M14 Forum

Doug Carlton

"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it"

Lysander Spooner (1870)


In civics courses we are taught that the Constitution in one of limited and enumerated powers. This suffices as long as we stay in the classroom, as you have been commenting, once we venture out into the real world of the working government, we are confronted with and must resolve our acknowledgement with the reality that this government wields an astonishing array of powers that are NOT expressly enumerated.

For instance, in upholding Roosevelt's Fair Labor Standrds Act, Chief Stone spoke for a unanimous court when he said:

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is complete in itself, may be excercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the excercise or non-excercise of STATE POWER it is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate commerce that its excercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the excercise of the police power OF THE STATE...Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered"

U.S. vs Darby, 312 US 100 (1941)


So regardless of the parchment worship and pining for something that is fair and equitible and makes a modicum of sense....here's the reality:

FEDERAL POWERS ARE IMPLICITLY CONSTRUED, WHILE THEIR LIMITATIONS MUST BE EXPLICIT.

mgraffam

Bleh. This largely ignores the historical debate. The Founder's weren't largely in agreement about anything. The Constitution is a series of compromises between many concerns and factions. The idea that the "majority of Americans" were Jeffersonian republicans is true, but it ignores the fact that there were a large number of rich Hamiltonian types, and LOYALISTS to the crown still in the country, that were allowed to partake in the new Republic.

The contention that Supreme Court rulings and whatever else are beyond review or can't be changed is simply wrong: The Constitution contains within it three very important safe guards against tyranny at all levels: The 1st Amendment, allowing citizens to openly speak out against any number of social or governmental ills, to debate and try to find solutions. The right to vote out any SOBs that don't get the hint. And finally the 2nd Amendment, in case they really don't want to listen.

Or, to say it another way that I'm sure you've heard. The Republic rests on three boxes. The soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box.

All this talk blaming a weak Constitution, or a corrupt set of officials.. yes, in some ways all of this has some merit. But it is also just hyperbole which ignores the simple fact that the American electorate did not keep their Republic strong.

After the creation of the Constitution, a woman asked Ben Franklin "Mr. Franklin, what sort of government have you fashioned for us?"

His response was, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

The Founders knew that no matter what set of safe guards you put in place, no matter what your papers say.. a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is only as strong, and virtuous as the people.

They knew that liberty is always threatened, and would always be threatened - in every generation, and at every moment. They hoped the threat could be kept at bay for a long time. They hoped WE would remain vigilant.

If you want to blame someone for our present miseries.. blame US. Blame a culture that jokes about the 12 idiots not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Blame a culture that can't be bothered to vote, and IF they vote won't vote for anyone worth a damn. Blame a culture content on letting the media do the thinking. Blame a culture that is bankrupt in just about any sense of the term you care to cook up.

That doesn't give anyone the warm fuzzies though. It is far more emotionally satisfying to blame Hamiltonian bankers, corrupt courts and on and on. It is less satisfying to think "Damn. My great grandfather should have just started shooting."

I saw a documentary some years ago, I forget the name.. but tracked the journey of illegals into and out of the country. One part of the film really choked me up.. it documented a group of some 50 or 60 illegal immigrants that were going BACK to Mexico, just in order to vote, and then they'd risk it all to try and get back in.

Say what you will about those men and women otherwise. But they love their country, and their freedom. I don't give a damn what anyone says. I'd be proud to shake any of their hands. Backbone impresses me.

Now contrast that with the dolts we have today that can't be bothered to even stop watching reality TV for an hour to do the same, and ask yourself who is really to blame.

nSquid

I was fingerprinted in 1974 when I joined the Navy. When I went to work in the civilian nuclear industry in 1983 I got fingerprinted again. A few years later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandated everyone in the nuclear industry get fingerprinted. That was number 3. That time I asked "why?" and was told the NRC did not trust the FBI's records storage abilities. Then about 8 years later along comes the NRC and we all get fingerprinted again. I asked "why?" again and was told the NRC might have misplaced some of the last fingerprint records.

You guys can worry about licensing and what not: I'm far more afraid I could get pulled in because they mistake me for someone else. I've worked with mid-level feds; most couldn't make mud if we gave them free rain.

PS: Illinois failed to pass forward their latest attempt to join the other 49 States with a CCW law. Yet one more example of the Ununited States of America.

Doug Carlton

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. Only the Senate can impeach them. This has been accomplished TWICE in our history. Only Senators can impeach each other. Yes, they can be voted out but the congessional elections are held seprately making a wholesale change in congress via one election impossible. This is legal mind you and controlled in toto by the Legislative branch.

