2nd Amendment (101)

[CAA Flagship]

I lean right but my only weapon is a Louisville Slugger and an Italian temper.
That combo is lethal.

I had to stop at security at work to enter the building with a baseball bat that I sold to a co-worker.

See?

[CID1990]

Our founding fathers didn't want the government to have a standing Army or foreign entanglements.

That's not factually accurate. The Federalist Papers (at least in #29 and #46, the former by Hamilton and the latter by Madison) clearly had no issue with standing armies, per se, and were more concerned with the size of them. Heck, the #29 one actually called them necessary. How does that square with your statement that they didn't want to have them? As for the foreign entanglements, that's a pretty vague statement. Of course Washington warned about foreign alliances, especially during the nascent period of the government, but international trade was clearly always going to be something we did. Even in the 1790's the Founders realized that the ocean wasn't infinite.

Why are you wasting time (expecting a constructive or intelligible answer) from houndawg?

[Col Hogan]

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli...

Since Tripoli was in 1805, I think our founding fathers understood they'd be involved overseas to protect American interests...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

+1

Our founding fathers didn't want the government to have a standing Army or foreign entanglements.

no shit.....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[kalm]

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli...

Since Tripoli was in 1805, I think our founding fathers understood they'd be involved overseas to protect American interests...

And in 1803 Jefferson massively grew the scope of government with the Louisiana Purchase (a decision he philosophically struggled with).

See? Living constitution within a decade...

[Col Hogan]

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli...

Since Tripoli was in 1805, I think our founding fathers understood they'd be involved overseas to protect American interests...

And in 1803 Jefferson massively grew the scope of government with the Louisiana Purchase (a decision he philosophically struggled with).

See? Living constitution within a decade...

He grew the land mass of the country...how did he grow the scope of the government...

Living Constitution... ...the liberal excuse to do what they want without following the Constitution...

[kalm]

And in 1803 Jefferson massively grew the scope of government with the Louisiana Purchase (a decision he philosophically struggled with).

See? Living constitution within a decade...

He grew the land mass of the country...how did he grow the scope of the government...

Living Constitution... ...the liberal excuse to do what they want without following the Constitution...

Relax, Skippy. That was a bit of satire. Conservatives are originalists as long as it agrees with their interpretations of the constitution...

Jefferson recognized the dangers of making such a purchase and questioned whether it jived with his ideals of limited government. Curious that you don't. The LA Purchase might be more responsible for growing the scope and size of the federal government than any other action.

[CID1990]

He grew the land mass of the country...how did he grow the scope of the government...

Living Constitution... ...the liberal excuse to do what they want without following the Constitution...

Relax, Skippy. That was a bit of satire. Conservatives are originalists as long as it agrees with their interpretations of the constitution...

Jefferson recognized the dangers of making such a purchase and questioned whether it jived with his ideals of limited government. Curious that you don't. The LA Purchase might be more responsible for growing the scope and size of the federal government than any other action.

What parts of the government grew as a result of this land purchase?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Relax, Skippy. That was a bit of satire. Conservatives are originalists as long as it agrees with their interpretations of the constitution...

Jefferson recognized the dangers of making such a purchase and questioned whether it jived with his ideals of limited government. Curious that you don't. The LA Purchase might be more responsible for growing the scope and size of the federal government than any other action.

What parts of the government grew as a result of this land purchase?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not immediately, but practically every part. When you expand from coast to coast you're gonna grow. Hell, we probably wouldn't have a BLM if not it.

[89Hen]

What parts of the government grew as a result of this land purchase?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not immediately, but practically every part. When you expand from coast to coast you're gonna grow. Hell, we probably wouldn't have a BLM if not it.

Bigger because there is more land/people is not the same as growing in scope.

[kalm]

Not immediately, but practically every part. When you expand from coast to coast you're gonna grow. Hell, we probably wouldn't have a BLM if not it.

Bigger because there is more land/people is not the same as growing in scope.

Sure it does.

[CID1990]

What parts of the government grew as a result of this land purchase?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not immediately, but practically every part. When you expand from coast to coast you're gonna grow. Hell, we probably wouldn't have a BLM if not it.

So nothing you can point to or document

Check

[89Hen]

Bigger because there is more land/people is not the same as growing in scope.

