The Federalist Papers were published in 1788, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Ammendment, were added in 1791. I dont see how someone reading the the Federalist Papers would gain much insight into the founding fathers' intention regarding a law they had not yet created. Anymore questions?
You obviously don't know as much history as you seem to think you do. You can try doing a bit of googling, or you can read the actual text. The bottom line is that you are wrong and anybody who has studied american history will tell you how closely the Federalist Papers and The Bill of Rights are linked. To quote Wikipedia: [rquoter] Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers [/rquoter] If you check the article on the Federalist Papers at wikipedia, they have links that document this fact. Anymore questions?
If the bulk of the Federalist Papers and the original draft of Bill of Rights were written by the same person in the same year, would your statements hold true?
Glad you mentioned Scotland. The massacre of Dunblame (?) was initiated by a member of local gun club. Yes he was a mad man. But mad man who has access to gun. A lot of people pretend as if there is no way of stopping mad man from their destiny. That is load of bull****. From my experiences in Tokyo and London, an ordinary man without, any connection to gangsters, have virtually no accessible way of obtaining a gun. So in essence, arms prohibition won't stop profit orientated gun crimes, but it will do a lot to stop from ordinary people from commiting serious crimes due to rush of blood.
Good point. Allow me to counter. Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway 2005 terrorist bomb attacks on London underground
those were politically motivated with lots of funding and organized groups. they weren't the attacks of lone madmen who just grew frustrated with life and wanted to take it out on someone. no one is suggesting more stringent gun control will curb terrorism.
Again, people keep saying that banning guns or reducing accessibility will reduce murder, but the statistics say that that will not happen. Your goal is not achieved by your remedy.
What statistics say that? In this thread, many people gave many examples in many countries, states, counties that it is the case. The problem is there are statistics, studies that are done by both sides and neither is willing to accept the other's.
Bill of Rights was added AFTER the Constitution was created. You obviously dont know as much history as you think you do. I know the Federalist papers relate very strongly to the Consitution, I have read several of them this semester (UT, government class). However, they have little to do with the Bill of Rights, which was added as a contigent of ratification and after the Federalist Papers, which were basically a campagin to get the Constitution ratified, were written.
Since Maddison did not feel the need to included a Bill of Rights in the original Consitution and added it later after basically being forced by an anti-federalist majority which was affraid of a powerful government, I would say that my statement would still hold true.
I do not deny that gun prohibition is totally irrelevant to the trajedies mentioned above. But that is to miss the point. The implicit assumption in your argument is that all murder case involves intent. Without dwelling on the exact definition of what constitute as intent, it seems to me that you are suggesting as if all murder cases are pre-planned. Hence, if you ban them the gun, then they will find other ways of achieving their aims; i.e. gasses, or bombing. I just think this premise is fallacious. The gun is, without any shadow of doubt, the easiest tool of killing fellow human beings. A pull of trigger then even a seven year-old could kill a giant of man such as Mirko Krocop. As a matter of fact, this one of the reason why in guerilla war kids are often deployed as shooters, because they simply have no fear, and equally capable of bringing down the opposition. If you couple this with the tendency that a lot of human behaviour is driven by a moment of impulse, then it should be evident that there will be some cases whereby ordinary people may in a moment of fever might kill a fellow man with irreversible outcome when in retrospect they might have not done so. Now I do not want to suggest that people have this inert desire that is so strong that no reasonable rationality cannot overcome it. The majority is sensible enough to end domestic or other personal disputes in a quarrel instead of shooting the hell out of each other. But the fact remains that shooting is still the easiest method of killing mankind. What gun prohibition essentially does is that it increases the cost of killing other people. That is certainly the case in Japan and England, since the law enforcing units are sufficiently strong enough to prohibit any illegal activities taking place with ease. Given that gun is, by definition, least costly way of killing people, it puts greater emphasis on the ability and willingness on the part of initiator. Take London Terror Bomb for instance. Whilst most people remembers explicitly about what happened place on July the 7th, we shouldnt also forget that there was a similar failed attempt at the London Underground. No matter how much one may argue that mking a reliable bomb isn't that difficult at all, detonating a bomb is a still lot of harder than a pull of trigger. As a case in point, the murder rate in U.S far higher than in UK despite the fact that for every other "dangerous crimes", it is UK not US, contrary to the common perception, that one is far more liable to be involved. Given that this is a report from The Economist couple of years