Right to bear arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
leghog said:
John_0917 could begin by reading the Federalist Papers and not worry about misquotes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers represent the views of only a handful of the Founders. As to your accusation that I am misinformed and should educate myself on the topic, I'm quite certain that 3 years of law school and 11 years of legal practice qualifies me already. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean you need to decry me as unqualified to state it.
 
John_0917 said:
The Federalist Papers represent the views of only a handful of the Founders. As to your accusation that I am misinformed and should educate myself on the topic, I'm quite certain that 3 years of law school and 11 years of legal practice qualifies me already. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean you need to decry me as unqualified to state it.
Click to expand...

Again,
John_0917 could begin by reading the Federalist Papers and not worry about misquotes.
Click to expand...

Gotta start somewhere. Note the "begin by" in the quote above.

Three years of law school and eleven years of legal practice apparently qualifies you, via "personal suspicion", to not understand who the militia were and what the founders intended in protecting the right of the people to be armed? Again, the founders left a record of what they intended.
 
leghog said:
Again,

Gotta start somewhere. Note the "begin by" in the quote above.

Three years of law school and eleven years of legal practice apparently qualifies you, via "personal suspicion", to not understand who the militia were and what the founders intended in protecting the right of the people to be armed? Again, the founders left a record of what they intended.
Click to expand...

I said that is what I suspect, not that I agree.

To the second part, no one really knows that answer. Fortunately, the also wrote the 9th Amendment, which in plain speak says that you have more rights beyond those guaranteed. There is also the 10th Amendment which is what effectively gives states the authority over anything not specifically delegated to federal authority. Most 2nd Amendment cases are actually brought against state and local governments dealing with the extent to which they have the authority to legislate, while still remaining within the limitations imposed by the 2nd (and 14th) Amendments. As much as a lot of people fear that gun rights are under fire (so to speak), but in actuality most recent court cases have actually gone in favor of gun rights (Heller, McDonald, recent California CCW rulings about good cause), in spite of the "liberalization" of many appellate courts.

I never said I didn't think that knife carry rights should be protected, but don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about just because you don't agree with my hypothesis as to the thought processes of men who have been dead for 200 years. I do know what I am speaking of, from a legal viewpoint, and my opinion is just as valid (which isn't to say much) as anyone else's.
 
John_0917 said:
...just because you don't agree with my hypothesis as to the thought processes of men who have been dead for 200 years.
Click to expand...
My WHOLE point is that we need no hypothesis. They told us what they intended.
 
Last edited:
glistam said:
No carry laws at the federal level except in federal buildings. All knife carry laws are by state. In Arizona, Indiana and Vermont you can carry any knife you want, even switchblades.
Click to expand...
That's right. A good reason (along with our favorable carry laws) to stay in Indiana. The switchblade law is a newly passed one. Gov. Pence is a strong proponent for such things. I have a lifetime handgun carry permit, and can carry any knife I want. I cringe at the thought of a state that says I cannot carry my pistol if I want to, or a pocket knife. My permit is recongnized by 27 states, and I can get a Utah permit that is recognized by 35 states. Now my place of employment says no knives over 4" blade length, and no firearms in the building.. My biggest knife is my Military, and I have it in my pocket right now, and my pistol is in my car right now per company policy.
 
NMpops said:
JMHO but Knives are not "Arms". When they wrote the Constitution, Arms were Guns & Swords so knives were not included as they are tools. Since they are not covered by the Constitution, they are therefore the purview of the States and each state can make whatever law they want to on knives. Some state and local laws suck, some don't.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with the notion that knives are not "arms." Anything that can and will be used as a weapon therefore has the possibility of becoming someone's weapon, and an extension of their armed force. While knives are most often used for everyday basic utilities, they can also be used as weapons -and when they are used as weapons, they become a function of the escalation of force equation... A weaponized extension of their literal arms... they become "more armed" than without the weapon. In my view, you have the right to carry a pitchfork, screwdriver, ball peen hammer, and so on and so forth under your right to bear arms.

It is the human-act and human-intent that make any inanimate object a weapon and an extension of the human body for the purpose of "being armed."
 
John_0917 said:
The Federalist Papers represent the views of only a handful of the Founders. As to your accusation that I am misinformed and should educate myself on the topic, I'm quite certain that 3 years of law school and 11 years of legal practice qualifies me already. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean you need to decry me as unqualified to state it.
Click to expand...

Again the Federalist Papers are just a beginning. There are also personal letters written by Thomas Jefferson and I think Washington, who left no doubt how they felt about Americans being armed. And again, the Militia was all able bodied males, not just the military and there was no National Guard. They did not feel we needed a standing army.

Funny how we can read the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, Fed papers, letters etc and not agree on what they mean, but 90% of American blindly go about believing the Bible is the word of god without argument.
 
NMpops said:
John_0917 said:
The Federalist Papers represent the views of only a handful of the Founders. As to your accusation that I am misinformed and should educate myself on the topic, I'm quite certain that 3 years of law school and 11 years of legal practice qualifies me already. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean you need to decry me as unqualified to state it.
Click to expand...
Again the Federalist Papers are just a beginning. There are also personal letters written by Thomas Jefferson and I think Washington, who left no doubt how they felt about Americans being armed. And again, the Militia was all able bodied males, not just the military and there was no National Guard. They did not feel we needed a standing army.

Funny how we can read the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, Fed papers, letters etc and not agree on what they mean, but 90% of American blindly go about believing the Bible is the word of god without argument.
Click to expand...
As T. Jefferson said about three years before he died in his 12 June 1823 letter to William Johnson::

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
 
leghog said:
As T. Jefferson said about three years before he died in his 12 June 1823 letter to William Johnson::

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Click to expand...

That's called "Original Textualism" FYI.
 
John_0917 said:
leghog said:
As T. Jefferson said about three years before he died in his 12 June 1823 letter to William Johnson::

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Click to expand...
That's called "Original Textualism" FYI.
Click to expand...
Consider using that founder's advice.
 
Now that this discussion has crossed over from knife laws to politics to trolling, it's time to put it to bed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top