Architecture - Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local

Author

Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local

Clark F Morris

2007-11-10, 8:25 pm

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:35:48 -0500, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
wrote:

>"Pat"> wrote
>
>There's an aspect of homeschooling known as *unschooling* and this is the
>process some people go through after leaving the public prisons, er,
>schools.
>You see, the schools fill the students, and their parents, heads with some
>much bullshit it can takes years, decades and sometime forever, to get past
>this massive handicap.
>I too was subjected to this insanity and recognized it at the time and many
>years went by as I went through the *unschooling* process.
>Let me perfectly clear, *education* has nothing at all to do with *school*.
>
>Now, gently, I'm going to help Pat a little in his *unlearning* process, and
>if he's a good boy he'll get a nice big fat juicy gold star for his
>aptitude!
>
>
>The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the sort and can't I imagine how you can
>go from the very precise wording of the statement to where you ended up at,
>if you have in fact ever read and understood the thing.
>
>Have you read it?
>Do you understand it?
>
>If so, then please explain *what* right the 2nd is speaking of when it says
>'...the right of the people....'.
>
>Is this saying that prior to the writing of that amendment in 1787 that no
>right to bear arms existed?
>
>Or is it saying that the right to bear arms was *already* existing, and
>therefore the gov't has no right to infringe upon this pre-existing right?
>
>
>(I don't know what you mean by *constructionalist* but....)
>
>None of the amendments say I can keep a toaster either but I have one.
>Should I be sent to gitmo for this heinous infraction?

Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and
reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it
clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious
armament. We know from history there were United States based
privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the 10
amendments.
>
>The
>
>Well which is it, does it exist or doesn't it?
>Lemme clear this little thing up for you, and I'll even lead you to water,
>but you have to do the drinking on your own.
>
>You are confusing *rights* with *priviledges*.
>Rights are inherent, they cannot be taken away except by criminals with
>force.
>Your son has the right to life, you can't take it away if he doesn't do his
>homework.
>Your son has a cellphone as a priviledge which you can remove from him for
>any reason you see fit.
>
>You see the diff?
>You can't take his right, but you can take his priviledge.
>Nobody can take someones natural rights except through criminal force.
>In defense of ones rights they may use defensive force.
>Now do you see why your assertion that an education is a *right* is silly?
>
>Regardless of constitutional bearing, rights and priviledges should be
>taught to all kids from an early age and they should be constantly reminded
>of them cause we all know how forgetful kids can be.
>

Don

2007-11-10, 8:25 pm

"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:96jcj3hgn1af71sbdbnlc1186dc4o0v5cj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:35:48 -0500, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Since Congress was given the power to issue letters of marque and
> reprisal which enabled private vessels to capture other ships, it
> clearly implies that people were allowed to have fairly serious
^^^^^^

> armament. We know from history there were United States based
> privateers. Incidently, the letters of marque clause predates the 10
> amendments.

Lets be clear, the amendments don't *give* anything to anybody or *allow*
anybody to do anything.
Rights are *inherent* and not given or allowed by anybody.
The amendments place *restrictions* on what the gov't CAN and CAN'T do.
Read that last sentence again.

But you know what?
The ink was barely dry on the parchment before them politicians started
ignoring it.
Jefferson himself should have been shackled in the village stocks and beaten
with axehandles.
Perhaps that might have changed the tide.

[color=darkred]

Kris Krieger

2007-11-17, 8:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fh5nba0u68@news3.newsguy.com:

>
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:96jcj3hgn1af71sbdbnlc1186dc4o0v5cj@4ax.com...
> ^^^^^^
>
>
> Lets be clear, the amendments don't *give* anything to anybody or
> *allow* anybody to do anything.
> Rights are *inherent* and not given or allowed by anybody.
> The amendments place *restrictions* on what the gov't CAN and CAN'T
> do. Read that last sentence again.

Yup.