ago, I shall excuse myself to provide a link here. Gun is probably not the sole reason for such statistical divergences, but showing that shooting poses far less cost than stabbing or bombing shouldn't be too hard to grasp. I mean, how many people here, bar mentally peverted ones, would prefer to stab person with blood gushing all over themselves, over a simple silent shot with extremely little personal contact or effort. That is why Ottamaton makes completely wrong inference from the statistic. Correlation is highly useful back of the envelope but certainly insufficient statistic to draw conclusions on matters being investigated. It may be the case that the states with more restrictive gun control may have such regulations precisely because of higher gun related crimes in the past. One has to investigate the statistical relationship throughout entire time series than just cross-sectional analysis if they intend to draw sound conclusion. Empirical inference is only correct in so far as it is conducted under a condition of ceteris paribus. The premise that the gun poses least cost of killing people is so true I am shocked that there are people willing to disagree. I mean how hard is it to grasp that it requires more risk and pain (mentally and physically) than simply pull of the trigger. From this alone, gun should unequivocally increase the number of deaths. Whether the differences with the alternative method of killing is significant enough to warrant a prohibition is something I cannot be entirely sure of. But my intuition suggests that is the case, and given the possible threat gun poses to the society, I believe the responsibility lies on the part of gun-holder not avearage citizen to prove that gun does not pose severe threat to the society. In anycase, I am entirely happy that I live in a country whereby I feel safe enough to know I don't have to carry a weapon to provide a protection of myself. And that I can give my trust to law-enforcing departments to make the society as peaceful as possible. I haven't seen a single policemen that suggests the presencee of gun is irrelevant to their work.
*Sigh* One example among many. Don't try to teach your grandpa to suck eggs. Do you think people just woke up a few years after the constitution and said, "You know, I just realised we forgot about a bill of rights?" and enacted the ammendments the same day? [rquoter] Federalist paper #84 To the People of the State of New York: IN THE course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, I have taken notice of, and endeavored to answer most of the objections which have appeared against it. There, however, remain a few which either did not fall naturally under any particular head or were forgotten in their proper places. These shall now be discussed; but as the subject has been drawn into great length, I shall so far consult brevity as to comprise all my observations on these miscellaneous points in a single paper. The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no <strong>bill of rights</strong>. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked that the constitutions of several of the States are in a similar predicament. I add that New York is of the number. And yet the opposers of the new system, in this State, who profess an unlimited admiration for its constitution, are among the most intemperate partisans of a bill of rights. To justify their zeal in this matter, they allege two things: one is that, though the constitution of New York has no bill of rights prefixed to it, yet it contains, in the body of it, various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights, which, in substance amount to the same thing; the other is, that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured. To the first I answer, that the Constitution proposed by the convention contains, as well as the constitution of this State, a number of such provisions. Independent of those which relate to the structure of the government, we find the following: Article 1, section 3, clause 7 "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law." Section 9, of the same article, clause 2 "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Clause 3 "No bill of attainder or ex-post-facto law shall be passed." Clause 7 "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Article 3, section 2, clause 3 "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Section 3, of the same article "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." And clause 3, of the same section "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of equal importance with any which are to be found in the constitution of this State. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,1 in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, Usays he,e or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas-corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution."2 Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people. To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself. It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired. I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights. There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing. Another objection which has been made, and which, from the frequency of its repetition, it is to be presumed is relied on, is of this nature: "It is improper Usay the objectorse to confer such large powers, as are proposed, upon the national government, because the seat of that government must of necessity be too remote from many of the States to admit of a proper knowledge on the part of the constituent, of the conduct of the representative body." This argument, if it proves any thing, proves that there ought