Guns and race

Stonewall · Apr 1, 2013

myp said:
It is ironic that you are emphasising "creator" given rights written down by some of the most famous atheists of the time. That aside, you ignore that the founders and the Constitution itself recognizes the importance of interpretation and hence establishes a judicial branch to settle differences in interpretation. I am not the one standing here with the viewpoint that it is my interpretation or the highway because I understand your interpretation is yours and mine, mine.

Famous "atheists" who considered it self evident that rights were endowed by "our Creator?" I think you've misinterpreted.

The Constitution established 3 co-equal branches of government, and you are correct the courts interpret...not define. It is We the People who decide our own laws, our intent and that of the Framers were first and foremost.

Stonewall · Apr 1, 2013

tecoyah said:
"Rights" are a man made construct.

As I've said and I'll repeat;

Thank God Almighty that Jefferson, Adams, and Madison preceded tecoyah, David, or myp. Thank God!

David · Apr 1, 2013

Stonewall said:
As I've said and I'll repeat;

Thank God Almighty that Jefferson, Adams, and Madison preceded tecoyah, David, or myp. Thank God!

Again, Adams would be calling you an idiot (probably worse) if he was here right now. Adams invented 'big gov't' as you know it.

Stonewall · Apr 1, 2013

We were speaking to rights created by man versus endowed, John Adams thought it very much self evident that certain unalienable rights came from "our Creator." And these men were not athiests as myp claims either.

David · Apr 1, 2013

Stonewall said:
We were speaking to rights created by man versus endowed, John Adams thought it very much self evident that certain unalienable rights came from "our Creator." And these men were not athiests as myp claims either.

Adams may have agreed that certain rights were given by god (basicly everything in the 10 Commandments) but that's about as much as you have in common with the man. Also myp never said Adams was an atheist, only that many were (Deists would probably be more accurate) and so using a single (purely poetic) line in the DoI to argue they were pious men doesn't make much sense.

myp · Apr 1, 2013

Stonewall said:
The Constitution established 3 co-equal branches of government, and you are correct the courts interpret...not define. It is We the People who decide our own laws, our intent and that of the Framers were first and foremost.

EXACTLY. The law has been defined- the second amendment. The courts are INTERPRETING it.

As for the atheism part, it is quite apparent that some of the founders were not very big on the whole God thing and that publicly they sort of did put on a mask to appease the majority of the more conservative public. These men were the most liberal of their time if not all of history to that point- would it really surprise you that they questioned the existence of a traditional God? And David is right on the deism part- better term than atheism for their views.

I mean just consider that the Constitution no where mentions a Creator and the Declaration uses more deist language than Christian or otherwise. There is plenty of debate out there on this and it is an interesting topic and one we will probably never have the full answer to. I leave you with this quotation from Thomas Jefferson: "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

Stonewall · Apr 2, 2013

myp said:
EXACTLY. The law has been defined- the second amendment. The courts are INTERPRETING it.

And if we don't like the way they interpret, we simply return and rewrite the law...whether the court likes it or not. For example, the High Court also declared men at Gitmo should be afforded due process...it hasn't happened. the Court in fact has been ignored several times in US history.

As for the atheism part, it is quite apparent that some of the founders were not very big on the whole God thing and that publicly they sort of did put on a mask to appease the majority of the more conservative public. These men were the most liberal of their time if not all of history to that point- would it really surprise you that they questioned the existence of a traditional God? And David is right on the deism part- better term than atheism for their views.

From athiest to "not very big on the whole God thing", nice backpedal, myp. David's term is a term assigned them by authors later, never ones they assigned themselves. Your term athiest was flat out wrong, there is no better term for it.

I mean just consider that the Constitution no where mentions a Creator and the Declaration uses more deist language than Christian or otherwise. There is plenty of debate out there on this and it is an interesting topic and one we will probably never have the full answer to. I leave you with this quotation from Thomas Jefferson: "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

We were speaking to rights. The Constitution written and passed later, the very right to declare independence...to declare a government that was given power at the consent of the governed was the "liberal" in them. These men were slave owners, myp.....that liberal? They were small, limited government chaps, not socialist liberals, don't confuse the issue. I mdidn't mean to sound bossy, you can confuse the issue if you want....and I'll smartly correct you as I just did. Carry on...with caution. You're walking a fine line here, inaccuracies wll be called out.