It's written down because that is supposed to keep things consistent. It
doesn't mean that the writing-down is the "grantor", so to speak. WHat
it is, is keeping a record of what is and is not agreed upon as being
law, so that the Law can be applied consistently.

So, if people agree that murder is against the law, and agree that to be
murder, the killing has to be pre-meditated and done deliberately (i.e.,
not an accident), it's just common sense to write it down and maintain it
as an official document, so that it won't be forgotten or mixed-up.

I think mot people forget that there is a difference between saying
"Constitutionally guaranteed rights" and "Constitutionally granted
rights" - the latter is not the correct statement. And even the
"guarantee" part relies upon people not only recording the law, but
respecting it.

In essence, it is a contract outlining the agreement between the People,
and those elected to government and what *they* (the gov.t) cannot do.
But this has gotten twisted up and turned around so that now, people
mistakenly think that the Cnstitution is the *origin* of rights and that
it delineates what *the People* cannot do.

So, when it says that the people have a right to bear arms, what it is
actually saying is that the governemnt cannot legitimately take armaments
away from the People. Of course, there is a problem now because back
then, "arms" meant pretty much flintlockl rifles and pistols, whereas
today, we have Mac-10's and AK-47's and so on, so it *might* be
legitimate to argue that automatic weapons are not exempt from giv.t
seizure, but it *cannot* be legitimate that the gov.t can legitimately
keep *all* arms out of the hands of the People.

But that is the point, that difference between the Constitution as a
contract defining, and often limiting, the actions of the goverenment;
and the mistaken idea that the Constitution is the source of rights and
therefore can also be used to remove rights from the People.

>
> But you know what?
> The ink was barely dry on the parchment before them politicians
> started ignoring it.
> Jefferson himself should have been shackled in the village stocks and
> beaten with axehandles.
> Perhaps that might have changed the tide.
>
>
>
>
>

Clark F Morris

2007-11-17, 9:25 pm

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:00:16 -0600, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:

>"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
>news:fh5nba0u68@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
>Yup.
>
>It's written down because that is supposed to keep things consistent. It
>doesn't mean that the writing-down is the "grantor", so to speak. WHat
>it is, is keeping a record of what is and is not agreed upon as being
>law, so that the Law can be applied consistently.
>
>So, if people agree that murder is against the law, and agree that to be
>murder, the killing has to be pre-meditated and done deliberately (i.e.,
>not an accident), it's just common sense to write it down and maintain it
>as an official document, so that it won't be forgotten or mixed-up.
>
>I think mot people forget that there is a difference between saying
>"Constitutionally guaranteed rights" and "Constitutionally granted
>rights" - the latter is not the correct statement. And even the
>"guarantee" part relies upon people not only recording the law, but
>respecting it.
>
>In essence, it is a contract outlining the agreement between the People,
>and those elected to government and what *they* (the gov.t) cannot do.
>But this has gotten twisted up and turned around so that now, people
>mistakenly think that the Cnstitution is the *origin* of rights and that
>it delineates what *the People* cannot do.
>
>So, when it says that the people have a right to bear arms, what it is
>actually saying is that the governemnt cannot legitimately take armaments
>away from the People. Of course, there is a problem now because back
>then, "arms" meant pretty much flintlockl rifles and pistols, whereas
>today, we have Mac-10's and AK-47's and so on, so it *might* be
>legitimate to argue that automatic weapons are not exempt from giv.t
>seizure, but it *cannot* be legitimate that the gov.t can legitimately
>keep *all* arms out of the hands of the People.

