tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post3783953261163144115..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Abusing Federalist Paper No. 46: "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43102165650660959582013-01-03T12:25:14.877+01:002013-01-03T12:25:14.877+01:00Albert, thanks for you comments. Why don't yo...Albert, thanks for you comments. Why don't you have a look at some of the more recent discussions. This one's over a year old.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-10808823122128095502013-01-03T02:41:25.963+01:002013-01-03T02:41:25.963+01:00The only abuse of Federalist 46 is by the author o...The only abuse of Federalist 46 is by the author of this article on it. Federalist 46 clearly points to the need for a means to defend against tyranny as much as against a foreign government if not moreso. <br /><br />There is every indication that Madison intended that Madison meant there was a need for an individual to have the right to be armed outside of accountability to public authority. You clearly do not understand the meaning of tyranny, especially as it was defined in the day of these papers. Tyranny was defined as rule without legitimacy. We have expanded the meaning today a bit but the intention was that individuals retain the right to keep and bear arms. <br /><br />Furthermore, a read of English law from where we drew many of our lessons further supports the concern against despotic rulers. What good is it to have an armed militia if it serves only the tyrant or can be brought under his control? <br /><br />Your logic is ahistoric and YOU are the one guilty of playing fast and loose, attempting to allow your ideology to interpret history instead of the other way around. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-76895341727103290762013-01-03T02:39:34.557+01:002013-01-03T02:39:34.557+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50287433399070335912013-01-03T02:33:13.483+01:002013-01-03T02:33:13.483+01:00I would say that Greg has been quite reasonable he...I would say that Greg has been quite reasonable here. I know in your childish view of the world, someone disagreeing with you equals being unreasonable but I would assert that your snide name calling combined with your rather shallow faux intellectualism shows us all who the unreasonable person is. Greg offered numerous points and your counter to them all are weak. You attempt to use a certain "logic" to defend your position but deny that the logic applies uniformly when Greg has folded it back and handed it to you neatly. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-60666028378298441842013-01-03T02:30:00.395+01:002013-01-03T02:30:00.395+01:00Just as YOU are choosing to put YOUR own interpret...Just as YOU are choosing to put YOUR own interpretation on the 2nd Amendment. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9035079984221191362013-01-03T02:29:07.947+01:002013-01-03T02:29:07.947+01:00if you wish to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment then ...if you wish to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment then you must go through the amendment process but you have made it clear that niceties such as the rule of law don't matter to you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-52322626403792126772013-01-03T02:27:14.774+01:002013-01-03T02:27:14.774+01:00Actuallly you are the clueless one here Laci,
Gre...Actuallly you are the clueless one here Laci, <br />Greg has made some very cogent points and you are responding like a child with name calling and vague claims that disagreeing with your poorly supported points equal "clueless". <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-76088190345660787002011-12-14T23:53:37.346+01:002011-12-14T23:53:37.346+01:00Carrying a weapon demonstrates that I intend to ac...Carrying a weapon demonstrates that I intend to act rashly? You really don't understand the laws of many states. Why would the state issue me a license if it had reason to believe that I'll act rashly? That may be the presumption in the case of someone without a license, but the concealed carry law of Arkansas specifically states that a license shall be issued to a qualified person who desires a legal means to carry a concealed handgun to defend himself or herself. You can review the details here:<br /><br />http://www.asp.state.ar.us/divisions/rs/pdf/CHCL_statutes_effective%2008012011.pdf<br /><br />That doesn't sound like rashness to me.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-51642448134501339052011-12-14T21:57:08.926+01:002011-12-14T21:57:08.926+01:00GREG, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING?