Stonewall · Apr 2, 2013

David said:
Adams may have agreed that certain rights were given by god (basicly everything in the 10 Commandments) but that's about as much as you have in common with the man. Also myp never said Adams was an atheist, only that many were (Deists would probably be more accurate) and so using a single (purely poetic) line in the DoI to argue they were pious men doesn't make much sense.

Myp....just to correct you....said exactly and I quote;

"It is ironic that you are emphasising "creator" given rights written down by some of the most famous atheists of the time."

When I was emphasising Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, these men were absolutely NOT "some of the most famous athiests of all time." That was a completely in error statement myp tried to slide in, I corrected him instantly, where is the problem. Just trying to keep the forum well informed and accurate, his was a highly inaccurate statement. He's backpedaled since I corrected him, all is well now.

Moving on.

David · Apr 2, 2013

Stonewall said:
Myp....just to correct you....said exactly and I quote;

"It is ironic that you are emphasising "creator" given rights written down by some of the most famous atheists of the time."

When I was emphasising Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, these men were absolutely NOT "some of the most famous athiests of all time." That was a completely in error statement myp tried to slide in, I corrected him instantly, where is the problem. Just trying to keep the forum well informed and accurate, his was a highly inaccurate statement. He's backpedaled since I corrected him, all is well now.

Moving on.

You'd have a point if you were only taking about those men and not simply throwing out the 1st names to pop into your head when citing the Founders.

Stonewall · Apr 2, 2013

These men were used as examples, I used them from the front of my thesis here and I'll do so again Thank God those men preceded the likes of you three. Thank God Almighty.

David · Apr 2, 2013

Stonewall said:
These men were used as examples, I used them from the front of my thesis here and I'll do so again Thank God those men preceded the likes of you three. Thank God Almighty.

Yes, examples of the Founders. Thing is, the Founders were split between anarchists, liberals and authoritarians (such as Adams). It wasn't some monolithic group, most of them tried killing at least 1 other Founder at some point in their lives either by dual or trying to start a war.

Stonewall · Apr 2, 2013

David said:
Yes, examples of the Founders. Thing is, the Founders were split between anarchists, liberals and authoritarians (such as Adams). It wasn't some monolithic group, most of them tried killing at least 1 other Founder at some point in their lives either by dual or trying to start a war.

Oh I know they were liberals. They considered all men created equal while women couldn't even vote. Slaveowners as well certainly a liberal point of view. Our Founders were Conservative men, David. The 16 President.....Lincoln, a Republican, finally had to free the slaves, Republicans also having to go up on the floor and lecture Democrats who were filibustering civil rights initiatives in the 1960s.

And I never claimed they were a "monolitihic group" so I don't know what you're making up there, believing in certain unalienable rights endowed was their shared thesis.

myp · Apr 2, 2013

You understand that liberal and conservative are relative terms right? We are all liberals in the context of the entirety of human history- easily. Also admitting I was wrong and that David's word choice was better is not backpedaling- my point stands. I know it is hard for someone like you who has the whole universe figured out to understand that though.

As for not liking the court's interpretation- okay do what you gotta do and try to get a Constitutional amendment changed, but that is besides the point. The point and what you were wrong on and seem to now agree with me on is that the law has already been written and the courts are not writing laws, but interpreting them. Yes, judicial activism can be an issue, but it is also a thin line hidden in a murky gray- even judicial activism comes down to interpretation at a certain level.

Stonewall · Apr 2, 2013

myp said:
You understand that liberal and conservative are relative terms right?

That is the point I was making. A wealthy white landowner who owned slaves and didn't consider women worthy of representation is what some observers are referring to as liberal.

We are all liberals in the context of the entirety of human history- easily. Also admitting I was wrong and that David's word choice was better is not backpedaling- my point stands. I know it is hard for someone like you who has the whole universe figured out to understand that though.

No big deal. You claimed they were some of the most famous athiests in history and no they were not. Not big on the whole God thing more debatable, I liked it, was giving you kudos for the backpedal. Geez.

