written 223 years ago exactly what is beginning to take place to thwart the schemes from Washington that are obnoxious to the constituents. Perhaps Madison's foresight extends to today and it will be the people through the State Governments that will end the usurpation of our rights and return the liberties to the people.

 

[sbrettt]

I'm surprised you are asking that. When the crowd wants to burn the witch, when the Nazis want to purge the Jews, when the mob wants "justice"....
Typically it's when the majority wants to trample individual rights is what's unethical about it, which is pretty much a constant throughout all socities.

That's history. I'm talking about today. We are the only western democracy where a majority vote doesn't pass.

 

[Master PO]

That's history. I'm talking about today. We are the only western democracy where a majority vote doesn't pass.

the u.s. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, with a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government , and it has a mixed constitution, giving us republicanism., not democracy.

“Between a republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -Chief Justice John Marshall

u.s. constitution article 4 Section. 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence"

federalist 40 states the u.s. has a mixed constitution

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution


democracy is the most vile form of government-- james madison

John Adams, on Democracy :
If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...

John Adams, Democracy
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“Democracy is the road to Socialism.”- Karl Marx

 

[YoungConserv]

Do you think all the guns winding up in the hands of the crooks and gangsters come in from Mexico and Canada?

No but the market will be filled always and with the easines of manufacturing guns it's easy to move it and ship the goods where they are needed.

 

[Strucker]

That's history. I'm talking about today. We are the only western democracy where a majority vote doesn't pass.

While I would never presume to lecture an American brother or sister on how good or bad the American system works, I will say that many of we Canadians have very similar complaints about our own system. Very similar. In the Parliamentary system, the number of seats won by MPs is everything. (Well, not everything, but it's central.) So in Saskatchewan, for example, during our last Federal election, the leftish NDP party won about a third of the popular vote...but received no seats. (Or close to none...I can't quite remember, honestly). The same sort of thing happens a lot in my home province of New Brunswick.

In other words, a PArty can do worse than another party...but thanks to the system of ridings and seats, the lesser-popular party can end up with more political power, simply by dint of winning one or two little regions within the province.

Mind you, I'm not condemning this matter out of hand...there are some strong defenses for the way the system works.

I only wished to point out that many Canadians have roughly the same sort of complaints about our system as you do about yours.

 

[windowdressing]

the u.s. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, with a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government , and it has a mixed constitution, giving us republicanism., not democracy.

“Between a republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -Chief Justice John Marshall

u.s. constitution article 4 Section. 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence"

federalist 40 states the u.s. has a mixed constitution

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution


democracy is the most vile form of government-- james madison

John Adams, on Democracy :
If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...

John Adams, Democracy
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“Democracy is the road to Socialism.”- Karl Marx

Good post ... For those who don't see that most of the wealth and power in the U.S. is held by a very small group, you're not paying attention ...

Ernie, what would the Founding Fathers think of all this?

 

[Master PO]

Good post ... For those who don't see that most of the wealth and power in the U.S. is held by a very small group, you're not paying attention ...

Ernie, what would the Founding Fathers think of all this?

true, their are a small elite who control much wealth and power.

and our government is bought by faction, groups of special interest from that small elite, and they come from both sides of the isle.

returning to true republican government, and eliminating that faction, would return power into the hands of the people and the states, were the founders placed it to maintain a balance of power, so that one does not become to powerful and tyrannical.

 

[sangha]

true, their are a small elite who control much wealth and power.

and our government is bought by faction, groups of special interest from that small elite, and they come from both sides of the isle.

returning to true republican government, and eliminating that faction, would return power into the hands of the people and the states, were the founders placed it to maintain a balance of power, so that one does not become to powerful and tyrannical.

SO now the constitutionalist supports social engineering and having the govt regulate wealth!! it's OK if it's done by a "true republican government" :screwy:

 

[windowdressing]

true, their are a small elite who control much wealth and power.

and our government is bought by faction, groups of special interest from that small elite, and they come from both sides of the isle.

returning to true republican government, and eliminating that faction, would return power into the hands of the people and the states, were the founders placed it to maintain a balance of power, so that one does not become to powerful and tyrannical.

I'm intrigued ... can you break the process down for me and especially how the result you predict is virtually a sure thing ... and what is "too" powerful and tyrannical. How much tyranny is too much tyranny? How much is just right?

 

[captainawesome]

true, their are a small elite who control much wealth and power.

and our government is bought by faction, groups of special interest from that small elite, and they come from both sides of the isle.

returning to true republican government, and eliminating that faction, would return power into the hands of the people and the states, were the founders placed it to maintain a balance of power, so that one does not become to powerful and tyrannical.

The original intent was not to place power with people. The point was placed in the hands of a small powerful elite.