to be no general government whatever. For the powers which, it seems to be agreed on all hands, ought to be vested in the Union, cannot be safely intrusted to a body which is not under every requisite control. But there are satisfactory reasons to show that the objection is in reality not well founded. There is in most of the arguments which relate to distance a palpable illusion of the imagination. What are the sources of information by which the people in Montgomery County must regulate their judgment of the conduct of their representatives in the State legislature? Of personal observation they can have no benefit. This is confined to the citizens on the spot. They must therefore depend on the information of intelligent men, in whom they confide; and how must these men obtain their information? Evidently from the complexion of public measures, from the public prints, from correspondences with theirrepresentatives, and with other persons who reside at the place of their deliberations. This does not apply to Montgomery County only, but to all the counties at any considerable distance from the seat of government. It is equally evident that the same sources of information would be open to the people in relation to the conduct of their representatives in the general government, and the impediments to a prompt communication which distance may be supposed to create, will be overbalanced by the effects of the vigilance of the State governments. The executive and legislative bodies of each State will be so many sentinels over the persons employed in every department of the national administration; and as it will be in their power to adopt and pursue a regular and effectual system of intelligence, they can never be at a loss to know the behavior of those who represent their constituents in the national councils, and can readily communicate the same knowledge to the people. Their disposition to apprise the community of whatever may prejudice its interests from another quarter, may be relied upon, if it were only from the rivalship of power. And we may conclude with the fullest assurance that the people, through that channel, will be better informed of the conduct of their national representatives, than they can be by any means they now possess of that of their State representatives. It ought also to be remembered that the citizens who inhabit the country at and near the seat of government will, in all questions that affect the general liberty and prosperity, have the same interest with those who are at a distance, and that they will stand ready to sound the alarm when necessary, and to point out the actors in any pernicious project. The public papers will be expeditious messengers of intelligence to the most remote inhabitants of the Union. Among the many curious objections which have appeared against the proposed Constitution, the most extraordinary and the least colorable is derived from the want of some provision respecting the debts due TO the United States. This has been represented as a tacit relinquishment of those debts, and as a wicked contrivance to screen public defaulters. The newspapers have teemed with the most inflammatory railings on this head; yet there is nothing clearer than that the suggestion is entirely void of foundation, the offspring of extreme ignorance or extreme dishonesty. In addition to the remarks I have made upon the subject in another place, I shall only observe that as it is a plain dictate of common-sense, so it is also an established doctrine of political law, that "STATES NEITHER LOSE ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS, NOR ARE DISCHARGED FROM ANY OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS, BY A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF THEIR CIVIL GOVERNMENT."4 The last objection of any consequence, which I at present recollect, turns upon the article of expense. If it were even true, that the adoption of the proposed government would occasion a considerable increase of expense, it would be an objection that ought to have no weight against the plan. The great bulk of the citizens of America are with reason convinced, that Union is the basis of their political happiness. Men of sense of all parties now, with few exceptions, agree that it cannot be preserved under the present system, nor without radical alterations; that new and extensive powers ought to be granted to the national head, and that these require a different organization of the federal government a single body being an unsafe depositary of such ample authorities. In conceding all this, the question of expense must be given up; for it is impossible, with any degree of safety, to narrow the foundation upon which the system is to stand. The two branches of the legislature are, in the first instance, to consist of only sixty-five persons, which is the same number of which Congress, under the existing Confederation, may be composed. It is true that this number is intended to be increased; but this is to keep pace with the progress of the population and resources of the country. It is evident that a less number would, even in the first instance, have been unsafe, and that a continuance of the present number would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people. Whence is the dreaded augmentation of expense to spring? One source indicated, is the multiplication of offices under the new government. Let us examine this a little. It is evident that the principal departments of the administration under the present government, are the same which will be required under the new. There are now a Secretary of War, a Secretary of Foreign Affairs, a Secretary for Domestic Affairs, a Board of Treasury, consisting of three persons, a