2 ms·

In the context of a discussion of the 2nd amendment's [intended] purpose and how those that wrote it felt toward the people I fail to see the relevance of a quo

In the context of a discussion of the 2nd amendment's [intended] purpose and how those that wrote it felt toward the people I fail to see the relevance of a quote by someone who had no part in writing our Constitution. [John Adams was in Britain during the Constitutional Convention].

refurb 12y ago
I can provide more quotes but i get the sense that nothing will convince you. The ability of citizens to maintain power over the government was a critical piece of how the US constitution was developed. Hell, just read the opinions from DC v Heller.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  You're correct, quotes won't convince me. Actions (i.e. what they wrote into the Constitution) mean much more than anything they said. And what they wrote was: * a House of Representatives selected by the people * a Senate selected by state legislatures * two executives selected by Congress (with the remaining members of the executive branch at most needing consent from the portion of Congress not selected by the people) * a judicial branch selected by the executive (again, requiring consent only from the Senate, who were not selected by the people) So out of the entire government they gave the people the ability to select half of one branch. And while that one branch would select the President (and VP) it would have no voice in selecting the rest of the executive branch or any of the judicial. The ability to remove members of either the executive or judicial branch also went to the branch not selected by the people. Sorry, but when I read the Constitution I don't see much "ability of citizens to maintain power over the government." As for District of Columbia v. Heller the question was if the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms for lawful purposes - violently overthrowing the government is most assuredly not lawful, regardless of who you want to quote while doing it.

refurb 12y ago

I can provide more quotes but i get the sense that nothing will convince you. The ability of citizens to maintain power over the government was a critical piece of how the US constitution was developed. Hell, just read the opinions from DC v Heller.

frostmatthew 12y ago
You're correct, quotes won't convince me. Actions (i.e. what they wrote into the Constitution) mean much more than anything they said. And what they wrote was: * a House of Representatives selected by the people * a Senate selected by state legislatures * two executives selected by Congress (with the remaining members of the executive branch at most needing consent from the portion of Congress not selected by the people) * a judicial branch selected by the executive (again, requiring consent only from the Senate, who were not selected by the people) So out of the entire government they gave the people the ability to select half of one branch. And while that one branch would select the President (and VP) it would have no voice in selecting the rest of the executive branch or any of the judicial. The ability to remove members of either the executive or judicial branch also went to the branch not selected by the people. Sorry, but when I read the Constitution I don't see much "ability of citizens to maintain power over the government." As for District of Columbia v. Heller the question was if the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms for lawful purposes - violently overthrowing the government is most assuredly not lawful, regardless of who you want to quote while doing it.