As I said in another posting the United States Constitution has among
the powers of Congress the right to grant letters of marque and
reprisal. This was a license for a ship owner to go out and capture
enemy vessels. This in turn meant that the ship owner was assumed to
have some fairly serious armament (cannons, etc.). In short it was
assumed one could own a war ship, maybe even the equivalent of a
guided missile cruiser. Chuck Stevens who posted on comp.lang.cobol
pointed this out in one of the off topic postings.[color=darkred]
>

Kris Krieger

2007-11-20, 5:25 pm

Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:2q9vj3h95s4d1v1npsg4k01vt9griuuae7@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:00:16 -0600, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
> wrote:
>
>
> As I said in another posting the United States Constitution has among
> the powers of Congress the right to grant letters of marque and
> reprisal. This was a license for a ship owner to go out and capture
> enemy vessels. This in turn meant that the ship owner was assumed to
> have some fairly serious armament (cannons, etc.). In short it was
> assumed one could own a war ship, maybe even the equivalent of a
> guided missile cruiser. Chuck Stevens who posted on comp.lang.cobol
> pointed this out in one of the off topic postings.

If there was a time-limit on those letters, specifying a given situation
and/or time frame, it's not reasonable to assume it means that private
citizens *today* should own, for ex., unlicensed hand granades. I don't
muind the idea of gun licensing, *IF* it is used to insure that people
have some level of training before buying a gun.

In any event, in the end, the vital point is the degree to which people
are reasonable, or the degree to which they're ruled by personal emotions
and personal demons and a desire to dominate others. The ideal behind
"the rule of law" is that one maniac can't just up and subjugate his
neighbors simply because he has a bigger gun so to speak.

Don

2007-11-22, 9:25 am

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13k6par1be1hnfa@corp.supernews.com...
> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:2q9vj3h95s4d1v1npsg4k01vt9griuuae7@4ax.com:
>
>
> If there was a time-limit on those letters, specifying a given situation
> and/or time frame, it's not reasonable to assume it means that private
> citizens *today* should own, for ex., unlicensed hand granades. I don't
> muind the idea of gun licensing, *IF* it is used to insure that people
> have some level of training before buying a gun.
>
> In any event, in the end, the vital point is the degree to which people
> are reasonable, or the degree to which they're ruled by personal emotions
> and personal demons and a desire to dominate others. The ideal behind
> "the rule of law" is that one maniac can't just up and subjugate his
> neighbors simply because he has a bigger gun so to speak.

Most of the fear surrounding guns is a programmed response.
People do not fear knives but a knife can harm as easily as a gun.
Around here a person can carry a gun on their person and no one would say
anything.
Where I'm from in FL people got off the deep end if they saw such a thing.
As I get farther away from urbania these things become more apparent.
Urbania is mainly mass paranoia on a foundation of nothingness, the tender
underbelly of the very mania they fear.
They are scaring themselves to death! LOL

Pat

2007-11-22, 1:25 pm

On Nov 22, 10:12 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Kris Krieger" <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
>
> news:13k6par1be1hnfa@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Most of the fear surrounding guns is a programmed response.
> People do not fear knives but a knife can harm as easily as a gun.
> Around here a person can carry a gun on their person and no one would say
> anything.
> Where I'm from in FL people got off the deep end if they saw such a thing.
> As I get farther away from urbania these things become more apparent.
> Urbania is mainly mass paranoia on a foundation of nothingness, the tender
> underbelly of the very mania they fear.
> They are scaring themselves to death! LOL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is udderly amazing how quickly and totally you have come to accept/
adopt to your new, rural, redneck home. It's got to make your head
hurt to think of all of those wasted years in Fl.

Michael Bulatovich

2007-11-22, 1:25 pm

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:3177b344-abb9-48c8-bf9e-bec7e57e0ebf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 10:12 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
snip
>
> It is udderly amazing how quickly and totally you have come to accept/
> adopt to your new, rural, redneck home.

OK. As the group's now self-appointed malaprop-cop, I'm righting you up for
that bovine remark ; )

Don

2007-11-22, 5:25 pm

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:3177b344-abb9-48c8-bf9e-bec7e57e0ebf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 10:12 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> It is udderly amazing how quickly and totally you have come to accept/
> adopt to your new, rural, redneck home. It's got to make your head
> hurt to think of all of those wasted years in Fl.