 

[sbrettt]

the u.s. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, with a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government , and it has a mixed constitution, giving us republicanism., not democracy.

“Between a republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -Chief Justice John Marshall

u.s. constitution article 4 Section. 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence"

federalist 40 states the u.s. has a mixed constitution

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution


democracy is the most vile form of government-- james madison

John Adams, on Democracy :
If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...

John Adams, Democracy
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“Democracy is the road to Socialism.”- Karl Marx

You should have just said "prop 8". You would have had me.

 

[Master PO]

I'm intrigued ... can you break the process down for me and especially how the result you predict is virtually a sure thing ... and what is "too" powerful and tyrannical. How much tyranny is too much tyranny? How much is just right?

the government of the u.s. created by the founders, and before the 17th amendment.

the founders created mixed government. federalist 40

A Mixed government or mixed constitution is a form of government where different sized groups of people control different types of issues. It integrates different forms of government, like democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. Mixed government means that there are some issues where the state is governed by the majority of the people, in some other issues the state is governed by few, in some other issues by a single person, often defined in a constitution. Today, this idea is commonly seen as a precursor to that of separation of powers.

the house is a democracy of the people, elected representatives directly elected by the people.

the senate is an aristocracy, it does not mean royaltyit means the people appointed to the senate are chosen by people's representatives (state legislators) the people have elected indirectly.

the presidency is a monarchy, again it does not mean royal it means the president is chosen by a few, meaning the delegates chosen by the 50 state legislators...IE electoral college

power is placed in the hands of the people (house).......... and power in the hands of the states (senate) by 50 elected state legislative bodies.

this spreads power between the two, if either one had all the power directly, they would become tyrannical.

because the house is a democracy........ it is factious by nature, because it is filled with people asserting their own personal interest.

the senate is not factious, because it is composed of men, who owe their LOYALTY to the 50 state legislative bodies, which are elected by the people.

because both parts of the congress, are not in the same set of hands, meaning one in the people and one in the states, both have different interest.

after the 17th amendment to our constitution, this has turned our senate into a democracy also, and it is now factious as the house, with people in it looking out for the own interest, and not that of the states themselves.

before the 17th, senators could not be bought by the rich or corporations, because they had to do as their state legislative body told them.

today they are free form the state to be lobbied by big business, or who ever has money to buy their vote....this leads to congress passing legislation, which does not benefit the general welfare of all of the people, but a select few, who have money and power.

democracy is collectivist is nature, and the senate was created to block any collectivist activity which would arise out of the house for the benefit of a few.

federalist 63 .."The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"

Madison is talking about why one reason senate was created, and that it serves to keep collectivism in check....by this one check and balance.

democracy is destroying america because it is full of faction, as republican government limits faction.

federalist 10...The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of (republican than of democratic government); and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

 

[mac]

It worked for Australia.



Can we learn anything from the experiences of other nations?

First, the US is not Australia; second, did the Australian law attempt to ban guns based on what they look like; third, suicide is a different goal post.

 

[Dittohead not!]

First, the US is not Australia; second, did the Australian law attempt to ban guns based on what they look like; third, suicide is a different goal post.

the US is not Australia - no but there are a lot of similarities.

second, did the Australian law attempt to ban guns based on what they look like - Good point.

suicide is a different goal post - yes, but firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent.

 

[Master PO]

You should have just said "prop 8". You would have had me.

prop 8, the founders did not believe in props.

 

[mac]

suicide is a different goal post - yes, but firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent.

Not much of a stat when the hammer homicide rate went up 69%...

Personally, I don't really see how what a homicide is committed with is really relevant. It's the homicide itself that counts.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not much of a stat when the hammer homicide rate went up 69%...

Personally, I don't really see how what a homicide is committed with is really relevant. It's the homicide itself that counts.

Yes, it's the homicide that counts.

But, aren't most murders committed by guns?

Whether Australia's gun control experiment has any lessons for us or not, I don't know. It does bear watching, however, as they have the same sort of gun culture that we do.

Their government may be more competent, however.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Yes, it's the homicide that counts.

But, aren't most murders committed by guns?

Whether Australia's gun control experiment has any lessons for us or not, I don't know. It does bear watching, however, as they have the same sort of gun culture that we do.

Their government may be more competent, however.

I wouldn't call killing gun owners during confiscations, including the real Crocadile Dundee, competent.

 

[TurtleDude]

the reason that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is that a well regulated militia is necessary fro the security of a free state.

No, it doesn't say anything about overthrowing the government.

I think Dangermouse is right. It's so a militia can be called up in order to supplement the military.

a countervailing force to a federal army as well

 

[TurtleDude]

That's history. I'm talking about today. We are the only western democracy where a majority vote doesn't pass.

we are the greatest nation in the world

see a correlation?