Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Second Amendment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 441832" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Brett,</p><p> </p><p>Couple of items of further interest on the points you made.</p><p> </p><p>Madison was known for many quotes from his years but a few that serve in the interest of backing up your point.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red"><strong>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html</strong></span></a></p><p> </p><p>Our founding fathers has experienced even firsthand the abuse of emperical military powers as exist with gov't who have at their beck and call, standing armies. Jagger said the following which is very true:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Words and useage of the day must be taken into account to understand the context in which they were spoken off. Now that said the term militia in that period of 1789' context must be taken into account. The term army and navy existed but the framers used the term militia not only within the founding document but in broader context. </p><p> </p><p>Militia is an older Anglo Saxon institution that was a prevelent ideal in old english Common Law. This Common Law became much of the backbone of the American Independence Movement and the writings on Common Law by Sir William Blackstone being a chief source of understanding. Sir Blackstone's Commentaries are available today in 4 volumes and well worth the investment as I have them in my own library. That said, Militia was considered the normal body of people in the common law context, freemen exercising their right to defend their own liberty. Saxon law and tradition date the idea of militia back many centuries and his historical footprint was never in dispute. As to the idea of able bodied men 18 to 45 years of age, this came into play via the Militia Act of 1903' and as a result of the dawn of the progressive era and post Lincoln unionism, the common law ideal was thus changed from the originalist ideals. Jagger IMO is arguing the post Lincoln/progressive central gov't ideal rather than a true Classical liberal founding ideal of the founding era and from that position alone Jagger is correct. But I'd differ strongly in using that context when discussing the ideas of the times of the late 1700's. And let me say this for the record, Jagger maybe right in the new modern thinking of the issue and both neo-cons and neo-libs do agree on this point but from a 18th century Classical liberal POV, this would be totally unacceptable to the foundational premise of the ideals of a free man. </p><p> </p><p>Also using Madison, in Federalist #46, he speaks of a militia half a million man strong. The only conceivable way to arrive at that number in that time with the population of America being what it was, is to include all men (freemen) in that count above that of the so-called known standing army of that time (or rather lack of) and thus IMO another proof of the common law tradition being upheld. The militia ideal was further enhanced and added power to local control with that of the Posse Commitatus and combined with the common law principle of the Sheriff, he/she being the only true law official of the common law, just again IMO re-enforces this ideal of local control and the provisions against a federal level continous standing army. A modern day expression of this old principle is found locally in what are called Superior courts. These courts are the court of common law as opposed to State courts which in truth are enforcement courts for legislative regulation. The acting enforcement arm of Superior Courts are the police of the common law and that is the Sheriff and his deputies. </p><p> </p><p>These old traditions of common law are well worth the time in study and understanding because they clear up IMO a lot of mis-interpretation or false doctrine being spread about as to original intent. The founding fathers ideal was one of limited federal gov't powers and most powers resting in the hands of the people at the State and local levels. Another important point to remember is that the Bill of Rights came about from hard opposition to the Constitution from Anti-Federalist folks like Patrick Henry. I also believe in the anti-federalist cause and that the Constitution should be abolished and we should return to the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights purpose was to claim fears that a strong central gov't had been created to circumvent State and local powers held strong under the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights purpose was to show that strong State and local control that existed under the Articles would continue to exist under the new Constitution and among those are the power of the people under the old Saxon tradition of freemen coming together locally for the expressed purpose of protecting their freedom and liberty. In order to achieve those means, the right of those men ie "people" to have at their desire the means to arm themselves at any time must be protected and never infringed. This also goes back to the Jeffersonian principle spelled out in the Declaration of Independence of the right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" and if you understand the Physiocrat ideal of the day, you'll know happiness meant property. How does one exercised and protect one's right to life, liberty and property if one is never meant to have the means to protect one's interest?</p><p> </p><p>Jagger has valid points in the modern context of the modern super state and the sad part is Jagger's position is further enhanced by the fact that so many folks support and encourage a much stronger and farther reaching central gov't in the area of security that even extends to the powerful surveillance state. The simple fact is, having applauding for a stronger central gov't with expanded powers abroad as well as domestic, the need now for an armed public to protect one's life, liberty and happiness is no longer needed. Our society whether democrat of republican has loudly stated that private risk of the individual is not acceptable and that risk should be one that is a public domain and therefore no man need stand alone.</p><p> </p><p>In one respect, we could say we've made our bed so now we must live in it. I disagree with Jagger's originalist assertions but in the modern context, you guys may be upset because he/she is slapping you in the face with a diaster of your own doing!