Treasurer, assistants, clerks, etc. These officers are indispensable under any system, and will suffice under the new as well as the old. As to ambassadors and other ministers and agents in foreign countries, the proposed Constitution can make no other difference than to render their characters, where they reside, more respectable, and their services more useful. As to persons to be employed in the collection of the revenues, it is unquestionably true that these will form a very considerable addition to the number of federal officers; but it will not follow that this will occasion an increase of public expense. It will be in most cases nothing more than an exchange of State for national officers. In the collection of all duties, for instance, the persons employed will be wholly of the latter description. The States individually will stand in no need of any for this purpose. What difference can it make in point of expense to pay officers of the customs appointed by the State or by the United States? There is no good reason to suppose that either the number or the salaries of the latter will be greater than those of the former. Where then are we to seek for those additional articles of expense which are to swell the account to the enormous size that has been represented to us? The chief item which occurs to me respects the support of the judges of the United States. I do not add the President, because there is now a president of Congress, whose expenses may not be far, if any thing, short of those which will be incurred on account of the President of the United States. The support of the judges will clearly be an extra expense, but to what extent will depend on the particular plan which may be adopted in regard to this matter. But upon no reasonable plan can it amount to a sum which will be an object of material consequence. Let us now see what there is to counterbalance any extra expense that may attend the establishment of the proposed government. The first thing which presents itself is that a great part of the business which now keeps Congress sitting through the year will be transacted by the President. Even the management of foreign negotiations will naturally devolve upon him, according to general principles concerted with the Senate, and subject to their final concurrence. Hence it is evident that a portion of the year will suffice for the session of both the Senate and the House of Representatives; we may suppose about a fourth for the latter and a third, or perhaps half, for the former. The extra business of treaties and appointments may give this extra occupation to the Senate. From this circumstance we may infer that, until the House of Representatives shall be increased greatly beyond its present number, there will be a considerable saving of expense from the difference between the constant session of the present and the temporary session of the future Congress. But there is another circumstance of great importance in the view of economy. The business of the United States has hitherto occupied the State legislatures, as well as Congress. The latter has made requisitions which the former have had to provide for. Hence it has happened that the sessions of the State legislatures have been protracted greatly beyond what was necessary for the execution of the mere local business of the States. More than half their time has been frequently employed in matters which related to the United States. Now the members who compose the legislatures of the several States amount to two thousand and upwards, which number has hitherto performed what under the new system will be done in the first instance by sixty-five persons, and probably at no future period by above a fourth or fifth of that number. The Congress under the proposed government will do all the business of the United States themselves, without the intervention of the State legislatures, who thenceforth will have only to attend to the affairs of their particular States, and will not have to sit in any proportion as long as they have heretofore done. This difference in the time of the sessions of the State legislatures will be clear gain, and will alone form an article of saving, which may be regarded as an equivalent for any additional objects of expense that may be occasioned by the adoption of the new system. The result from these observations is that the sources of additional expense from the establishment of the proposed Constitution are much fewer than may have been imagined; that they are counterbalanced by considerable objects of saving; and that while it is questionable on which side the scale will preponderate, it is certain that a government less expensive would be incompetent to the purposes of the Union. PUBLIUS. [/rquoter]
If you present a legitimate study that shows or indicates that gun control reduces murder, I will look at it. None has been produced to date. Several statistics have been produced showing no effect or negative effect following the enactment of bans. New Yorker provided some statistics that were completely unrelated to the point he was trying to make. There was also one study presented that essentially used slight of hand which could not stand scrutiny. Beyond that I haven't seen any data.
What exactly are you proving? After the Constitution was written, the lack of a Bill of Rights was a criticism. If anything, some parts of this article argue AGAINST a Bill of Rights because they would give the people too much power in the future (sound familiar). Again, how does reading this article enlighten me on the intent of the 2nd Amendment, which is how this Federalist Paper debate began? If anything, it shows Madison as begruging it, not embracing it, in my view at least.