It is q...GREG, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING?<br /><br />It is quite obvious that you are totally clueless as to what I am saying.<br /><br />Additionally, once again you come up with the assertion that: there are times when lethal force is the minimum necessary for the innocent person to survive.<br /><br />You really are clueless as to the concept of reasonableness.<br /><br />Yes, but those times are few and far between. In the eyes of the law, carrying around a weapon demonstrates that you have the intent of acting rashly.<br /><br />Despite what you think--intent is an important factor in the law.<br /><br />But, greg, you love to show me how ignorant you are.<br /><br />As for reasonable--given how you act here--I would also say that you are fairly unreasonable as well.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-81860120879947559682011-12-14T19:59:16.226+01:002011-12-14T19:59:16.226+01:00Laci the Dog,
What purpose? Self defense. Yes, ...Laci the Dog,<br /><br />What purpose? Self defense. Yes, you have made claims about that, but there are times when lethal force is the minimum necessary for the innocent person to survive.<br /><br />On the subject of reasonableness, the people who know me think of me as a reasonable person. I'll take their judgement over yours any day.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30572342940669741502011-12-14T19:22:16.768+01:002011-12-14T19:22:16.768+01:00Greg, do you understand the meaning of the word &q...Greg, do you understand the meaning of the word "enumerated"? What does that mean to you?<br /><br />Why would you claim a right to deadly weapons? For what purpose?<br /><br />There is a benefit of national defence in keeping and bearing arms for a militia, but no benefit to society if criminals, the mentally ill, idiots, and other undersirables have access to firearms. In fact, we see that is a detriment to society, not a benefit.<br /><br />I have demonstrated that the doctrine of self-defence refers to the minimum amount of force necessary to counter the threat.<br /><br />Additionally, that force must be reasonable, but it is not for the defendant to say what was reasonable force, but for the trier of fact. This is because the defendant would always say the force was reasonable.<br /><br />Additionally, one would have to posit that the unfettered access to firearms by idiots such as yourself was a benefit to society. That, of course, is like determining reasonableness, and not somethign you should do for yourself.<br /><br />As I said, Greg, you are coming off as being rather clueless in this discussion.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-10255592863266509902011-12-14T18:26:04.968+01:002011-12-14T18:26:04.968+01:00But it's your claim that the Second Amendment ...But it's your claim that the Second Amendment doesn't address the rights of individuals. You say that the Second applied only to state militias. If that's true, then we can claim an individual right to firearms under the Ninth.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28142368012284510152011-12-14T17:57:29.249+01:002011-12-14T17:57:29.249+01:00Greg, you can come at the abortion and privacy iss...Greg, you can come at the abortion and privacy issues under the Ninth Amendment since those are rights "which have not been enumerated".<br /><br />On the other hand, the right to arms is a well-defined and enumerated right.<br /><br />It's just that you choose to put your own interpretation on that right.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-68401704737521241512011-12-14T17:21:56.221+01:002011-12-14T17:21:56.221+01:00And where does privacy or abortion occur in the te...And where does privacy or abortion occur in the text? Those ideas are interpretations of what the principles behind other amendments. The same can be done with the Second Amendment.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28197068541790387702011-12-14T16:50:30.279+01:002011-12-14T16:50:30.279+01:00greg, legally, you don't really have two choic...greg, legally, you don't really have two choices.<br /><br />If the reason for a law ceases--so does the law.<br /><br />If you wish to have a modern application--then you go through the amendment process.<br /><br />But you have made it clear that niceities such as the rule of law don't matter much to you.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63308606360101982922011-12-14T14:43:33.382+01:002011-12-14T14:43:33.382+01:00It is interesting that Madison's concern, thro...It is interesting that Madison's concern, throughout No. 46, was that the Federal government might someday become more powerful than the states and that some succession of men--the presidents, presumably--would accumulate a military power for the projects of ambition.<br /><br />Does this sound familiar to anyone? It always amazes me how prescient the Founders were.<br /><br />But let's say that original application of the Second Amendment no longer has any meaning. (Although you're looking outside the text to establish that expired meaning. . .) We have two choices: Find a modern application or let the amendment go.<br /><br />I choose to find a modern application.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com