Its easy to live your life and mind your own business when there's no people
right up against you all the time.
I was never cut out for the kind of life I lived for the past 40 years.

Amy Blankenship

2007-11-22, 5:25 pm

"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:fi4kt601rgf@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:3177b344-abb9-48c8-bf9e-bec7e57e0ebf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> OK. As the group's now self-appointed malaprop-cop, I'm righting you up
> for that bovine remark ; )

Did you have to right him because he'd been tipped?

Warm Worm

2007-11-22, 8:25 pm

Don wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:3177b344-abb9-48c8-bf9e-bec7e57e0ebf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Its easy to live your life and mind your own business when there's no people
> right up against you all the time.
> I was never cut out for the kind of life I lived for the past 40 years.

How so, and who is?

You've made all kinds of topics our business hereon-- way off topic if
there was a topic.

A bit of architecture with a grocery store tabloid on your way in and
out, without lube. ;D

Pat

2007-11-22, 9:25 pm

On Nov 22, 4:55 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:3177b344-abb9-48c8-bf9e-bec7e57e0ebf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Its easy to live your life and mind your own business when there's no people
> right up against you all the time.
> I was never cut out for the kind of life I lived for the past 40 years.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It didn't take me 40 years to learn it. Just going to UB for grad
school (school with a population of 40,000 +/-) taught me that,
quick. See, I did learn something in college.

Pat

2007-11-22, 9:25 pm

On Nov 22, 2:22 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:3177b344-abb9-48c8-bf9e-bec7e57e0ebf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>
>
> OK. As the group's now self-appointed malaprop-cop, I'm righting you up for
> that bovine remark ; )

I thought it was cute. But maybe it was only 2/3rds of a pun -- just
the P.U.

Michael Bulatovich

2007-11-23, 9:25 am

"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:cPn1j.51$N67.37@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:fi4kt601rgf@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> Did you have to right him because he'd been tipped?

Free pie for everyone in the group!

Michael Bulatovich

2007-11-23, 9:25 am

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:7b36a0da-61a6-4d17-8d50-695130d624b5@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 2:22 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> I thought it was cute. But maybe it was only 2/3rds of a pun -- just
> the P.U.

You mean the smell?

Michael Bulatovich

2007-11-23, 9:25 am

Amy Blankenship

2007-11-23, 9:25 am

"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:fi6n8m01b2b@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:cPn1j.51$N67.37@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Oh wait. I just got that one.....
> <sound of jets passing overhead>

Actually, in that context, the free pie is still funny ;-)

Pat

2007-11-23, 1:25 pm

On Nov 23, 9:07 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:7b36a0da-61a6-4d17-8d50-695130d624b5@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You mean the smell?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, yes. Adjust the gain on your sarcasm meter.

Pat

2007-11-23, 1:25 pm

On Nov 23, 9:05 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cPn1j.51$N67.37@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Free pie for everyone in the group!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The blind carpenter picked up his hammer and saw.

Don

2007-11-23, 5:25 pm

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:db0b3f47-8cce-4622-ad42-8e2381acca87@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 4:55 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> It didn't take me 40 years to learn it. Just going to UB for grad
> school (school with a population of 40,000 +/-) taught me that,
> quick. See, I did learn something in college.

Up til the age of 11 I lived rurally then in 1966 my dad said 'Get in the
stationwagon we're moving to FL' and the rest is history.
You know, school, military, marriage, kid(s), run a biz, chase that buck,
compete with the jones's, etc.
Too busy going places to see where you've been but in the idle moments them
roots are harkening, beckoning.
Then you start to look for an escape route but the kingdom you've built is
impenetrable so its difficult to get out.
It took me 10 years to pick the lock on the gateway and bust loose.
But my fortress was built on a stationary pinnacle and now I'm freefalling
10,000 miles stright down........

I burned leaves this afternoon, something I haven't done since the early
60's.......

LinkBot