As for not liking the court's interpretation- okay do what you gotta do and try to get a Constitutional amendment changed, but that is besides the point. The point and what you were wrong on and seem to now agree with me on is that the law has already been written and the courts are not writing laws, but interpreting them. Yes, judicial activism can be an issue, but it is also a thin line hidden in a murky gray- even judicial activism comes down to interpretation at a certain level.

Myp....as long as you understand that it is We the People...not 9 Robes in Washington DC who define our rights....then we have no dispute. Where I agree the law has been written, I wasn't wrong, I was dead on correct in explaining that law can then be rewritten. Our laws from local to Constitional are fluid and I can give you countless examples of such. The Court can rule unconstituional all day long, we both do agree.....we all do agree....that We the People can then go back and redefine or even rewrite the law? Correct? We the People can make it plain and obvious what our intent is.....the court must interpret intent or basis for laws. We write them. All legislation begins in the People's House.

We the People...are the final rule on our laws and define our rights within the law.....yes myp? We ALL understand this correct?

We as well have numerous examples of the court being ignored by Presidents.....especially regarding war and national security, it is understood....and has always been.....that the President can act independently, even against American Citizens.

myp · Apr 2, 2013

Stonewall said:
Myp....as long as you understand that it is We the People...not 9 Robes in Washington DC who define our rights....then we have no dispute. Where I agree the law has been written, I wasn't wrong, I was dead on correct in explaining that law can then be rewritten. Our laws from local to Constitional are fluid and I can give you countless examples of such. The Court can rule unconstituional all day long, we both do agree.....we all do agree....that We the People can then go back and redefine or even rewrite the law? Correct? We the People can make it plain and obvious what our intent is.....the court must interpret intent or basis for laws. We write them. All legislation begins in the People's House.

We the People...are the final rule on our laws and define our rights within the law.....yes myp? We ALL understand this correct?

We as well have numerous examples of the court being ignored by Presidents.....especially regarding war and national security, it is understood....and has always been.....that the President can act independently, even against American Citizens.

No one is denying that the courts are not supposed to set laws. As far as the second amendment goes though, the Constitution and law is there and the courts will interpret it just as they do any other law. "We the People" often disagree on issues and the gun issue is one of them. And that is why some people challenge the current interpretations of the law and it comes down to the courts to decide. And it is "We the People" who once decided that that was a better solution to a disagreement than say a more violent alternative.

Stonewall · Apr 2, 2013

The gun issue disagreements need to occur between our representatives and legislative bodies.

myp · Apr 2, 2013

Stonewall said:
The gun issue disagreements need to occur between our representatives and legislative bodies.

And they are... but when there is a disagreement over what an actual law says, it goes to the courts. That's the point of the judicial branch in the checks and balances system...

Stonewall · Apr 3, 2013

myp said:
And they are... but when there is a disagreement over what an actual law says, it goes to the courts. That's the point of the judicial branch in the checks and balances system...

Or...simply rewrite the law so there is no confusion over any issue. Let's take same sex marriage that you mistakenly refer to as gay marriage......if any law such as the DOMA says "a union between one man and one woman" there is no confusion there. The court can rule denying same gender marriage is unconstitutional, a constitutional amendment would then be attempted. I'm not saying it would pass.....I'm saying We the People are...and have been...and need to be...the final arbitrators on definitions of our cultural institutions....not 9 robes in Washington DC. That's all I'm saying and you seem to want to argue even that, myp. Just for the sake of argument in my opinion.

myp · Apr 3, 2013

Stonewall said:
Or...simply rewrite the law so there is no confusion over any issue.

The whole point is that that can't always be done. That is why law is a forever-changing thing and again why we have the judicial branch. If it were that simple, wouldn't the founders just have wrote it once and boom, it's done?

As for the whole "We the People" thing- it doesn't mean anything logistically and again, "We the People" often disagree as you and I do on the gay marriage issue and possibly on guns too.

Stonewall · Apr 4, 2013

The whole point is that CAN always be done. And there is no such thing as gay marriage, you're abuse of the term exposes your agenda.

Guns and race

Similar threads