Sure it does.

Doubling the size of the FBI because there are twice as many people is different than doubling the size of the FBI because you're adding more laws to enforce on the same number of people.

[kalm]

Sure it does.

Doubling the size of the FBI because there are twice as many people is different than doubling the size of the FBI because you're adding more laws to enforce on the same number of people.

True, but entire new agencies and acts of congress were created to deal with western lands.

[Col Hogan]

He grew the land mass of the country...how did he grow the scope of the government...

Living Constitution... ...the liberal excuse to do what they want without following the Constitution...

Relax, Skippy. That was a bit of satire. Conservatives are originalists as long as it agrees with their interpretations of the constitution...

Jefferson recognized the dangers of making such a purchase and questioned whether it jived with his ideals of limited government. Curious that you don't. The LA Purchase might be more responsible for growing the scope and size of the federal government than any other action.

Limited government does not oppose growing to meet the needs of the country...limited government opposes what we called "mission creep" in the military...

The Education Dept...HUD...HHS...

The Louisiana Purchse had nothing to do with establishing those departments...

[JohnStOnge]

Why?

Because the individual person cannot singlehandedly service a ship of the line or a siege gun. They were referring to personal weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can see that as a semantic argument for arguing against an "individual" right. But "the People" is not a reference to a single person.

[JohnStOnge]

On the standing army issue: I don't think hound is wrong. It looks to me like what they were after was a situation in which they had a permanent Navy but for the most part relied on State militias for the ground force part.

I say that because of the following specifically enumerated Article I Congressional powers:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It looks to me like they clearly were not thinking in terms of a permanent standing army such as we have today and were instead thinking in terms of using the mlitia as the permanent, ongoing defensive ground force.

[kalm]

Relax, Skippy. That was a bit of satire. Conservatives are originalists as long as it agrees with their interpretations of the constitution...

Jefferson recognized the dangers of making such a purchase and questioned whether it jived with his ideals of limited government. Curious that you don't. The LA Purchase might be more responsible for growing the scope and size of the federal government than any other action.

Limited government does not oppose growing to meet the needs of the country...limited government opposes what we called "mission creep" in the military...

The Education Dept...HUD...HHS...

The Louisiana Purchse had nothing to do with establishing those departments...

I mostly agree and like I said, Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the LA Purchase. He knew it needed to happen but mission creep?

BTW, land grant universities could be considered mission creep as could the RR and Homestead Acts.

[CID1990]

Limited government does not oppose growing to meet the needs of the country...limited government opposes what we called "mission creep" in the military...

The Education Dept...HUD...HHS...

The Louisiana Purchse had nothing to do with establishing those departments...

I mostly agree and like I said, Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the LA Purchase. He knew it needed to happen but mission creep?

BTW, land grant universities could be considered mission creep as could the RR and Homestead Acts.

Oh yes

Those exemplars of Big Government.... Auburn, Clempson, and UNC

OH and the Homestead Act.. enacted in 1862 (when was the Louisiana Purchase again?).... to give away vast tracts of land to private citizens with no regulatory strings attached.... other than to ask for 5 years residence in return?

Yeah that's some OPPRESSIVE REGULATORY BIG GUMMINT right there

Why don't you go ahead and cut bait, klam

[houndawg]

On the standing army issue: I don't think hound is wrong. It looks to me like what they were after was a situation in which they had a permanent Navy but for the most part relied on State militias for the ground force part.

I say that because of the following specifically enumerated Article I Congressional powers:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It looks to me like they clearly were not thinking in terms of a permanent standing army such as we have today and were instead thinking in terms of using the mlitia as the permanent, ongoing defensive ground force.

Suppress insurrections? Well so much for keeping the guvmint in line....

[kalm]

I mostly agree and like I said, Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the LA Purchase. He knew it needed to happen but mission creep?

BTW, land grant universities could be considered mission creep as could the RR and Homestead Acts.

Oh yes

Those exemplars of Big Government.... Auburn, Clempson, and UNC

OH and the Homestead Act.. enacted in 1862 (when was the Louisiana Purchase again?).... to give away vast tracts of land to private citizens with no regulatory strings attached.... other than to ask for 5 years residence in return?