</p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 441832, member: 2189"] Brett, Couple of items of further interest on the points you made. Madison was known for many quotes from his years but a few that serve in the interest of backing up your point. [URL="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html"][COLOR=red][B]http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html[/B][/COLOR][/URL] Our founding fathers has experienced even firsthand the abuse of emperical military powers as exist with gov't who have at their beck and call, standing armies. Jagger said the following which is very true: Words and useage of the day must be taken into account to understand the context in which they were spoken off. Now that said the term militia in that period of 1789' context must be taken into account. The term army and navy existed but the framers used the term militia not only within the founding document but in broader context. Militia is an older Anglo Saxon institution that was a prevelent ideal in old english Common Law. This Common Law became much of the backbone of the American Independence Movement and the writings on Common Law by Sir William Blackstone being a chief source of understanding. Sir Blackstone's Commentaries are available today in 4 volumes and well worth the investment as I have them in my own library. That said, Militia was considered the normal body of people in the common law context, freemen exercising their right to defend their own liberty. Saxon law and tradition date the idea of militia back many centuries and his historical footprint was never in dispute. As to the idea of able bodied men 18 to 45 years of age, this came into play via the Militia Act of 1903' and as a result of the dawn of the progressive era and post Lincoln unionism, the common law ideal was thus changed from the originalist ideals. Jagger IMO is arguing the post Lincoln/progressive central gov't ideal rather than a true Classical liberal founding ideal of the founding era and from that position alone Jagger is correct. But I'd differ strongly in using that context when discussing the ideas of the times of the late 1700's. And let me say this for the record, Jagger maybe right in the new modern thinking of the issue and both neo-cons and neo-libs do agree on this point but from a 18th century Classical liberal POV, this would be totally unacceptable to the foundational premise of the ideals of a free man. Also using Madison, in Federalist #46, he speaks of a militia half a million man strong. The only conceivable way to arrive at that number in that time with the population of America being what it was, is to include all men (freemen) in that count above that of the so-called known standing army of that time (or rather lack of) and thus IMO another proof of the common law tradition being upheld. The militia ideal was further enhanced and added power to local control with that of the Posse Commitatus and combined with the common law principle of the Sheriff, he/she being the only true law official of the common law, just again IMO re-enforces this ideal of local control and the provisions against a federal level continous standing army. A modern day expression of this old principle is found locally in what are called Superior courts. These courts are the court of common law as opposed to State courts which in truth are enforcement courts for legislative regulation. The acting enforcement arm of Superior Courts are the police of the common law and that is the Sheriff and his deputies. These old traditions of common law are well worth the time in study and understanding because they clear up IMO a lot of mis-interpretation or false doctrine being spread about as to original intent. The founding fathers ideal was one of limited federal gov't powers and most powers resting in the hands of the people at the State and local levels. Another important point to remember is that the Bill of Rights came about from hard opposition to the Constitution from Anti-Federalist folks like Patrick Henry. I also believe in the anti-federalist cause and that the Constitution should be abolished and we should return to the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights purpose was to claim fears that a strong central gov't had been created to circumvent State and local powers held strong under the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights purpose was to show that strong State and local control that existed under the Articles would continue to exist under the new Constitution and among those are the power of the people under the old Saxon tradition of freemen coming together locally for the expressed purpose of protecting their freedom and liberty. In order to achieve those means, the right of those men ie "people" to have at their desire the means to arm themselves at any time must be protected and never infringed. This also goes back to the Jeffersonian principle spelled out in the Declaration of Independence of the right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" and if you understand the Physiocrat ideal of the day, you'll know happiness meant property. How does one exercised and protect one's right to life, liberty and property if one is never meant to have the means to protect one's interest? Jagger has valid points in the modern context of the modern super state and the sad part is Jagger's position is further enhanced by the fact that so many folks support and encourage a much stronger and farther reaching central gov't in the area of security that even extends to the powerful surveillance state. The simple fact is, having applauding for a stronger central gov't with expanded powers abroad as well as domestic, the need now for an armed public to protect one's life, liberty and happiness is no longer needed. Our society whether democrat of republican has loudly stated that private risk of the individual is not acceptable and that risk should be one that is a public domain and therefore no man need stand alone. In one respect, we could say we've made our bed so now we must live in it. I disagree with Jagger's originalist assertions but in the modern context, you guys may be upset because he/she is slapping you in the face with a diaster of your own doing! :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Second Amendment
Top