In short, if voting really changed anything, they would make it illegal as well.

All I am illuminating is what we already know to be true. Nothing has and nothing can stop this thirst for more and more power. The faces and names change, but the result is ALWAYS the same. History has shown us this to be true.

Blame? Doesn't matter. Our resistance to the tyrany is what matters.


Grandpa did get his shotgun. Look at Shay's and Whiskey Rebellion. What happened? The Feds used it as a fundraiser and scared all the blue-hairs into giving them more money and power. Not enough people knew the truth. If they had those efforts would have fruitful.

I agree, this wealfare society votes for a living and as long as they can watch American Idol on their 56" FedGov subsidized LED widescreen it's all good. But you start threatening that....well, you will soon hear "Don't be Selfish....Give it to ME!!"

Blame?


who cares

45.308

Yes I beleive this to be my given right by our Constitution. And why I do not support the NRA, they stood firm behind gun control acts for this very reason of thinking, as did a few firearms manufactures.

Why does being a felon only apply to Amendment II and not the other rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does a felon lose his right to free speech or religion? To petition his government? To assemble peaceably.

Why do I not need a piece of paper granting my rights to free speech? If I want to go down to the government building and converse my ideas with my Representative I can, if I want to rally and call out my Representative for a poor vote, I do not need a piece of paper saying I can.

But I do require a piece of paper granted to me by my government for owning a firearm?

Its pure nonsense that my Constitution gives me a right yet my government says no, sorry but that is one Constitutional right we do not agree with so we will infringe.

Outstanding! It is OK to infringe on Amendment II but just try to squelch someone's Amendment I rights...unless you are a WASPR.


I have had similar discussions with many so called firearm lovers. Its OK to have a 30.06 rifle but why does anyone need an AR (assault rifle) with a 30 round magazine. They just cannot comprehend and this is why our Amendment II rights are being infringed.

DukeRustfield

Yes, but that's what I said. Nearly everything of that time period was ~1 foot in length.

My family has an old heirloom (well, for us, anyway) old pistol my grandfather recovered in New Orleans. It's missing the hammer, has 8 (as I recall) notches in the handle(!!!). But pertinent to this case, the outside of the barrel is like octogonal, and you can see the various inconsistent widths of the metal all the way around. And that's maybe an 8" barrel. The manufacturing was simply not good enough to make a reliable concealed "38 snub nose" -type pistol in the 1700s. They would blow up the gun, esp considering they have to measure the charge themselves, and even gunpowder was inconsistent. Any truly small guns would have been ornamental and jewelry pieces of the wealthy.

I have my dad researching this now, as he used to teach a class on early firearms. And he's a good sport.

He mentioned horse pistols as being some of the earliest pistols, being about 18" in length carried in dual holsters along the horse's neck. I found this link:

http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/c...ArticleID=2380

The 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791. So roughly the same era as the ^ standard pistol.

EDIT:

Our rights tend to end where others' begin. In primary education, I lost my right of free speech. I couldn't just say anything when I wanted. You can't go outside someone's house with a megaphone and scream at them, even though you're assembling peaceably and using your freedom of speech. And I can't exercise my religion of Walla-Womba, which states I should goose pretty women on their posteriors :( Our rights aren't indestructible and set in stone or they would always run rough shod over other ppls' rights.

CAVman

You CLEARLY Did NOT Actually Review My Links!

You Just Read 'Flintlock's And Starting Talking About Horse Pistols!

I'm Sticking To My GUNS On This One...




You Are Simply...Incorrect!


CAVman in WYoming

DukeRustfield

Yes. I did.

*sigh*

You really want to do this?


http://www.oldguns.co.uk/4.html <<--I wanted to look at these more but almost none are dated and have measurements. Most are in the 1800's and/or of the length I was speaking of. Nearly everything that is 1700s is rather large. Please read them!

The below was circa 1750 they say and <6", but as I said, this is ornamental and clearly would not be common. And probably not practical, either.



http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/antiq...muff_pist.html <<--1820 >1791, and 1820 is when they opened shop, so likely those are the very earliest they would be
http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/ladies-muff-pistol <<--1820 > 1791
http://johnjhayeshistoricalcollectib...il.asp?prod=g7 <<--doesn't actually show size, has been "converted" to percussion and just because it has 1776 written it means nothing. That was a rather important year.