Yeah that's some OPPRESSIVE REGULATORY BIG GUMMINT right there

Why don't you go ahead and cut bait, klam

Hey...you asked for examples and now you're moving the goal posts to "oppressive regulatory big gummint" and how long it took to the federal government to encourage westward expansion...

Also, please show me where the constitution grants power to the president to buy foreign property (don't worry, Jefferson struggled to find it too).



BTW, ask the Oregon and Nevada ranchers if the BLM represents OPPRESSIVE REGULATORY BIG GUMMINT...

Spoiler: show

Pssst....CID, why cut bait when I agree with all those things and big bad government originalists are still biting?

[CID1990]

Oh yes

Those exemplars of Big Government.... Auburn, Clempson, and UNC

OH and the Homestead Act.. enacted in 1862 (when was the Louisiana Purchase again?).... to give away vast tracts of land to private citizens with no regulatory strings attached.... other than to ask for 5 years residence in return?

Yeah that's some OPPRESSIVE REGULATORY BIG GUMMINT right there

Why don't you go ahead and cut bait, klam

Hey...you asked for examples and now you're moving the goal posts to "oppressive regulatory big gummint" and how long it took to the federal government to encourage westward expansion...

Also, please show me where the constitution grants power to the president to buy foreign property (don't worry, Jefferson struggled to find it too).



BTW, ask the Oregon and Nevada ranchers if the BLM represents OPPRESSIVE REGULATORY BIG GUMMINT...

Spoiler: show

Pssst....CID, why cut bait when I agree with all those things and big bad government originalists are still biting?

The only one moving goalposts is you klam-

You've now twice drawn a straight line between the Louisiana Purchase and BLM

All you have is Jefferson's questionable purchase itself, which would have happened eventually anyway through the war making powers

And - somehow - you make that as a lynchpin of expanding government, using examples from nearly a century later

You can stop now

[houndawg]

On the standing army issue: I don't think hound is wrong. It looks to me like what they were after was a situation in which they had a permanent Navy but for the most part relied on State militias for the ground force part.

I say that because of the following specifically enumerated Article I Congressional powers:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It looks to me like they clearly were not thinking in terms of a permanent standing army such as we have today and were instead thinking in terms of using the mlitia as the permanent, ongoing defensive ground force.

In Canem, Veritas.

Should be the motto here.

[kalm]

Hey...you asked for examples and now you're moving the goal posts to "oppressive regulatory big gummint" and how long it took to the federal government to encourage westward expansion...

Also, please show me where the constitution grants power to the president to buy foreign property (don't worry, Jefferson struggled to find it too).



BTW, ask the Oregon and Nevada ranchers if the BLM represents OPPRESSIVE REGULATORY BIG GUMMINT...

Spoiler: show

Pssst....CID, why cut bait when I agree with all those things and big bad government originalists are still biting?

The only one moving goalposts is you klam-

You've now twice drawn a straight line between the Louisiana Purchase and BLM

All you have is Jefferson's questionable purchase itself, which would have happened eventually anyway through the war making powers

And - somehow - you make that as a lynchpin of expanding government, using examples from nearly a century later

You can stop now

Well you sure as hell are gonna have a tough time exploring, populating, developing, and eventually managing that kind of acreage without expanding government. In some ways its similar to how military projection requires a larger government.

But I'm glad you recognize that Jefferson questioned the constitutionality of it which was my original smarmy point.

[CID1990]

The only one moving goalposts is you klam-

You've now twice drawn a straight line between the Louisiana Purchase and BLM

All you have is Jefferson's questionable purchase itself, which would have happened eventually anyway through the war making powers

And - somehow - you make that as a lynchpin of expanding government, using examples from nearly a century later

You can stop now

Well you sure as hell are gonna have a tough time exploring, populating, developing, and eventually managing that kind of acreage without expanding government. In some ways its similar to how military projection requires a larger government.

But I'm glad you recognize that Jefferson questioned the constitutionality of it which was my original smarmy point.

Yes I see your argument-

It fits nicely right in here:

There's no way jet fuel fires can melt steel

There's no way you can increase land holdings without increasing the size of government

There's no way just 7 billion humans can change the earth's climate

Like I told JSO.... I'll let you figure out the fallacious logic






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk