Guns in America: Rights vs. Reality

[JerryAL]

http://youtu.be/mGO5U3AMTVQ

(http://youtu.be/mGO5U3AMTVQ)I am posting this video to get some honest answers and opinions to what average Americans think the Founding Fathers actually meant by the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment.

[Chris]

Something like this:


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

@ The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment (http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm)

Note that well regulated modifies militia, not the right to keep and bear arms: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Cigar]

I personally don’t need any so-called “Founding Fathers” to guide me in my thinking, especially when it comes to a common sense question. I can never imagine myself in a situation where I would need to pull a Gun Trigger 20, 30, 60 or 100 times in a row. I don’t care how mad I am at a Kitchen Appliance in a open range.

[JerryAL]

Note that well regulated modifies militia, not the right to keep and bear arms: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Interesting, but you could also question the terms "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" in your defined explanation when guns are used unlawfully in the United States could you not?

In other words, is the Second Amendment "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected", if average citizens are killing each other and themselves by the thousands every year?

[GrassrootsConservative]

I personally don’t need any so-called “Founding Fathers” to guide me in my thinking, especially when it comes to a common sense question. I can never imagine myself in a situation where I would need to pull a Gun Trigger 20, 30, 60 or 100 times in a row. I don’t care how mad I am at a Kitchen Appliance in a open range.
Now you expect us to believe you have common sense?

[Chris]

Interesting, but you could also question the terms "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" in your defined explanation when guns are used unlawfully in the United States could you not?

In other words, is the Second Amendment "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected", if average citizens are killing each other and themselves by the thousands every year?

Sure, you could substitute those words and apply them to militia. But the syntax of the amendment doesn't allow you to stretch them all the way over to right to keep and bear arms.

[Cigar]

Now you expect us to believe you have common sense?



You can believe anything you want .... it's the internet.

[Cigar]

Sure, you could substitute those words and apply them to militia. But the syntax of the amendment doesn't allow you to stretch them all the way over to right to keep and bear arms.

So let's please stop using the phrase "gun control."

In respect for the U.S. Constitution: use the phrase "gun regulation."

We regulate speed on the highway, legal blood alcohol limits, age of eligibility of Medicare, requirements to be licensed professionally as physician, nurse........ ect.

The Second Amendment asks us to demand that our militia be "well regulated"

[Chris]

So let's please stop using the phrase "gun control."

In respect for the U.S. Constitution: use the phrase "gun regulation."

We regulate speed on the highway, legal blood alcohol limits, age of eligibility of Medicare, requirements to be licensed professionally as physician, nurse........ ect.

The Second Amendment asks us to demand that our militia be "well regulated"

I see you're still just joking. How else could you go from well regulated militia to well regulated guns.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So let's please stop using the phrase "gun control."

In respect for the U.S. Constitution: use the phrase "gun regulation."

We regulate speed on the highway, legal blood alcohol limits, age of eligibility of Medicare, requirements to be licensed professionally as physician, nurse........ ect.

The Second Amendment asks us to demand that our militia be "well regulated"

There's a difference between guns and militia, nitwit.

[JerryAL]

Sure, you could substitute those words and apply them to militia. But the syntax of the amendment doesn't allow you to stretch them all the way over to right to keep and bear arms.

Of course you must realize that gun control advocates will say that you can NOT split the Second Amendment into two separate parts. Therefore, their argument will be that since the first portion of the Second Amendment refers to Militias, then the rest of the Second Amendment simply supplements the first part.

Also, because there are actually two versions of the Second Amendment, with regards to punctuation, it can make the meaning even more uncertain.

Version 1: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Version 2: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Chris]

Well regulated militia basically meant all men were required to keep and bears arms in defense of their community. So, yea, let's make it a law every adult must own a gun...like the Swiss do.

[JerryAL]

Well regulated militia basically meant all men were required to keep and bears arms in defense of their community. So, yea, let's make it a law every adult must own a gun...like the Swiss do.

So do you actually feel there should be NO litmus test for gun ownership in America?

There are a lot of people popping pills for depression these days. Should they be part of that "well regulated militia" defending their community?

[zelmo1234]

I personally don’t need any so-called “Founding Fathers” to guide me in my thinking, especially when it comes to a common sense question. I can never imagine myself in a situation where I would need to pull a Gun Trigger 20, 30, 60 or 100 times in a row. I don’t care how mad I am at a Kitchen Appliance in a open range.

Yes but they did right the 2nd amendment, and if all of the people support the position of the Dems like you say they do, then your party should be a man about it and intorduce a constitutional amndment to repeal the 2nd amendment!

The truth is if in a fire fight, you do not know how many shots you need.

I am 100% sure that the police are trained better than you are, and they don't always hit what they are shooting at

http://articles.cnn.com/1997-02-28/us/9702_28_shootout.update_1_armored-police-chief-willie-williams-car-wreck?_s=PM:US

There are very few people that can keep there cool when being shot at! Most get tunnel vision, some will even black out!

So the truth is you had better hope like the rest of us that you are never put in that situation.

[Chris]

So do you actually feel there should be NO litmus test for gun ownership in America?

There are a lot of people popping pills for depression these days. Should they be part of that "well regulated militia" defending their community?

I think every gun owner should be properly trained in the use and safety of his weapons.

Criminals and pill poppers should be regulated.

[zelmo1234]

So do you actually feel there should be NO litmus test for gun ownership in America?

There are a lot of people popping pills for depression these days. Should they be part of that "well regulated militia" defending their community?

We regulated at the time meant well trained and equipt.

We have laws that try to kepp firarms out of the hands of criminals.

Felons for example loose there right to gun ownership. Not sure if Anti depressants are the line or not, do not know that much about them, but some of the shooters have been on anti sicotic drugs, that might be the line.

I thnk thata most people would not mind having to go through a backgroudn check or the idea I like better would be a gun purchasers liecence. mutch like a drivers liecence. This would aloow easy private sales as well, because anyone with the ID could legally buy a firearm.

Restricting type of weapons or size of magizines is totally worthless with out confiscation. To many on the market today so is not going to make any differance.

[JerryAL]

I think every gun owner should be properly trained in the use and safety of his weapons.

Criminals and pill poppers should be regulated.

Well as of January 11, 2013, at 1:16 PM CST they simply are NOT regulated very well at all.

[Cigar]

I think every gun owner should be properly trained in the use and safety of his weapons.

Criminals and pill poppers should be regulated.



I can't image why anyone wound want to spend good money on a Gun that they don't know about or how to use?

I took a training course once an it was fun and enlightening, and I learned some things special about the Gun I purchased.

[Chris]

I can't image why anyone wound want to spend good money on a Gun that they don't know about or how to use?

I took a training course once an it was fun and enlightening, and I learned some things special about the Gun I purchased.

I can't either.

[zelmo1234]

what we can be thankful for is that these wack jobs that try and pull of these horrific killings have not been trained well in the use of firearm.

Give someone with a lot of training 20 mins before a cop arrives and the body count would truely be horrific!

[nic34]

My 2 cents and I'm done.

We might concede that legislatures cannot infringe on our right to bear arms, but we know that we can't possibly have the right to own our own nuclear weapon. Some kind of line needs to be drawn between a right to a musket and a right to a thermonuclear device.

The Founders saw militias as an alternative to what they called "standing armies." However, we could all agree that in the 21st-century such a provision in an amendment is outdated. It doesn't matter if we no longer agree that our security depends on a well-regulated militia, or even if we think gun ownership has anything to do with how well-regulated a militia might be. If we think the 2nd Amendment is outdated, we ought to change it.

Today, we need to find that cut-off point, where we might uphold the right to bear arms, honor the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and not act like stupid people. The right to bear arms is indisputable. We just don't know what "arms" are, or why we should have the right to bear them.

Endlessly talking about guns in the context of the 2nd Amendment is foolish and gets us nowhere.

[Chris]

Of course you must realize that gun control advocates will say that you can NOT split the Second Amendment into two separate parts. Therefore, their argument will be that since the first portion of the Second Amendment refers to Militias, then the rest of the Second Amendment simply supplements the first part.

Also, because there are actually two versions of the Second Amendment, with regards to punctuation, it can make the meaning even more uncertain.

Version 1: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Version 2: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Right, but such a reading is ungrammatical. The use of the comma or not changes nothing.

http://i.snag.gy/35LqI.jpg

[Chris]

My 2 cents and I'm done.

We might concede that legislatures cannot infringe on our right to bear arms, but we know that we can't possibly have the right to own our own nuclear weapon. Some kind of line needs to be drawn between a right to a musket and a right to a thermonuclear device.

The Founders saw militias as an alternative to what they called "standing armies." However, we could all agree that in the 21st-century such a provision in an amendment is outdated. It doesn't matter if we no longer agree that our security depends on a well-regulated militia, or even if we think gun ownership has anything to do with how well-regulated a militia might be. If we think the 2nd Amendment is outdated, we ought to change it.

Today, we need to find that cut-off point, where we might uphold the right to bear arms, honor the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and not act like stupid people. The right to bear arms is indisputable. We just don't know what "arms" are, or why we should have the right to bear them.

Endlessly talking about guns in the context of the 2nd Amendment is foolish and gets us nowhere.

Nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum however no one is advocating keeping and bearing nuclear weapons...except governments.

[Cigar]

You have to admit our priorities are a little fucked up, when people in this country will threaten Civil War over the Right to a Gun. But the Right to Health Care, Food, Shelter & Clothing and Employment is subject to the fittest.

The chances of all of us getting sick if far greater than ever needing to use a Gun. As a matter of fact, 9 out 10 us will never pull a trigger in our life, but the mere thought of guaranteeing everyone health coverage just drives some people batty.

I mean ... WTF is this country thinking about; there's definitely something fundamentally wrong with this type of thinking!

[JerryAL]

Right, but such a reading is ungrammatical. The use of the comma or not changes nothing.

http://i.snag.gy/35LqI.jpg

If the Founding Fathers really wanted every American citizen to have the right to keep and bear arms without regulations and limitations the Second Amendment should have read something like this:

"Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then their would have been no disagreement on what the Founding Fathers actually intended the Second Amendment to mean. Just my personal opinion, but they really threw a wrench into the works when they included the "well regulated militia" part.

[Chris]

If the Founding Fathers really wanted every American citizen to have the right to keep and bear arms without limitations the Second Amendment should read something like this:

Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Then their would have been no disagreement on what the Founding Fathers actually intended the Second Amendment to mean. Just my personal opinion, but they really threw a wrench into the works when they included the "well regulated militia" part.

Read up on the nominative absolute grammatical structure. "Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is close to the meaning.

[zelmo1234]

You have to admit our priorities are a little fucked up, when people in this country will threaten Civil War over the Right to a Gun. But the Right to Health Care, Food, Shelter & Clothing and Employment is subject to the fittest.

The chances of all of us getting sick if far greater than ever needing to use a Gun. As a matter of fact, 9 out 10 us will never pull a trigger in our life, but the mere thought of guaranteeing everyone health coverage just drives some people batty.

I mean ... WTF is this country thinking about; there's definitely something fundamentally wrong with this type of thinking!





This is interesting, In this country I was not aware that we were preventing anyone from going out and getting a job, we have laws that prevent hospitals from dening care do to a person ability to pay for the treatment.

WE have social services, and social medical programs and when people fall through those cracks we have charities and homelss shelters.

We prevent no noe from becoming all that they can be. Well that may not be true, democratic welfare and disability policies are designed to make people dependent on the government!

[Cigar]

This is interesting, In this country I was not aware that we were preventing anyone from going out and getting a job, we have laws that prevent hospitals from dening care do to a person ability to pay for the treatment.

WE have social services, and social medical programs and when people fall through those cracks we have charities and homelss shelters.

We prevent no noe from becoming all that they can be. Well that may not be true, democratic welfare and disability policies are designed to make people dependent on the government!


... and no one is coming for your Guns.

Get the point?

[roadmaster]

You have to admit our priorities are a little fucked up, when people in this country will threaten Civil War over the Right to a Gun. But the Right to Health Care, Food, Shelter & Clothing and Employment is subject to the fittest.

The chances of all of us getting sick if far greater than ever needing to use a Gun. As a matter of fact, 9 out 10 us will never pull a trigger in our life, but the mere thought of guaranteeing everyone health coverage just drives some people batty.

I mean ... WTF is this country thinking about; there's definitely something fundamentally wrong with this type of thinking!





Big difference, people are entitled to own a gun for their safety even if they never have to pull the trigger. I do believe in affordable health care for all legal Americans so people are not burdened with hospital bills and scared they will take their homes and get preventable health care screens. If they are employable and can find work that pays enough then if they chose not to then I am not for feeding them. A person that refuses to work shouldn't eat. I do believe in helping the ones who can't find work or unable to work with shelter and food. Nothing wrong with a helping hand but don't enable them to not want to get out and look for a job and don't set them up if they do work and try to take away their food stamps for their underage children, especially young women without support.

[JerryAL]

Read up on the nominative absolute grammatical structure. "Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is close to the meaning.

So you are trying to say that the Founding Fathers were big on "nominative absolute grammatical structure" theory?

Listen, I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.

[Chris]

So you are trying to say that the Founding Fathers were big on "nominative absolute grammatical structure" theory?

Listen, I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.


So you are trying to say that the Founding Fathers were big on "nominative absolute grammatical structure" theory?

Where'd I say that?

It was a common structure back then, not so much anymore, thus the confusion.

[Cigar]

Big difference, people are entitled to own a gun for their safety even if they never have to pull the trigger. I do believe in affordable health care for all legal Americans so people are not burdened with hospital bills and scared they will take their homes and get preventable health care screens. If they are employable and can find work that pays enough then if they chose not to then I am not for feeding them. A person that refuses to work shouldn't eat. I do believe in helping the ones who can't find work or unable to work with shelter and food. Nothing wrong with a helping hand but don't enable them to not want to get out and look for a job and don't set them up if they do work and try to take away their food stamps for their underage children, especially young women without support.


It's amazing how the attitudes toward Americans on Welfare are such that they are there because they are lazy. I personally can not confirm nor deny any percentage of such, but I just assume children don't get to choose who their parents are and some people aren't in control of all of life's situations. My sister did an internship as a caseworker for Chicago Health and Human Services , and was surprised at how all the stereotypes of Welfare where gone in less than an eight hour shift. Everything that everyone told her was not true ... and she would not want to wish anyone in that situation ever.

As far as Guns ... I have had Guns for half of my life and I've never had the need for an automatic assault weapon and I'm in no fear of anyone eer taking what I already have.

[roadmaster]

It's amazing how the attitudes toward Americans on Welfare are such that they are there because they are lazy. I personally can not confirm nor deny any percentage of such, but I just assume children don't get to choose who their parents are and some people aren't in control of all of life's situations. My sister did an internship as a caseworker for Chicago Health and Human Services , and was surprised at how all the stereotypes of Welfare where gone in less than an eight hour shift. Everything that everyone told her was not true ... and she would not want to wish anyone in that situation ever.

As far as Guns ... I have had Guns for half of my life and I've never had the need for an automatic assault weapon and I'm in no fear of anyone eer taking what I already have.

I think everyone should work one day and see that most people don't want to be on welfare. Yes, some do abuse it but most don't.

[Cigar]

I think everyone should work one day and see that most people don't want to be on welfare. Yes, some do abuse it but most don't.

Agreed

Especially those Racist Bigots; they need to set in the corner with their Tinfoil Hat, thumb up their ass and grant everyone their experience and expertise in life. :)

[Chris]

Agreed

Especially those Racist Bigots; they need to set in the corner with their Tinfoil Hat, thumb up their ass and grant everyone their experience and expertise in life. :)

Are you talking about Obama? Don't get so frigging serious, man, lighten up. lol

[zelmo1234]

:pointlaugh:
... and no one is coming for your Guns.

Get the point?

that's not what the democrats say!!! Remember when you post something that one stupid republican says and then blame the entire republican party. the shoe is not on the other foot.

So Democrats are in fact calling for a total gun ban, and gun confiscation as you will see in the following links!

Gun Ban

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/Illinois-Senate-Moves-Toward-Total-Gun-Ban

So very soon you will not be a gun owner!

And they plan on comeing to take them too!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14161-iowa-state-representative-ban-confiscate-semi-automatic-guns

No just look at what ALL the democrats are trying to do!

The way legislation will work after 2104

House and Senate pass legislation

Obama vetos legislation

house and Senate override veto and it becomes law!

So do you want to call a turce on blaming an entire party for the stupidity of a select few?

[Dr. Who]

The 2nd Amendment has to be viewed in the context of the 18th century English society from which the Founding Fathers originated. Their contemporary 18th century English republicans argued the virtue of armed citizenry, they warned that standing armies were to be avoided at almost all cost because such armies become the government's instrument to retain power. Conversely Militias, being unpaid, were loyal to the people rather than the government. The Founding Fathers were influenced by the fact that the entire body of republican philosophy known to them was based on English and classical history, which taught that popular possession of arms was vital to the preservation of liberty and a republican form of government.

The Federalist Framers of the Constitution believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Anti-federalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

While in 21st century America it is difficult to envision citizens banding together in armed revolt against the latest tax changes, in 18th century America it was a political reality. In 1794 Washington was forced to raise a federal militia to suppress a western Pennsylvanian uprising over a whiskey tax.. In the modern era, taxes are a hegemonic reality, but in the revolutionary era, they were not seen as such

The 2nd Amendment wording was hotlydebated. The Virginia convention urged the adoption of the following language:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence for a free state;that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

One of the proposed amendments byJames Madison was "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Senate ultimately omitted the words "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the provision exempting conscientious objectors from service. The Senate rejected language that would have added the words, "for the common defense" as part ofthe phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed." and substituted the word state for country.

The political reality of 21st century America is vastly different than that of post revolutionary America, and many of the 18th century political philosophies are simply incompatible with modern society. The very idea that America now has a very large permanent standing army would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers. Insofar as the Stateshave a need for militias, not to repel invaders or put down rebellion, but to provide security in emergency situations, they have developed State Militias. They will not be calling all gun owners into the fray. In fact, were a private citizen to use a weapon in such a situation, being unsanctioned, would be liable for a variety of criminal and civil penalties. Such is the evolution of the body of lawsince revolutionary times.

The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism that has no relevance in 21st century times.

[Uncle Slam]

I think everyone should work one day and see that most people don't want to be on welfare. Yes, some do abuse it but most don't.

That's really true, but the right-wing war-drum beaters want you to think every other person in America is on some sort of handout. It's a crock.

[Chris]

The Federalist Framers of the Constitution believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserveindividual rights against such tyranny, the Anti-federalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

As true today as it was back then. Principles like these hold through out time.

[zelmo1234]

The 2nd Amendment has to be viewed in the context of the 18th century English society from which the Founding Fathers originated. Their contemporary 18th century English republicans argued the virtue of armed citizenry, they warned that standing armies were to be avoided at almost all cost because such armies become the government's instrument to retain power. Conversely Militias, being unpaid, were loyal to the people rather than the government. The Founding Fathers were influenced by the fact that the entire body of republican philosophy known to them was based on English and classical history, which taught that popular possession of arms was vital to the preservation of liberty and a republican form of government.

The Federalist Framers of the Constitution believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Anti-federalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

While in 21st century America it is difficult to envision citizens banding together in armed revolt against the latest tax changes, in 18th century America it was a political reality. In 1794 Washington was forced to raise a federal militia to suppress a western Pennsylvanian uprising over a whiskey tax.. In the modern era, taxes are a hegemonic reality, but in the revolutionary era, they were not seen as such

The 2nd Amendment wording was hotlydebated. The Virginia convention urged the adoption of the following language:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence for a free state;that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

One of the proposed amendments byJames Madison was "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Senate ultimately omitted the words "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the provision exempting conscientious objectors from service. The Senate rejected language that would have added the words, "for the common defense" as part ofthe phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed." and substituted the word state for country.

The political reality of 21st century America is vastly different than that of post revolutionary America, and many of the 18th century political philosophies are simply incompatible with modern society. The very idea that America now has a very large permanent standing army would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers. Insofar as the Stateshave a need for militias, not to repel invaders or put down rebellion, but to provide security in emergency situations, they have developed State Militias. They will not be calling all gun owners into the fray. In fact, were a private citizen to use a weapon in such a situation, being unsanctioned, would be liable for a variety of criminal and civil penalties. Such is the evolution of the body of lawsince revolutionary times.

The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism that has no relevance in 21st century times.

If this is the case then it would be the same for each and every amendment. For example the Separation of Church and state was very important because there were mostly protestants in the country at the time and they could seek to make that the state religion, but now we have every religion known to man so there is no danger of a state religion so the government should stop restricting the practice of religion in public places!

But in truth, the founding fathers were just a concerned about personel defense as stated below

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

And went through great pains to make sure that it was in fact a individual right.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

however if it is out of date as you say they left us a process to change such laws, through the amendment process.

But those that feel it is out of date never intorduce the amendment to in fact repeal it!

The Supremecourt found that it is in fact an individual right!

And the majority of the people still support the amendment, even more so as our government becomes more invasive into our personal lives.

So your post was well writen but in fact does not stand when put to the will of the people!

[Dr. Who]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the government of America has been forced to evolve in response to the fundamental changes in society. Putting aside all partisan issues, the demographics of American society are completely different than the demographics of 18th century America. How do you transpose the framework of a government that was dealing with a fairly small and spread out, primarily rural, agrarian population onto a population of over 300M people, when over 250M of that population are concentrated in or around urban centers. How does your 18th century republican model deal with the fact that when urban citizens are unemployed, they are at risk of starvation. Absent social safety nets, people at risk of starvation are very liable to take matters into their own hands - recall the French revolution. ( The implication of that was not lost on the Founding Fathers.) Add to that mass quantities of weapons concentrated in those same urban areas and often in the hands of those same unemployed people and you are likely to have big problems maintaining a safe society.

[Chris]

Governments evolve, societies evolve. Truths and morals and principles do not.

[Dr. Who]

Governments evolve, societies evolve. Truths and morals and principles do not.

Really. That's the best you've got?

[Shoot the Goose]

My 2 cents and I'm done.

We might concede that legislatures cannot infringe on our right to bear arms, but we know that we can't possibly have the right to own our own nuclear weapon. Some kind of line needs to be drawn between a right to a musket and a right to a thermonuclear device.

The Founders saw militias as an alternative to what they called "standing armies." However, we could all agree that in the 21st-century such a provision in an amendment is outdated. It doesn't matter if we no longer agree that our security depends on a well-regulated militia, or even if we think gun ownership has anything to do with how well-regulated a militia might be. If we think the 2nd Amendment is outdated, we ought to change it.

Today, we need to find that cut-off point, where we might uphold the right to bear arms, honor the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and not act like stupid people. The right to bear arms is indisputable. We just don't know what "arms" are, or why we should have the right to bear them.

Endlessly talking about guns in the context of the 2nd Amendment is foolish and gets us nowhere.

This is complete liberal psychobabble bullshit. Judging by those fools that 'thanked' you for it only confirms such.

Jackass liberal dumbasses, nothing is "outdated". And as for what a "militia" is, let's ask the guy who wrote the Amendment, shall we ?


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


Secondly, the duty of the individual, and the militaia, was to defend itself not agianst foreign invaders, but against a tyrannical government. Do I need to quote the Founders on that too, as you liberals are so historically full of shit ? What is "outdated" with the concept of arming oneself to the same level of capability as the potential adversary ?

You say that the right to bear arms is "indisputable", but then argue that the arms need to be inferior to what may be aimed at you !!

Liberal psycho-babble bullshit.

[Shoot the Goose]

If the Founding Fathers really wanted every American citizen to have the right to keep and bear arms without regulations and limitations the Second Amendment should have read something like this:

"Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then their would have been no disagreement on what the Founding Fathers actually intended the Second Amendment to mean. Just my personal opinion, but they really threw a wrench into the works when they included the "well regulated militia" part.

Bullshit. The Founders explained their intent over and over. It is not confusing in their words.

Only in the minds of liberals.

[Shoot the Goose]

I think everyone should work one day and see that most people don't want to be on welfare. Yes, some do abuse it but most don't.

Got a link ? Most do abuse it. We got along great for a couple hundred years without it.

[Chris]

Really. That's the best you've got?

And that is the best you got? Not even a counterargument, no challenge, no nothing.

[Agravan]

Agreed

Especially those Racist Bigots; they need to set in the corner with their Tinfoil Hat, thumb up their ass and grant everyone their experience and expertise in life. :)
Now, Cigar, no one thinks you wear a tinfoil hat.

[Shoot the Goose]

The 2nd Amendment has to be viewed in the context of the 18th century English society from which the Founding Fathers originated. Their contemporary 18th century English republicans argued the virtue of armed citizenry, they warned that standing armies were to be avoided at almost all cost because such armies become the government's instrument to retain power. Conversely Militias, being unpaid, were loyal to the people rather than the government. The Founding Fathers were influenced by the fact that the entire body of republican philosophy known to them was based on English and classical history, which taught that popular possession of arms was vital to the preservation of liberty and a republican form of government.

The Federalist Framers of the Constitution believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Anti-federalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

While in 21st century America it is difficult to envision citizens banding together in armed revolt against the latest tax changes, in 18th century America it was a political reality. In 1794 Washington was forced to raise a federal militia to suppress a western Pennsylvanian uprising over a whiskey tax.. In the modern era, taxes are a hegemonic reality, but in the revolutionary era, they were not seen as such

The 2nd Amendment wording was hotlydebated. The Virginia convention urged the adoption of the following language:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence for a free state;that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

One of the proposed amendments byJames Madison was "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Senate ultimately omitted the words "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the provision exempting conscientious objectors from service. The Senate rejected language that would have added the words, "for the common defense" as part ofthe phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed." and substituted the word state for country.

The political reality of 21st century America is vastly different than that of post revolutionary America, and many of the 18th century political philosophies are simply incompatible with modern society. The very idea that America now has a very large permanent standing army would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers. Insofar as the Stateshave a need for militias, not to repel invaders or put down rebellion, but to provide security in emergency situations, they have developed State Militias. They will not be calling all gun owners into the fray. In fact, were a private citizen to use a weapon in such a situation, being unsanctioned, would be liable for a variety of criminal and civil penalties. Such is the evolution of the body of lawsince revolutionary times.

The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism that has no relevance in 21st century times.

This is pure milarky. That you claim that certain things are now "unthinkable" .. well guess what Sherlock, there were plenty in the 1760's and 70's that saw some things as "unthinkable", and yet by 1788 the newfound United States had codified them into law !

The tyranny of one's own government is still the biggest threat on any society. Do I need to cite examples of who killed the most Russians ? The most Chinese ? The most Cambodians ? etc ...........

[Agravan]

You have to admit our priorities are a little fucked up, when people in this country will threaten Civil War over the Right to a Gun. But the Right to Health Care, Food, Shelter & Clothing and Employment is subject to the fittest.

The chances of all of us getting sick if far greater than ever needing to use a Gun. As a matter of fact, 9 out 10 us will never pull a trigger in our life, but the mere thought of guaranteeing everyone health coverage just drives some people batty.

I mean ... WTF is this country thinking about; there's definitely something fundamentally wrong with this type of thinking!




Hey Dimwit, the biggest difference there is that we pay for our own guns. No one is asking the goverment to force people to provide them at your expense. What an idiot.
by the way, Goober, all those things you listed as rights? They are your responsibility to obtain. You are owed NOTHING by the rest of the country.

[Shoot the Goose]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the government of America has been forced to evolve in response to the fundamental changes in society. Putting aside all partisan issues, the demographics of American society are completely different than the demographics of 18th century America. How do you transpose the framework of a government that was dealing with a fairly small and spread out, primarily rural, agrarian population onto a population of over 300M people, when over 250M of that population are concentrated in or around urban centers. How does your 18th century republican model deal with the fact that when urban citizens are unemployed, they are at risk of starvation. Absent social safety nets, people at risk of starvation are very liable to take matters into their own hands - recall the French revolution. ( The implication of that was not lost on the Founding Fathers.) Add to that mass quantities of weapons concentrated in those same urban areas and often in the hands of those same unemployed people and you are likely to have big problems maintaining a safe society.

How stupid ! The Constitution was ratified before the French Revolution even began !!!

The choice is not starvation, or submission to a tyrannical government ! The arguments by the liberals in this thread are nothing but stupid strawmen, that I doubt you could properly slay even with an AR-15 !

[JerryAL]

Yea right, this guy in the video below should really be allowed to have a gun. Would he be considered part of the well regulated militia in your state?

Once again, someone who watches and listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News way too much.


http://youtu.be/Y9sMv9mcdc4

[zelmo1234]

So you are trying to say that the Founding Fathers were big on "nominative absolute grammatical structure" theory?

Listen, I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.

Sounds Great, but if the people that become victomes of violent crimes knew it was going to happen do you think they would have been there anyway!

The truth of the matter is, that as a nation we have experenced a lot more gun ownership since 1995 and that is when the states started to relax there laws and allow conceal carry. It is also the time in the country that violent crime rates started to drop.

I wish that they would require more training for conceal carry but most people that are not serious about it quit very quickly it is a burden to obey every law look for every sign! So those that continue are usually serious about it!

[Chris]

Yea right, this guy in the video below should really be allowed to have a gun. Would he be considered part of the well regulated militia in your state?

Once again, someone who watches and listens to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News way too much.

...

Interesting, you find a single individual and overgeneralize that to all who are pro second amendment. Ridiculous.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yea right, this guy in the video below should really be allowed to have a gun. Would he be considered part of the well regulated militia in your state?

Once again, someone who watches and listens to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News way too much.


http://youtu.be/Y9sMv9mcdc4

Where's your evidence that this guy listens to any of those people or news sources?

This is why Liberals are fuckin retarded. You make these crazy stupid assumptions with absolutely no reason behind it.

Next you'll call him a racist.

America's tired of your shit.

[Dr. Who]

The French revolution began in 1789.

[Shoot the Goose]

Yea right, this guy in the video below should really be allowed to have a gun. Would he be considered part of the well regulated militia in your state?

Once again, someone who watches and listens to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News way too much.


http://youtu.be/Y9sMv9mcdc4

Dittos with the post before this. Your arguements are retarded liberal bullshit.

[JerryAL]

Interesting, you find a single individual and overgeneralize that to all who are pro second amendment. Ridiculous.

That is the CEO of Tactical Response.


http://youtu.be/W2kkax7WOKI

My point is that people like this do NOT help the gun rights advocates case at all. He is the perfect example of someone who should never be allowed to have a gun in the first place.

Story link: State Suspends Handgun Carry Permit of Tactical Response CEO (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/state-suspends-handgun-carry-permit-of-tactical-response)

[Shoot the Goose]

The French revolution began in 1789.

And didn't end until 1799. Meanwhile, the 2nd Amendment was formulated in 1789. Yet you claim that the French Revolution somehow shaped our own Constitution, and Bill of Rights, when the exact opposite is true. That a bunch of oppressed frogs over-embraced "liberty" and became murdering tyrants themselves !


If you post like a dimwit, you will get ripped.

[Chris]

That is the CEO of Tactical Response.


My point is that people like this do NOT help the gun rights advocates case at all. He is the perfect example of someone who should never be allowed to have a gun in the first place.

Story link: State Suspends Handgun Carry Permit of Tactical Response CEO (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/state-suspends-handgun-carry-permit-of-tactical-response)


It's still not much of a point to take an individual, overgeneralize him to some group, then criticize the group. It's not logical.

[Dr. Who]

And didn't end until 1799. Meanwhile, the 2nd Amendment was formulated in 1789. Yet you claim that the French Revolution somehow shaped our own Constitution, and Bill of Rights, when the exact opposite is true. That a bunch of oppressed frogs over-embraced "liberty" and became murdering tyrants themselves !


If you post like a dimwit, you will get ripped.

The Founding Fathers were aware of the problems in France.Jefferson was in France during the time of the revolution. "Jefferson soon rallied under his standard a large party of sympathizers with the French revolutionists. Regarding Hamilton as the head and front of the monarchical party, he professed to believe that the financial plans of that statesman were designed to enslave the people, and that the rights and liberties of the Statesand of individuals were in danger. Hamilton, on the other hand, regarded thenational Constitution as inadequate in strength to perform its required functions, and believed weakness to be its greatest defect. With this idea Jefferson took issue. He charged his political opponents, and especially Hamilton, with corrupt and anti-republican designs, selfish motives, and treacherous intentions; and so was inaugurated that system of personal abuse and vituperation which has ever been a disgrace to the press and political leaders of this country. Bitter partisan quarrels now prevailed, in which Jefferson and Hamilton were the chief actors. The people were greatly excited.The Republicans, who hated the British intensely, called the Federalists the "British party," and the Federalists called their opponents the"French party." The latter hailed with joy the news of the death ofthe French king, and applauded the declaration of war against England and Holland, forgetting the substantial sympathy which the latter had shown for theAmericans during their struggle for independence. Only Washington appeared calm in the midst of the uproar that proceeded from antagonists in his cabinet." http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/effectsof_bfi.html (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/effectsof_bfi.html)

[Chris]

And didn't end until 1799. Meanwhile, the 2nd Amendment was formulated in 1789. Yet you claim that the French Revolution somehow shaped our own Constitution, and Bill of Rights, when the exact opposite is true. That a bunch of oppressed frogs over-embraced "liberty" and became murdering tyrants themselves !


If you post like a dimwit, you will get ripped.

The American Revolution arose from the English/Scottish Enlightenment of classical liberalism, the French of the French Enlightenment.

Here is Garet Garrett, a member of the Old Right, from back before FDR even, on the subject, Hayek on Individualism (http://mises.org/daily/3940):


True individualism, he [Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order] says,


is primarily a theory of society, an attempt to understand the forces which determine the social life of man, and only in the second instance a set of political maxims derived from this view of society. This fact should by itself be sufficient to refute the silliest of the common misunderstandings: the belief that individualism postulates (or bases its arguments on the assumption of) the existence of isolated or self-contained individuals, instead of starting from men whose whole nature and character is determined by their existence in society. If that were true, it would indeed have nothing to contribute to our understanding of society.

...True individualism is not equalitarian. It


can see no reason for trying to make people equal as distinct from treating them equally. While individualism is profoundly opposed to all prescriptive privilege, to all protection, by law or force, of any rights not based on rules equally applicable to all persons, it also denies government the right to limit what the able or fortunate may achieve. It is equally opposed to any rigid limitation of the position individuals may achieve, whether this power is used to perpetuate inequality or to create equality. Its main principle is that no man or group of men should have power to decide what another man's status ought to be, and it regards this as a condition of freedom so essential that it must not be sacrificed to the gratification of our sense of justice or of our envy.

If all men were completely equal in their gifts and inclinations, we should have to treat them differently in order to achieve any sort of social organization. Fortunately, they are not equal; and it is only owing to this that the differentiation of functions need not be determined by the arbitrary decision of some organizing will but that, after creating formal equality of the rules applying in the same manner to all, we can leave each individual to find his own level … There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.

False individualism, on the other hand, deriving from Rousseau and the French revolution, is equalitarian. "The deepest cause which made the French Revolution so disastrous to liberty was its theory of equality," said Lord Acton. "Democracy and socialism," said De Tocqueville, "have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference; while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

OK, so it was mainly Hayek, with commentary by Garrett--and even less by me.

[GrumpyDog]

I will tell everyone, who has not yet been able to comprehend, why there is such vitriolic and intense reaction among many gunowners.

It is because the 2nd Amendment phrase "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE ENFRINGED.

So when a US President, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, implies via his Vice President as the messenger, that "executive" action will be taken, regardless of Congress, to reinterpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, with the stroke of a pen,..

THAT SIR, is ENFRINGEMENT in the EXTREME, and if it is allowed to happen, then all the other amendments, likewise, can be nullified, or reintrepreted, at the stroke of the Presidents pen also.

Which means, the Constitution is in SERIOUS jeapardy.

[zelmo1234]

Grumpy? You have not only turned into a republican, but a TEA party republican, in just the few weeks that I have been on this forum?

What is up with that :teapot:

[GrumpyDog]

Grumpy? You have not only turned into a republican, but a TEA party republican, in just the few weeks that I have been on this forum?

What is up with that :teapot:

Amazing what effect a little Presidential language about executive action to enfringe on the Bill of Rights can have on an individual.

[zelmo1234]

Amazing what effect a little Presidential language about executive action to enfringe on the Bill of Rights can have on an individual.

You know he has not have a fondness for the constitution for a long time, but nobody seemed to care until now?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/

This will be interesting to see how he goes about this, more people are starting to think that Fast and Furious had a little more to do with gun control that in the past.

That case is moving through the legal system and they can't keep it covered up forever.

But he may single handedly give the republicans the Senate in 2 and the Whitehouse in 4 years Depending on how far he reaches, he may give the republicans veto proof mahorities in 2014 which in realistic terms would make the speaker the most powerful man in the county, which is a little scary too,

[Agravan]

And yet, there are people who would like to see this fool serve a third, if not more, term.

[truthmatters]

I will tell everyone, who has not yet been able to comprehend, why there is such vitriolic and intense reaction among many gunowners.

It is because the 2nd Amendment phrase "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE ENFRINGED.

So when a US President, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, implies via his Vice President as the messenger, that "executive" action will be taken, regardless of Congress, to reinterpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, with the stroke of a pen,..

THAT SIR, is ENFRINGEMENT in the EXTREME, and if it is allowed to happen, then all the other amendments, likewise, can be nullified, or reintrepreted, at the stroke of the Presidents pen also.

Which means, the Constitution is in SERIOUS jeapardy.

the right wing of the scotus has ALREADY said clearly that gun control laws are completely constitutional.


why does the right ignore that fact?

[Agravan]

the right wing of the scotus has ALREADY said clearly that gun control laws are completely constitutional.


why does the right ignore that fact?

Link?

[Chris]

the right wing of the scotus has ALREADY said clearly that gun control laws are completely constitutional.


why does the right ignore that fact?

You mean Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller?

[truthmatters]

http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/


What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible…so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time…Obviously the [Second] amendment does not apply to weapons that can be hand carried, it’s to keep and bear. So it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/#AOVcHc1KzfFlqfeY.99

[Chris]

http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/

Can you summarize his opinion or cite the key parts?

[truthmatters]

he did it for me.


They did NOT say weapons control was unconstitutional.


Now what will you peopel do when this country passes a law to limit magazine size?

[Chris]

he did it for me.


They did NOT say weapons control was unconstitutional.


Now what will you peopel do when this country passes a law to limit magazine size?


They did NOT say weapons control was unconstitutional.

That's kind of truthy, matters.

[truthmatters]

it is truth and the right wing nutters who claim all gun control is unconstitutional dont understand much about whats constitutional

[truthmatters]

No one needs a 30 clip mag.


What will be the trick to making sure the gov cant go after the people is thefact that there are too many people for the government to hold sway over.

[truthmatters]

How many of you right wing nutters think an American soldier would turn his or hers guns and point them at the PEOPLE if ordered to do so?


Education and understanding our own government and our rights will save us.

Not having nukes to nuke the government with

[truthmatters]

If you as a gun owner TURN your guns on the people because they have told you you cant have a semi with a 30 clip then YOU will be the one breaking the laws

[Chris]

it is truth and the right wing nutters who claim all gun control is unconstitutional dont understand much about whats constitutional

Just saying your summary of Scalia's opinion in DC v Heller is truthy.

But if all you really want to do is poison the well of discussion with name calling, have at it, we're used to you doing that.

[truthmatters]

when you deny truth you are a nutter

[truthmatters]

http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/


What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible…so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time…Obviously the [Second] amendment does not apply to weapons that can be hand carried, it’s to keep and bear. So it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/#AOVcHc1KzfFlqfeY.99

Its his OWN words

[Chris]

Its his OWN words

Those are the words of Robert Jonathan. It's close, you were not.

What Scalia's majority opinion said, besides finding that the second amendment is an individual right and that two DC gun laws unconstitutional, was that precedence allowed for restricting guns in areas like schools, regulating purchase, and prohibiting unusual weapons.

Scalia was overreaching Constitutional limits in legislating from the bench.


District of Columbia v. Heller: What’s Next? (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/district-columbia-v-heller-whats-next) is a good read written by a constitutional scholar.

[truthmatters]

Appearing on Fox News Sunday (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/29/supreme-court-justice-scalia-sits-down-with-chris-wallace-on-fox-news-sunday/), when asked about gun control laws in view of the Aurora, Colorado, shootings (http://www.inquisitr.com/284276/james-holmes-pocketed-26000-federal-government-education-grant/), Justice Scalia explained that…



What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible…so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time…Obviously the [Second] amendment does not apply to weapons that can be hand carried, it’s to keep and bear. So it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/#C5kw7olT11w7E72g.99

[truthmatters]

chris will you accept facts now?

[truthmatters]

this is ONE of the reasons the right is so very messed up right now.

They refuse facts and refuse to EVER admitt they are wrong.

That makes them embrace bad info and have a tendencey to NEVER correct what they get wrong.


What happens when you never face your own mistakes?


Its means you fail.

[Chris]

this is ONE of the reasons the right is so very messed up right now.

They refuse facts and refuse to EVER admitt they are wrong.

That makes them embrace bad info and have a tendencey to NEVER correct what they get wrong.


What happens when you never face your own mistakes?


Its means you fail.

You don't know the difference between quotation and paraphrase, do you.

Robert Jonathan's paraphrase of Scalia commenting on the case confirms what I summarized above.

[truthmatters]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/29/supreme-court-justice-scalia-sits-down-with-chris-wallace-on-fox-news-sunday/


Wallace asked Scalia how this applies to the right to bear arms. Scalia said there are undoubtedly some limits to the Second Amendment because, “What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible.”
Scalia said “we’ll see” what those limitations are as it applies to modern weapons. He continued, “Obviously the amendment does not apply to weapons that can be hand carried, it’s to keep and bear. So it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided.”

[Chris]

You're repeating post #83, thank you. You've now argued against your earlier claim: "They did NOT say weapons control was unconstitutional." Here and in the fact 2 DC laws were found unconstitutional.

[truthmatters]

I gave you a link with a clipo of the man saying the words posted that you claimed he didnt say.

Now will you EVER admitt you were wrong?

[truthmatters]

I know you dont have the charactor to do so.

Its why your party is a mess.

Bad info in

bad decisions out

[Chris]

I know you dont have the charactor to do so.

Its why your party is a mess.

Bad info in

bad decisions out

I don't belong to any party.

Lies in, lies out.

Hijacking another thread?

[truthmatters]

chris I dont care what you call yourself.

Its what you defend.

A person can call themselves a christain and then defend the deaths of all sorts of people for really stupid reasons.


Does that mean they are defending what Jesus stood for?

[truthmatters]

You defend what you defend.

No matter what you try to call yourself

[Chris]

chris I dont care what you call yourself.

Its what you defend.

A person can call themselves a christain and then defend the deaths of all sorts of people for really stupid reasons.


Does that mean they are defending what Jesus stood for?

What on earth does Jesus have to do with this?

I defended the Constitution. Call me a constitutionalist if you must engage in name calling.

[truthmatters]

No you defend the right wing fringe version of the constitution not the real one

[truthmatters]

the rest of Us Americans dont agree with your fringe veiws and my group includes the founders and the Scotus

[JerryAL]

I will tell everyone, who has not yet been able to comprehend, why there is such vitriolic and intense reaction among many gunowners.

It is because the 2nd Amendment phrase "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE ENFRINGED.

Ugh, what a shock another gun loving extremist who only recites the second part of the Second Amendment, but never mentions the first part.

So do the rest of us get to pick and choose one sentence or one phrase from the Bill of Rights and simply interpret it to mean what we want it to mean, or is that only allowed for the far right-wing crazies?

[truthmatters]

its all their handlers taught them of the constitution.

[Chris]

No you defend the right wing fringe version of the constitution not the real one

I quoted the Constitution. Is it your contention the Consititution is right wing and not the real one? :thinking:

[Chris]

Ugh, what a shock another gun loving extremist who only recites the second part of the Second Amendment, but never mentions the first part.

So do the rest of us get to pick and choose one sentence or one phrase in the Bill of Rights and simply interpret it to mean what we want it to mean, or is that only allowed for the far right-wing crazies?

Jerry, I addressed the entire amendment, it's meaning and grammar. I'm still waiting on a response from you on that.

[Dr. Who]

So you are trying to say that the Founding Fathers were big on "nominative absolute grammatical structure" theory?

Listen, I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.

Here's one Chris won't like - what the 18th century interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be, based on the grammatical rules of the time: http://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/3721?count=1

[Chris]

Who, the nominative absolute grammatical construction is what I introduced along with a diagram if the second amendment. Jerry was trying to dismiss it. Your link supports exactly what I argued. Thanks!!

[truthmatters]

Here's one Chris won't like - what the 18th century interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be, based on the grammatical rules of the time: http://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/3721?count=1



Thanks , very interesting

[Dr. Who]

Thanks , very interesting
Chris apparently didn't actually read the piece or he would know that it actually argues that the historical interpretation is in exact opposition to his POV.

[Chris]

Apparently you have read neither my pov nor the piece you linked. All you seem to have is ad hom.

[Nemo]

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:

‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)

‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted)’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

[Dr. Who]

An important distinction.

[Chris]

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights

Quite correct. This and other natural rights precede and form the basis for the Constitution and other posited law.

Scalia overstepped his constitutional bounds.

[Chris]

Chris apparently didn't actually read the piece or he would know that it actually argues that the historical interpretation is in exact opposition to his POV.

Now that I'm off my cell phone and at a computer, I will address this, who.


From your link we have several points made about the way the nominative absolute was used historically. It begins:


Absolutes are grammatically independent, no doubt about it. But grammatical independence has always been narrowly defined, and it never excludes the clear semantic connection between an absolute and the rest of the sentence.

The nominative absolute is connected with the right not be be infringed. The question is how.

What needs to be done is to establish from the grammatical structure its semantics.


In his Rudiments of English Grammar (1790), Noah Webster writes that “a nominative case or word, joined with a participle, often stands independently of the sentence. This is called the case absolute.” Webster gives several examples, including, “They all consenting, the vote was passed.” He explains, “The words in italics are not connected with the other part of the sentence, either by agreement or government; they are therefore in the case absolute, which, in English, is always the nominative.”

So grammatical independence is established.

Next we have:


As Robert Lowth, the author of the most widely-studied school grammar of the time, put it, “Regimen, or government, is when a word causeth a following word to be in some case, or mode.”

But this has nothing to do with the nominative absolute. Webster has already establish grammatical independence, Lowth is speaking of grammatical agreement, not about the nominative absolute.

Moving on, let's establish the semantic relationship:


William Ward, in his Grammar of the English Language (1767), explains that the absolute construction implies “a whole Sentence” that has a logical relationship -- if-then or cause-and-effect – to the rest of the utterance: “The most common Kind of absolute Construction . . . appears when a Series of Words, containing a Participle in dependence on a Substantive in the Nominative Case, is made equivalent to a whole Sentence depending on Conjunction or Relative Adverb.”

The semantic relationship then is logical.

A causative example is given:


Lindley Murray illustrates this as well in his very popular school grammar first published in 1795: “His father dying, he succeeded to the estate.”

Here, dying causes succession.

So now we have the historical understanding of both the grammar and semantics of the nominative absolute.


Where your author goes wrong is he next simply assumes the same causative logic applies to the Second Amendment by analogy. Nothing more, simply by analogy. But the analogy doesn't hold.

In the second amendment causation is in fact in the opposite direction. Clearly, a well-regulated militia does not cause or create the right to keep and bears arms--that leads to an absurdity. It is the individual right that causes or creates a collective well-regulated militia to secure that individual liberty.

That was diagrammed before as:

http://i.snag.gy/APOIk.jpg

So indeed, what Webster, Ward and and Murray wrote about the historical use and understanding of the nominative absolute support my earlier argument.


You may now pronounce your witnesses hostile and cross examine.

[Dr. Who]

Now that I'm off my cell phone and at a computer, I will address this, who.


From your link we have several points made about the way the nominative absolute was used historically. It begins:



The nominative absolute is connected with the right not be be infringed. The question is how.

What needs to be done is to establish from the grammatical structure its semantics.



So grammatical independence is established.

Next we have:



But this has nothing to do with the nominative absolute. Webster has already establish grammatical independence, Lowth is speaking of grammatical agreement, not about the nominative absolute.

Moving on, let's establish the semantic relationship:



The semantic relationship then is logical.

A causative example is given:



Here, dying causes succession.

So now we have the historical understanding of both the grammar and semantics of the nominative absolute.


Where your author goes wrong is he next simply assumes the same causative logic applies to the Second Amendment by analogy. Nothing more, simply by analogy. But the analogy doesn't hold.



That was diagrammed before as:

http://i.snag.gy/APOIk.jpg

So indeed, what Webster, Ward and and Murray wrote about the historical use and understanding of the nominative absolute support my earlier argument.


You may now pronounce your witnesses hostile and cross examine.

I am providing a limited parol from Conventry on the basis that you have actually stated an opinion not appropriated from someone else.

You state:

In the second amendment causation is in fact in the opposite direction. Clearly, a well-regulated militia does not cause or create the right to keep and bears arms--that leads to an absurdity. It is the individual right that causes or creates a collective well-regulated militia to secure that individual liberty.

Why is it an absurdity that "a well-regulated militia does not cause or create the right to keep and bears arms"

[Dr. Who]

Now that I'm off my cell phone and at a computer, I will address this, who.


From your link we have several points made about the way the nominative absolute was used historically. It begins:



The nominative absolute is connected with the right not be be infringed. The question is how.

What needs to be done is to establish from the grammatical structure its semantics.



So grammatical independence is established.

Next we have:



But this has nothing to do with the nominative absolute. Webster has already establish grammatical independence, Lowth is speaking of grammatical agreement, not about the nominative absolute.

Moving on, let's establish the semantic relationship:



The semantic relationship then is logical.

A causative example is given:



Here, dying causes succession.

So now we have the historical understanding of both the grammar and semantics of the nominative absolute.


Where your author goes wrong is he next simply assumes the same causative logic applies to the Second Amendment by analogy. Nothing more, simply by analogy. But the analogy doesn't hold.

In the second amendment causation is in fact in the opposite direction. Clearly, a well-regulated militia does not cause or create the right to keep and bears arms--that leads to an absurdity. It is the individual right that causes or creates a collective well-regulated militia to secure that individual liberty.

That was diagrammed before as:

http://i.snag.gy/APOIk.jpg

So indeed, what Webster, Ward and and Murray wrote about the historical use and understanding of the nominative absolute support my earlier argument.


You may now pronounce your witnesses hostile and cross examine.

BTW I congratulate you for your actual input.

[zelmo1234]

the rest of Us Americans dont agree with your fringe veiws and my group includes the founders and the Scotus

I wish I had my computer, as it is waterside than this phone. As you appear thoughtful and back up your opinions with links


I also agree that the government can impose restrictions on weapon owners. But only through the legal process of passing a law. Congress has stated that there is not enough support to pass the new restrictions on assault weapons or even the high capacity magazines

But for the sake of argument let's say that there was that support?

There are a few million guns that fit the assault weapons definition by Senator Feinstien. These guns are in the hand of law abiding Citizens

There are also about 200 million high capacity magazines in the public arena. With one supplier selling 6 years worth in the last 2 weeks.

What are you going to do with all of these weapons and mags?

[Awryly]

One would think from reading some of the opinions here that the US does not have the largest "militia" by a country mile of any other country or combination of countries on the planet.

Though I admit it may not be sufficiently equipped semantics-wise.

[zelmo1234]

So SE when will you actually institute the policies that you are advocating for our country?

In your country

A

[Awryly]

So SE when will you actually institute the policies that you are advocating for our country?

In your country

Ahuh? Your ankle fall off?

[Awryly]

Really. That's the best you've got?

Hit him with future pluperfect past participle.

[Nemo]

Quite correct. This and other natural rights precede and form the basis for the Constitution and other posited law.

Scalia overstepped his constitutional bounds.


Justice Scalia overstepped his constitutional bounds? Who says? You? I don’t think so.

Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law until overturned by the court, congressional action not inconsistent with separation of powers provisions, or constitutional amendment. To put it simply: The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

[Chris]

I am providing a limited parol from Conventry on the basis that you have actually stated an opinion not appropriated from someone else.

You state:

Why is it an absurdity that "a well-regulated militia does not cause or create the right to keep and bears arms"


I am providing a limited parol from Conventry on the basis that you have actually stated an opinion not appropriated from someone else.

My opinion is based on others. I have documented that throughout this thread. And there is another from a couple weeks ago. As Hawkings said we stand on others' shoulders. As Ecclesiates said, nothing new under the sun.


Why is it an absurdity that "a well-regulated militia does not cause or create the right to keep and bears arms"

It puts the cart before the horse. You're able to create a militia only if people have the right to keep and bear. The militia's purpose is to defend that and other rights. Moreover, because these are natural unalienable rights they are not created by man but exist as an attribute of man.

[Chris]

Justice Scalia overstepped his constitutional bounds? Who says? You? I don’t think so.

Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law until overturned by the court, congressional action not inconsistent with separation of powers provisions, or constitutional amendment. To put it simply: The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

Scalia established law. Where do you find that power in the Constitution?


The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

We can all read the text to see what it says.

By your reasoning SCOTUS could say it says the president is a dictator. And we all know it doesn't. Ultimately the power resides in the people who abide, or not, by that social contract.

[Peter1469]

Appearing on Fox News Sunday (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/29/supreme-court-justice-scalia-sits-down-with-chris-wallace-on-fox-news-sunday/), when asked about gun control laws in view of the Aurora, Colorado, shootings (http://www.inquisitr.com/284276/james-holmes-pocketed-26000-federal-government-education-grant/), Justice Scalia explained that…


What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible…so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time…Obviously the [Second] amendment does not apply to weapons that can be hand carried, it’s to keep and bear. So it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/287938/justice-scalia-some-additional-gun-control-may-be-constitutional/#C5kw7olT11w7E72g.99

Scalia appears to be correct

[Nemo]

Scalia established law. Where do you find that power in the Constitution?



We can all read the text to see what it says.

By your reasoning SCOTUS could say it says the president is a dictator. And we all know it doesn't. Ultimately the power resides in the people who abide, or not, by that social contract.

The federal juciciary is a coequal branch of government under powers conferred by the Constitution. It is not for you or I to say what the Constitution means, it is for the federal courts. The people are not the interpreters of the Constitution, it is the province of the judiciary under the Constitution. Stop trying to usurp it.

[Dr. Who]

My opinion is based on others. I have documented that throughout this thread. And there is another from a couple weeks ago. As Hawkings said we stand on others' shoulders. As Ecclesiates said, nothing new under the sun.



It puts the cart before the horse. You're able to create a militia only if people have the right to keep and bear. The militia's purpose is to defend that and other rights. Moreover, because these are natural unalienable rights they are not created by man but exist as an attribute of man.

Not surprisingly I disagree with your conclusion. Typically, absolute constructions that use verbs ending in “-ing” (being, reaching) show either causation or time. If the “-ing” verb is stative (e.g., being), it usually denotes causation;

The “well regulated Militia” clause establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second half of the statement. Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed.. Therefore B is dependent on A. Therefore the goal of the 2nd Amendment is not simply to grant a independent right to bear arms, but rather does so in order to provide the necessary security of the State.. If the intent was to have an ad hoc militia, the Framers would have use the expression “a regulable militia", as opposed to one which would be obligated to participate in regular military exercises and be subject to arms training and discipline. They were not looking for a cowboy army and the fact that the word militia was capitalized gives extra effect to that notion.

While the Constitution specifically grants a number of inalienable rights, the right to bear arms is not one of them. It is a contingent right predicated on the need for a well regulated Militia.:smiley:

[Chris]

Not surprisingly I disagree with your conclusion. Typically, absolute constructions that use verbs ending in “-ing” (being, reaching) show either causation or time. If the “-ing” verb is stative (e.g., being), it usually denotes causation;

The “well regulated Militia” clause establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second half of the statement. Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed.. Therefore B is dependent on A. Therefore the goal of the 2nd Amendment is not simply to grant a independent right to bear arms, but rather does so in order to provide the necessary security of the State.. If the intent was to have an ad hoc militia, the Framers would have use the expression “a regulable militia", as opposed to one which would be obligated to participate in regular military exercises and be subject to arms training and discipline. They were not looking for a cowboy army and the fact that the word militia was capitalized gives extra effect to that notion.

While the Constitution specifically grants a number of inalienable rights, the right to bear arms is not one of them. It is a contingent right predicated on the need for a well regulated Militia.:smiley:


Typically, absolute constructions that use verbs ending in “-ing” (being, reaching) show either causation or time. If the “-ing” verb is stative (e.g., being), it usually denotes causation;

As anachronistic as the author you linked to. We're talking nominative absolute, as understood when written.


The “well regulated Militia” clause establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second half of the statement. Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed..

The nominative absolute construction establishes the relationship.

I agree, "Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed". That is not however causal, it doesn't say "A causes effect B". "Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed" says B makes A possible. It is symbiotic in that in turn A protects B.


If the intent was to have an ad hoc militia, the Framers would have use the expression “a regulable militia", as opposed to one which would be obligated to participate in regular military exercises and be subject to arms training and discipline.

Perhaps in today's language, but in the language of the founders it was "well regulated".


They were not looking for a cowboy army and the fact that the word militia was capitalized gives extra effect to that notion.

You're making many claims you do nothing to back up.


While the Constitution specifically grants a number of inalienable rights...

The Constitution does not grant rights. Think so, cite an instance out of the Constitution.


the right to bear arms is not one of them. It is a contingent right

You also contradict yourself an awful lot. Inalienable is not contingent.


It is a contingent right predicated on the need for a well regulated Militia.

"Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed" says the opposite.

[Chris]

The federal juciciary is a coequal branch of government under powers conferred by the Constitution. It is not for you or I to say what the Constitution means, it is for the federal courts. The people are not the interpreters of the Constitution, it is the province of the judiciary under the Constitution. Stop trying to usurp it.

Coequal, yes, but with different powers granted by the people. The judiciary is not granted the power to legislate.

Read the Constitution, it is quite clear who created the Constitution and thereby the government: "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Read the Declaration, we can abolish it: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[zelmo1234]

Not surprisingly I disagree with your conclusion. Typically, absolute constructions that use verbs ending in “-ing” (being, reaching) show either causation or time. If the “-ing” verb is stative (e.g., being), it usually denotes causation;

The “well regulated Militia” clause establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second half of the statement. Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed.. Therefore B is dependent on A. Therefore the goal of the 2nd Amendment is not simply to grant a independent right to bear arms, but rather does so in order to provide the necessary security of the State.. If the intent was to have an ad hoc militia, the Framers would have use the expression “a regulable militia", as opposed to one which would be obligated to participate in regular military exercises and be subject to arms training and discipline. They were not looking for a cowboy army and the fact that the word militia was capitalized gives extra effect to that notion.

While the Constitution specifically grants a number of inalienable rights, the right to bear arms is not one of them. It is a contingent right predicated on the need for a well regulated Militia.:smiley:

The beauty of the founding fathers is they not only knew but expected that these issues would arise. They therefore recorded with diligence the conversations that lead up to the writing of these amendments.

While we all want to speculate, it is not hard to get the actual debate in context.

Here are just a few examples.

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php

In the second lenk it becomes very, very clear that the people are to have arms to stand against a standing army. not to become one.

It also states that they should have the same weapons or nearly the same weapons.

It discusses personel protection issues as well, but it seems imparitive to the founding fathers that the power of the firearm, the weapon of mass destruction of the day, shoud rest in the hands of a private citizen and that citizen should know how to use it.

In no area can we find where the founders of even the courts suggest that only the military shoud have the power of firearms.

So whiel you argument is well writen and well planed out, it is not based on the oringional entent of the 2nd amendment.

Now the founding fathers also created a path for things to change, So the second amendment could in fact be repealed by the people if they so wish. The Democrats and Progressive liberals know this and they also know that the do not ahve the votes.

Th read these quotes and even say the the founding fathers would not have approved of assualt weapons is total fabrication of the 2nd amendment

[Dr. Who]

As anachronistic as the author you linked to. We're talking nominative absolute, as understood when written.



The nominative absolute construction establishes the relationship.

I agree, "Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed". That is not however causal, it doesn't say "A causes effect B". "Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed" says B makes A possible. It is symbiotic in that in turn A protects B.



Perhaps in today's language, but in the language of the founders it was "well regulated".



You're making many claims you do nothing to back up.



The Constitution does not grant rights. Think so, cite an instance out of the Constitution.



You also contradict yourself an awful lot. Inalienable is not contingent.



"Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed" says the opposite.

Sorry, I view the Declaration of Independence in tandem with the Constitution. The DoI provides the inalienable rights. The Constitution does grant rights - It's called the Bill of Rights.

I do not contradict myself. I said the right to bear arms is a contingent right. It is not an inalienable right. Contingent means dependent, thus the right to bear arms is dependent on the need for a Militia. Whether that was what they truly meant, or whether the statement was deliberately ambiguous in order to appease the differing perspectives of the Framers is another story. The fact that people owned guns at the time was assumed. What they didn't want, was to be left open to the Federal government abridging the individual State's right to defend itself, a concern left over from their English roots.

The 9th Amendment may speak either to the general right to own guns or a citizen's right to see weapons regulated: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


As to the military context of "well regulated militia"



In Federalist No. 29 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Federalist_No._29), Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."[48] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-FederalistPapers29-48)


A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Yeomanry), and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-FederalistPapers29-48)


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-FederalistPapers29-48)

- Wikipedia

As to my reference, although written in 2008, it is hardly an anachronism. The 2nd Amendment, having been written in the 18th century, the author looked to 18th century grammar authorities, to place it in its correct historical context.

[Nemo]

No! The Declaration of Independence is not incorporated into the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson is not a framer of the Constitution. The words "inherent" and "unanlienable" appear nowhere in the Constitution. The people do not make the laws that govern our society - they vote for representatives to the Congress and state legislatures that make the laws. The people do not enforce the laws - that is entrusted to the elected executives. And, the citizens do not decide the law - that is for our judiciary to do - not you. You may not take the law into your own hands.

[zelmo1234]

No! The Declaration of Independence is not incorporated into the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson is not a framer of the Constitution. The words "inherent" and "unanlienable" appear nowhere in the Constitution. The people do not make the laws that govern our society - they vote for representatives to the Congress and state legislatures that make the laws. The people do not enforce the laws - that is entrusted to the elected executives. And, the citizens do not decide the law - that is for our judiciary to do - not you. You may not take the law into your own hands.

You are correct that You may not take the law into your own hands, however the law grants permission for citizens to protect themselves and there property.

http://www.concealandcarryhq.com/index.php/2012/castle-doctrine-explained-what-every-concealed-carry-permit-holder-needs-to-know/

And of course we now have states with stand your ground laws

http://www.jargondatabase.com/Category/Law-Enforcement/Crime-Related-Jargon/Stand-Your-Ground-Law

And then you have the legislators that have passed conceal carry laws, by passing these laws in congunction with the stand your ground and castle doctrin, they have in fact inlisted the public and there right to help provide safty to themselves and the public around them.

While not taking the law into their own hands, it does give then inforcment powers in the protection of themselves and others.

[Peter1469]

Not surprisingly I disagree with your conclusion. Typically, absolute constructions that use verbs ending in “-ing” (being, reaching) show either causation or time. If the “-ing” verb is stative (e.g., being), it usually denotes causation;

The “well regulated Militia” clause establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second half of the statement. Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed.. Therefore B is dependent on A. Therefore the goal of the 2nd Amendment is not simply to grant a independent right to bear arms, but rather does so in order to provide the necessary security of the State.. If the intent was to have an ad hoc militia, the Framers would have use the expression “a regulable militia", as opposed to one which would be obligated to participate in regular military exercises and be subject to arms training and discipline. They were not looking for a cowboy army and the fact that the word militia was capitalized gives extra effect to that notion.

While the Constitution specifically grants a number of inalienable rights, the right to bear arms is not one of them. It is a contingent right predicated on the need for a well regulated Militia.:smiley:

The militia was the people. Not the state, not the federal government. It is that simple.

[Chris]

Sorry, I view the Declaration of Independence in tandem with the Constitution. The DoI provides the inalienable rights. The Constitution does grant rights - It's called the Bill of Rights.

I do not contradict myself. I said the right to bear arms is a contingent right. It is not an inalienable right. Contingent means dependent, thus the right to bear arms is dependent on the need for a Militia. Whether that was what they truly meant, or whether the statement was deliberately ambiguous in order to appease the differing perspectives of the Framers is another story. The fact that people owned guns at the time was assumed. What they didn't want, was to be left open to the Federal government abridging the individual State's right to defend itself, a concern left over from their English roots.

The 9th Amendment may speak either to the general right to own guns or a citizen's right to see weapons regulated: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


As to the military context of "well regulated militia"


- Wikipedia

As to my reference, although written in 2008, it is hardly an anachronism. The 2nd Amendment, having been written in the 18th century, the author looked to 18th century grammar authorities, to place it in its correct historical context.




Sorry, I view the Declaration of Independence in tandem with the Constitution. The DoI provides the inalienable rights. The Constitution does grant rights - It's called the Bill of Rights.

And yet you are unable to cite one bit of the BoR that grants rights.



I do not contradict myself....

Unless you can show where in the BoR rights are granted, you do contradict yourself.



I view the Declaration of Independence in tandem with the Constitution. The DoI provides the inalienable rights.

Another contradiction. The Declaration says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Or can you cite the lines of the DoI that provides rights?




As to the military context of "well regulated militia"

We have no disagreement about what well regulated militia means. Red herring.




As to my reference, although written in 2008, it is hardly an anachronism.

It is wholly anachronistic in that it comes to a conclusion opposite of Webster and others cited. Heck, your source even confuses grammatical governance with political governance.



So you have two challenges, to show where the DoI provides rights and where the BoR grants rights. Your entire argument is predicated upon those claims. Demonstrate they are true.

[Chris]

No! The Declaration of Independence is not incorporated into the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson is not a framer of the Constitution. The words "inherent" and "unanlienable" appear nowhere in the Constitution. The people do not make the laws that govern our society - they vote for representatives to the Congress and state legislatures that make the laws. The people do not enforce the laws - that is entrusted to the elected executives. And, the citizens do not decide the law - that is for our judiciary to do - not you. You may not take the law into your own hands.


The Declaration of Independence is not incorporated into the Constitution.

No one claimed it was. Nice straw man though!


Thomas Jefferson is not a framer of the Constitution.

No one claimed he was. Nice straw man though!


The words "inherent" and "unanlienable" appear nowhere in the Constitution.

No one claimed they were. Nice straw man!


The people do not make the laws that govern our society - they vote for representatives to the Congress and state legislatures that make the laws. The people do not enforce the laws - that is entrusted to the elected executives..

No one claimed anything like that. Nice straw man!!


And, the citizens do not decide the law - that is for our judiciary to do - not you. You may not take the law into your own hands.

Read the Constitution, it is quite clear who created the Constitution, the supreme law of the land: "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Read the Declaration, we can abolish it: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It seems to me your intent is to undermine the foundation of our nation.

[Shoot the Goose]

Not surprisingly I disagree with your conclusion. Typically, absolute constructions that use verbs ending in “-ing” (being, reaching) show either causation or time. If the “-ing” verb is stative (e.g., being), it usually denotes causation;

The “well regulated Militia” clause establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second half of the statement. Because A is necessary, B shall not be infringed.. Therefore B is dependent on A. Therefore the goal of the 2nd Amendment is not simply to grant a independent right to bear arms, but rather does so in order to provide the necessary security of the State.. If the intent was to have an ad hoc militia, the Framers would have use the expression “a regulable militia", as opposed to one which would be obligated to participate in regular military exercises and be subject to arms training and discipline. They were not looking for a cowboy army and the fact that the word militia was capitalized gives extra effect to that notion.

While the Constitution specifically grants a number of inalienable rights, the right to bear arms is not one of them. It is a contingent right predicated on the need for a well regulated Militia.:smiley:

This is more stupid ignorant liberal bullshit ! George Mason, who wrote the Amendment, explains that the "militia" is everyone.

Further, you are apparently one clueless liberal when you state what I bolded above. The "militia" was not sanctioned, much less duty-bound, to the "state". It did not train under the direction of the State, nor was it bound to the discipline of the State. They were bound to their elected officers, and usually provided their own guns and ammo. Dumbass.

Sorry to inform you, but you are completely full of shit on this. Like other liberals, you just make stuff up !

[Dr. Who]

This is more stupid ignoranat liberal bullshit ! George Mason, who wrote the Amendment, explains that the "militia" is everyone.

Further, you are apparently one clueless liberal when you state what I bolded above. The "militia" was not sanctioned, much less duty-bound, to the "state". It did not train under the direction of the State, nor was it bound to the discipline of the State. They were bound to their elected officers, and usually provided their own guns and ammo. Dumbass.

Sorry to inform you, but you are completely full of shit on this. Like other liberals, you just make stuff up !

You are entitled to your opinion as I mine. But must you be so beligerant about it? This is a discussion forum, not a school yard. It is difficult to take someone seriously who can't refrain from hurling invectives at their fellow posters.

[Chris]

Still waiting: So you have two challenges, to show where the DoI provides rights and where the BoR grants rights. Your entire argument is predicated upon those claims. Demonstrate they are true.

[Shoot the Goose]

You are entitled to your opinion as I mine. But must you be so beligerant about it? This is a discussion forum, not a school yard. It is difficult to take someone seriously who can't refrain from hurling invectives at their fellow posters.

What I expect are opinions based in fact. Or at least with links to appropriate foundations. You provide neither with your opinions. Opinions that I know to be full of shit. Fabricated. If you want to speak for yourself, that is fine. But when you pretend to paraphrase the Founders, such as me are going to point out your foolishness.

I earlier provided links to Mason. It has been noted many times, in the words of the Founders, that the citizen is armed first against the tyranny of the State. Does that explode your brain ? Can you not grasp such ?

I never even implied that you were not entitled to your opinion. What I did was shred your opinion. Get a backbone, and stop whining.

Take the criticism and work with it. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And Pete 1469. Stop with the Rodney King BS. We can't just all get along. Foolishness and libtardism has to be confronted. With prejudice. It is your kids, and mine, who will suffer from our noodle-spines.

[Dr. Who]

Still waiting: So you have two challenges, to show where the DoI provides rights and where the BoR grants rights. Your entire argument is predicated upon those claims. Demonstrate they are true.

First of all, I use the word grant in the following context: to admit or concede. The DoI states that: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Perhaps grant is the wrong word, I should correctly have said guaranteed with respect to the Bill of Rights. I apologize.

[Dr. Who]

This is more stupid ignorant liberal bullshit ! George Mason, who wrote the Amendment, explains that the "militia" is everyone.

Further, you are apparently one clueless liberal when you state what I bolded above. The "militia" was not sanctioned, much less duty-bound, to the "state". It did not train under the direction of the State, nor was it bound to the discipline of the State. They were bound to their elected officers, and usually provided their own guns and ammo. Dumbass.

Sorry to inform you, but you are completely full of shit on this. Like other liberals, you just make stuff up !

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Peter1469]

What I expect are opinions based in fact. Or at least with links to appropriate foundations. You provide neither with your opinions. Opinions that I know to be full of shit. Fabricated. If you want to speak for yourself, that is fine. But when you pretend to paraphrase the Founders, such as me are going to point out your foolishness.

I earlier provided links to Mason. It has been noted many times, in the words of the Founders, that the citizen is armed first against the tyranny of the State. Does that explode your brain ? Can you not grasp such ?

I never even implied that you were not entitled to your opinion. What I did was shred your opinion. Get a backbone, and stop whining.

Take the criticism and work with it. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And Pete 1469. Stop with the Rodney King BS. We can't just all get along. Foolishness and libtardism has to be confronted. With prejudice. It is your kids, and mine, who will suffer from our noodle-spines.

I actually can say "can't we all just get along" without stuttering for 2 minutes.

[Chris]

First of all, I use the word grant in the following context: to admit or concede. The DoI states that: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Perhaps grant is the wrong word, I should correctly have said guaranteed with respect to the Bill of Rights. I apologize.




Accepted, neither the DoI nor the BoR grants, provides or otherwise gives rights. But that was what your whole house of cards argument was predicated on.

The DoI declares these natural rights apodictically, the BoR restricts government from interfering with them.

The right to keep and bear arms that is the cause of having a militia against the tyranny of government trying to take them away.


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights restricted the right of the monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which extended the right to Catholics and Protestant dissenters in addition to upholding prior legislation that limited the ownership of arms to certain social classes. The English Bill of Rights firmly established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#English_precedent

[Shoot the Goose]

First of all, I use the word grant in the following context: to admit or concede. The DoI states that: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Perhaps grant is the wrong word, I should correctly have said guaranteed with respect to the Bill of Rights. I apologize.





I think that you still do not get it. The DOI frames these rights as "inalienable". Yet you choose to characterize them as "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights ? The BoR can be changed. It is no guarantee. Get the necessary votes and you can wipe it all out.

"Inalienable" rights . It can't be more simple. Amendment number 1 explains the most basic of such. Amendment number 2 is how you maintain ownership of such. Such that should anyone try to take them from you, under any circumstance, you retain the power to say "No".

You express the embodiment of liberal stupidity about Rights. I thank you, as someone needs to serve as the example of liberal stupidity here, and you volunteered.

[Shoot the Goose]

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

Its not about opinions. Its about arguments. And knowledge. And backbone.

You got #1. But you fail miserably at 2, 3, and 4.

You have been wrong in virtually every post in this thread. And if you continue to post in like manner, you will be smacked silly for so long as I and others care to, and are allowed to, do so.

[Chris]

It can't be more simple. Amendment number 1 explains the most basic of such. Amendment number 2 is how you maintain ownership of such. Such that should anyone try to take them from you, under any circumstance, you retain the power to say "No".

Exactly. :yo2:

[zelmo1234]

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

As you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to change the facts.

It has been presented that the founding fathers in discussion and writings in fact did want the liberty of ownership and use of firearms to be individual, for the express purpose of self preservation, and the preservation of the rights granted by the constitution against a standing army and the government.

You seem to be short on facts that counter this opinion but high on your opinion, unsupported by facts, is a better opinion, becasue you want it to be.

That is where you are loosing the rest of us!

[Awryly]

Its not about opinions. Its about arguments. And knowledge. And backbone.

You got #1. But you fail miserably at 2, 3, and 4.

You have been wrong in virtually every post in this thread. And if you continue to post in like manner, you will be smacked silly for so long as I and others care to, and are allowed to, do so.

By this?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=234&dateline=1337033283

[Shoot the Goose]

By this?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=234&dateline=1337033283

Yes.

The Goose has back-up, when needed. Lest you doubt.

Now STFU and post like you got a brain, and a pair. Or get ripped over and over.

Let me illustrate. You have received recognition for quality posts about 136 times in 2,666 posts to date. That is abysmal, to the point of being absurd !

It says that you are a 3rd rate poster, if not a complete dumbass.

I have four times the recognition, in well less than half as many posts as you. And others here trump your wittle brain in equal fashion as well.

So what is the solution to you elevating your game ?

[Awryly]

No-one seems to have an answer to the small matter of why America needs a citizen militia when it has invested a grotesque amount of money in a standing army and the National Guards.

The 2nd Amendment was made for a time long gone and in circumstances long gone. Is someone prepared to say that it granted the right to bear arms so that Americans could protect themselves from one another (and/or their slaves)? If so, show how that can be read into the text. Without resorting to silly semantics.

Of course, there is the tyranny argument. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10120-Where-did-this-quot-tyranny-quot-nobsense-come-from

Which is a bit of nonsense put about by wackjobs who live in the backwoods and the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufacturers.

[Shoot the Goose]

No-one seems to have an answer to the small matter of why America needs a citizen militia when it has invested a grotesque amount of money in a standing army.

The 2nd Amendment was made for a time long gone and in circumstances long gone. Is someone prepared to say that it granted the right to bear arms so that Americans could protect themselves from one another, or their slaves? If so, show how that can be read into the text. Without resorting to silly semantics.

Of course, there is the tyranny argument. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10120-Where-did-this-quot-tyranny-quot-nobsense-come-from

Which is a bit of nonsense put about by wackjobs who live in the backwoods and the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufacturers.

Why is this so complex for such as you ! It is not about "needing a citizen militia" ! It never was ! From day #1 !


It is about protecting our inalienable rights against a tyannical government. Against such as liberals and an Obama government. Leave our Rights alone, and you got no quarrel. Fuck with them, and I guarantee you got a real big problem. Now STFU and go off to improve your brain. You post as an idiot.

[roadmaster]

No-one seems to have an answer to the small matter of why America needs a citizen militia when it has invested a grotesque amount of money in a standing army and the National Guards.

The 2nd Amendment was made for a time long gone and in circumstances long gone. Is someone prepared to say that it granted the right to bear arms so that Americans could protect themselves from one another (and/or their slaves)? If so, show how that can be read into the text. Without resorting to silly semantics.

Of course, there is the tyranny argument. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10120-Where-did-this-quot-tyranny-quot-nobsense-come-from

Which is a bit of nonsense put about by wackjobs who live in the backwoods and the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufacturers.

I prefer to protect myself instead of waiting on someone to come.

[Awryly]

Yes.

The Goose has back-up, when needed. Lest you doubt.

Now STFU and post like you got a brain, and a pair. Or get ripped over and over.

Let me illustrate. You have received recognition for quality posts about 136 times in 2,666 posts to date. That is abysmal, to the point of being absurd !

It says that you are a 3rd rate poster, if not a complete dumbass.

I have four times the recognition, in well less than half as many posts as you. And others here trump your wittle brain in equal fashion as well.

So what is the solution to you elevating your game ?


Well, I must admit I am not as recognised by dumbarses as you are.

And you may think it odd that I have no ambition to be.

Empty applause is for those who have earned it.

Congratulations.

[Awryly]

I prefer to protect myself instead of waiting on someone to come.

Come? They are already there. You have an army the size of a small planet.

Great Britain will not invade!

[zelmo1234]

No-one seems to have an answer to the small matter of why America needs a citizen militia when it has invested a grotesque amount of money in a standing army and the National Guards.

The 2nd Amendment was made for a time long gone and in circumstances long gone. Is someone prepared to say that it granted the right to bear arms so that Americans could protect themselves from one another (and/or their slaves)? If so, show how that can be read into the text. Without resorting to silly semantics.

Of course, there is the tyranny argument. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10120-Where-did-this-quot-tyranny-quot-nobsense-come-from

Which is a bit of nonsense put about by wackjobs who live in the backwoods and the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufacturers.

Actually the fact that the government of the USA went to a standing army has made the Second amendment even more critical.

See this quote from the founding fathers on the second amendment.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

not the quote that starts with What is the use of a Militia! And the fact that the development of the standing army is in fact the way a goverment removes rights frm the people. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in fact the reason and protection from that standing army!

Now this is not the first time it has been explained and provent to you, I know that it is hard to understand what our government is about from 12000 miles away, look at all of the mistakes that I amke about yours.

So you might just have to trust the facts posted.

[zelmo1234]

oop's wrong link!!!!

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

See above post

[roadmaster]

Come? They are already there. You have an army the size of a small planet.

Great Britain will not invade!
But what if they turn on the citizens? I am very good at tracking and can sneak up on a person without making a sound even at my age now.

[Awryly]

Actually the fact that the government of the USA went to a standing army has made the Second amendment even more critical.

See this quote from the founding fathers on the second amendment.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

not the quote that starts with What is the use of a Militia! And the fact that the development of the standing army is in fact the way a goverment removes rights frm the people. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in fact the reason and protection from that standing army!

Now this is not the first time it has been explained and provent to you, I know that it is hard to understand what our government is about from 12000 miles away, look at all of the mistakes that I amke about yours.

So you might just have to trust the facts posted.

Well, good luck with that. I suspect the outcome would be an even unhappier one than we are seeing in Syria.

[Dr. Who]

I think that you still do not get it. The DOI frames these rights as "inalienable". Yet you choose to characterize them as "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights ? The BoR can be changed. It is no guarantee. Get the necessary votes and you can wipe it all out.

"Inalienable" rights . It can't be more simple. Amendment number 1 explains the most basic of such. Amendment number 2 is how you maintain ownership of such. Such that should anyone try to take them from you, under any circumstance, you retain the power to say "No".

You express the embodiment of liberal stupidity about Rights. I thank you, as someone needs to serve as the example of liberal stupidity here, and you volunteered.
The DoI did not delineate all of the "unalienable" rights, only the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Please find one place in the DoI that describes any but the aforementioned rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Nor did the original constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The transcript of the Bill of Rights begins with the following:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The rest is semantics.

[Awryly]

But what if they turn on the citizens? I am very good at tracking and can sneak up on a person without making a sound even at my age now.

Make it work.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/edenrutgers.jpg

[roadmaster]

Besides I would hope GB would be with us instead of against us. We don't want you to invade us or The US to invade you nor Canada. The people would not be for it.

[roadmaster]

Make it work.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/edenrutgers.jpg

I prefer jeans. Not Catholic.

[zelmo1234]

We at least we out number them about 300 to 1 that will help!

haveing the guys frm guncit, blackwater and X's plus all of the other contractors might not be to bad either.

And then there are states like Texas and Wyoming. that will pitch in.

But even in a loosing? there are things worth dying for!

But now you at least understand why the second amendment is still as relivant as ever. And if it is not, then those that do not like it should go through the process of repealing it. If they are in the majority I will submit to the will of the people.

[Awryly]

Besides I would hope GB would be with us instead of against us. We don't want you to invade us or The US to invade you nor Canada. The people would not be for it.

So why do you need an armed citizen militia again?

[Awryly]

We at least we out number them about 300 to 1 that will help!

haveing the guys frm guncit, blackwater and X's plus all of the other contractors might not be to bad either.

And then there are states like Texas and Wyoming. that will pitch in.

But even in a loosing? there are things worth dying for!

But now you at least understand why the second amendment is still as relivant as ever. And if it is not, then those that do not like it should go through the process of repealing it. If they are in the majority I will submit to the will of the people.

For those stupid enough to die, I am sure there is.

Just as a matter of interest, what would you go to war with your government for?

[zelmo1234]

So why do you need an armed citizen militia again?


http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html :deadhorse2:



So this is the third time in the last 24 hours, and not one objection yet.


Can you tell me why you have not ban firearms in New Zealand! You have still not answered why you want us to do something your government is not willing to do?????

[Shoot the Goose]

The DoI did not delineate all of the "unalienable" rights, only the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Please find one place in the DoI that describes any but the aforementioned rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Nor did the original constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The transcript of the Bill of Rights begins with the following:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The rest is semantics.

So what "unalienable" rights did the DoI omit ? Do you realize, as per the Federalist Papers, and the numerous discussions between the Founders, that the Bill of Rights was intended only to be a further explanation of the Rights, and more importantly the limitations of the Federal Government, with regard to to limiting its power to suppress the individual ? Many of the Founders, including Madison, felt that the BoR was not foundationally needed, as they felt every Amendment in the BoR was already clearly guaranteed in the original Constitution !
Madison bowed to the politics of needing to gain the support of wavering states, such as NY.

Madison, for all his brilliance, did not anticipate the modern day liberal jackass, it would seem ! He was not perfect. Only close.

Again, the 2nd Amendment is clear in its simplicity. It does not matter why it says "will not be infringed". It needs no qualifications.

Your posts are shallow, and just plain stupid, on this topic.

[Shoot the Goose]

For those stupid enough to die, I am sure there is.

Just as a matter of interest, what would you go to war with your government for?

STFU dumbass. Or tell us what you would fight your government for !

[zelmo1234]

For those stupid enough to die, I am sure there is.

Just as a matter of interest, what would you go to war with your government for?

Well God forbid that it ever happen in the USA, but I am sure that before the people of the USSR and China were slaughtered, they thought the same thing.

But I guess this explains it better than I can!

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

Would I allow the disarmement of the population, the end of free speach and press, the right to privacy, search and seasure, to assemble or freedom of religion, NO these things are woth making a stand.

What I still think is funny is everyone assumes that the US military would be one sided, if another conflict was to arise. this is far from the truth, as the majority of the military are conservative, thus the Dems are always trying to prevent them from voting

[Awryly]

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html :deadhorse2:



So this is the third time in the last 24 hours, and not one objection yet.


Can you tell me why you have not ban firearms in New Zealand! You have still not answered why you want us to do something your government is not willing to do?????

Because there is no need? We do not habitually shoot one another here.

[Dr. Who]

So what "unalienable" rights did the DoI omit ? Do you realize, as per the Federalist Papers, and the numerous discussions between the Founders, that the Bill of Rights was intended only to be a further explanation of the Rights, and more importantly the limitations of the Federal Government, with regard to to limiting its power to suppress the individual ? Many of the Founders, including Madison, felt that the BoR was not foundationally needed, as they felt every Amendment in the BoR was already clearly guaranteed in the original Constitution !
Madison bowed to the politics of needing to gain the support of wavering states, such as NY.

Madison, for all his brilliance, did not anticipate the modern day liberal jackass, it would seem ! He was not perfect. Only close.

Again, the 2nd Amendment is clear in its simplicity. It does not matter why it says "will not be infringed". It needs no qualifications.

Your posts are shallow, and just plain stupid, on this topic.

You did not answer the question as asked. Name any other unalienable rights other than the ones listed, that are described in the DOI?

[Shoot the Goose]

You did not answer the question as asked. Name any other unalienable rights other than the ones listed, that are described in the DOI?

Clueless. You made that claim that the DoI only covered some of the "inalienable rights". I challenged your statement.

And you pissed your liberal pants.

[Awryly]

STFU dumbass. Or tell us what you would fight your government for !

Answer my question..

We in NZ do not plan to overthrow our government nor ever have.

What reason would you have for trying to overthrow yours?

[Dr. Who]

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html :deadhorse2:



So this is the third time in the last 24 hours, and not one objection yet.


Can you tell me why you have not ban firearms in New Zealand! You have still not answered why you want us to do something your government is not willing to do?????

To be fair, I don't think there are many looking at a complete weapons ban in the US, just some reasonable restrictions. Most places in the world recognize that unfettered gun ownership is a liability.

[Private Pickle]

Anyone who actively pursues to have their own rights stripped from them needs medication.

[Awryly]

To be fair, I don't think there are many looking at a complete weapons ban in the US, just some reasonable restrictions. Most places in the world recognize that unfettered gun ownership is a liability.

The gun manufacturers pay the NRA millions to ensure there is no weapons ban. It is bad for business.

[roadmaster]

Would I allow the disarmement of the population, the end of free speach and press, the right to privacy, search and seasure, to assemble or freedom of religion, NO these things are woth making a stand.
It shall and always be our way to have freedoms and are worth dying for and making a stand. Once you give away your rights you become slaves. It is better to fight then to coward down and let them walk over us. We may not win but willing to give them a fight they will remember.

[zelmo1234]

Because there is no need? We do not habitually shoot one another here.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

But you did murder 134 people in your country last year. and you only have a little over 4 million people.

We have 11000 gun murders and 330 million people?

So lets not get too far up on our high horse!

[Awryly]

It shall and always be our way to have freedoms and are worth dying for and making a stand. Once you give away your rights you become slaves. It is better to fight then to coward down and let them walk over us. We may not win but willing to give them a fight they will remember.

*sigh*

What are you "fighting" for?

The right to depose your democratically elected government?

[roadmaster]

The gun manufacturers pay the NRA millions to ensure there is no weapons ban. It is bad for business.

I don't always support some of what the NRA says but do believe in citizens being able to protect themselves.

[roadmaster]

*sigh*

What are you "fighting" for?

The right to depose your democratically elected government?

The right to own a gun and protect my family.

[Dr. Who]

So what "unalienable" rights did the DoI omit ? Do you realize, as per the Federalist Papers, and the numerous discussions between the Founders, that the Bill of Rights was intended only to be a further explanation of the Rights, and more importantly the limitations of the Federal Government, with regard to to limiting its power to suppress the individual ? Many of the Founders, including Madison, felt that the BoR was not foundationally needed, as they felt every Amendment in the BoR was already clearly guaranteed in the original Constitution !
Madison bowed to the politics of needing to gain the support of wavering states, such as NY.

Madison, for all his brilliance, did not anticipate the modern day liberal jackass, it would seem ! He was not perfect. Only close.

Again, the 2nd Amendment is clear in its simplicity. It does not matter why it says "will not be infringed". It needs no qualifications.

Your posts are shallow, and just plain stupid, on this topic.

As you are incapable of behaving like a civilized human being, I am putting you on ignore, please do feel free to do the same. You may want to look into some help with that temper.

[Private Pickle]

It ensures our ability to maintain a democratically elected government.

[Awryly]

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

But you did murder 134 people in your country last year. and you only have a little over 4 million people.

We have 11000 gun murders and 330 million people?

So lets not get too far up on our high horse!

I have no idea why I bother to indulge your nonsense.


“There was a great outcry last year when in 2009-2010, 68 murders were recorded. While that was high, there were 68 murders in 1997-98, and 66 murders in 2001-2002.


This year the number of murders dropped to 45.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1104/S00029/new-zealand-murder-rate-continues-to-trend-downwards.htm

Hardly any were with guns.

If you must insist on doing "research" please try to find the authorities who have the accurate information.

[Shoot the Goose]

As you are incapable of behaving like a civilized human being, I am putting you on ignore, please do feel free to do the same. You may want to look into some help with that temper.

And you are an idiot who has apparently been sheltered from the truth by equally uninformed idiots ! Go into your hole, and stay there. You cannot debate, so into your voluntary abyss you go ! Good riddance !

[Awryly]

Anyone who actively pursues to have their own rights stripped from them needs medication.

So do those who hallucinate.

What are you taking?

[roadmaster]

As you are incapable of behaving like a civilized human being, I am putting you on ignore, please do feel free to do the same. You may want to look into some help with that temper.

Would you have wanted to be Jewish and disarmed when Hitler was in power?

[Awryly]

Noodle-spined dimwit liberal. Go into your hole, and stay there. Good riddance !

He is behaving like a goose.

I too ignore geese. Because they can do no more than honk.

[Private Pickle]

It's a right to us Americans. It would be like you giving up your right to Free Speech. Anyone who argues to give up their own rights is like cutting oneself to bring the inside pain outside.

[Private Pickle]

Kinda like you if your government decides to turn your country into a prison shower scene...

[Dr. Who]

It shall and always be our way to have freedoms and are worth dying for and making a stand. Once you give away your rights you become slaves. It is better to fight then to coward down and let them walk over us. We may not win but willing to give them a fight they will remember.

Why do you equate disarming the population with the loss of any other rights. Actually, few are even advocating disarmament only greater or lesser restrictions. Additionally, a live slave can still work on changing his or her destiny. Dead is just dead.

[Dr. Who]

He is behaving like a goose.

I too ignore geese. Because they can do no more than honk.

They are also known for their silly aggressiveness.

[Peter1469]

No-one seems to have an answer to the small matter of why America needs a citizen militia when it has invested a grotesque amount of money in a standing army and the National Guards.

The 2nd Amendment was made for a time long gone and in circumstances long gone. Is someone prepared to say that it granted the right to bear arms so that Americans could protect themselves from one another (and/or their slaves)? If so, show how that can be read into the text. Without resorting to silly semantics.

Of course, there is the tyranny argument. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10120-Where-did-this-quot-tyranny-quot-nobsense-come-from

Which is a bit of nonsense put about by wackjobs who live in the backwoods and the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufacturers.

I provided an answer: because Americans are served by the government. They are not servants of their government.

The militia are not employees of the State.

[Awryly]

It's a right to us Americans. It would be like you giving up your right to Free Speech. Anyone who argues to give up their own rights is like cutting oneself to bring the inside pain outside.

Thanks for that, private.

[Awryly]

I provided an answer: because Americans are served by the government. They are not servants of their government.

The militia are not employees of the State.

Who pays them? Who orders their deployment? Who arms them?

Father Christmas?

[Private Pickle]

Thanks for that, private.

I aim to please.

[Dr. Who]

Would you have wanted to be Jewish and disarmed when Hitler was in power?

Sorry, I don't get the connection between my ignoring "Shoot the Goose" and your post.

[Awryly]

They are also known for their silly aggressiveness.

I occasionally have one for dinner.

Would you like the recipe?

[roadmaster]

Why do you equate disarming the population with the loss of any other rights. Actually, few are even advocating disarmament only greater or lesser restrictions. Additionally, a live slave can still work on changing his or her destiny. Dead is just dead.
Yes, disarming us is a loss of our rights. I want the right to shoot a person breaking into my house trying to harm us. They don't go by the laws. By the time the police shows up most if not all of us would be dead anyway. Slavery was abolished a long time ago, do we really want to make the same mistakes over and over?

[Peter1469]

The gun manufacturers pay the NRA millions to ensure there is no weapons ban. It is bad for business.

But the treat of a ban is great for business.....

[Peter1469]

I occasionally have one for dinner.

Would you like the recipe?

I would. They have goose at my local Whole Foods, but I never have purchased it because I don't know how to cook it.

[Awryly]

I don't always support some of what the NRA says but do believe in citizens being able to protect themselves.

Right. That's the nub of it. Citizens protecting themselves from other citizens.

How has it come about that you have to do that?

[Awryly]

Why do you equate disarming the population with the loss of any other rights. Actually, few are even advocating disarmament only greater or lesser restrictions. Additionally, a live slave can still work on changing his or her destiny. Dead is just dead.

They could not survive without shooting one another.

It's a tradition.

[Private Pickle]

They could not survive without shooting one another.

It's a tradition.

Welcome to the human race.

[Awryly]

But the treat of a ban is great for business.....

Temporarily.

[roadmaster]

Sorry, I don't get the connection between my ignoring "Shoot the Goose" and your post.

Maybe because we remember that the Jewish had no chance and don't want the same to happen in another country or ours. While she may be strong in her words doesn't mean she doesn't care for the safety of our citizens.

[Awryly]

Welcome to the human race.

'Fraid not. Some parts of the human race don't indulge in death as you guys do.

You have a special aptitude.

[Private Pickle]

'Fraid not. Some parts of the human race don't indulge in death as you guys do.

You have a special aptitude.

Someone skipped history class...

[Awryly]

Maybe because we remember that the Jewish had no chance and don't want the same to happen in another country or ours. While she may be strong in her words doesn't mean she doesn't care for the safety of our citizens.

So you're protecting the Jews from Hitler (who happens to be dead)?

[Awryly]

Someone skipped history class...

Someone skipped all the others as well.

[Private Pickle]

Someone skipped all the others as well.

It's never too late to go back. Good luck!

[roadmaster]

So you're protecting the Jews from Hitler (who happens to be dead)?

Do you think it couldn't happen again with others? If you disarm people then it's easy to kill many without a way to protect themselves.

[Dr. Who]

I provided an answer: because Americans are served by the government. They are not servants of their government.

The militia are not employees of the State.

At what point does gun ownership hit a critical mass? Consider declining societal values in conjunction with gun ownership. If the moral imperative not to kill exceeds the moral imperative to protect life, then what?

[Peter1469]

Do you think it couldn't happen again with others? If you disarm people then it's easy to kill many without a way to protect themselves.

I imagine that had the Jews been armed they would have at least died on their feet and not in ovens. The gun-grabbers are Satanic.

[Awryly]

It's never too late to go back. Good luck!

In the case of you and your compatriots, I suspect it is far too late.

You have a culture that will likely destroy you.

[Private Pickle]

At what point does gun ownership hit a critical mass? Consider declining societal values in conjunction with gun ownership. If the moral imperitive not to kill exceed the moral imperitive to protect life, then what?

People with guns and a moral imperative not to kill will be able to protect themselves from those whose moral imperative is to kill, control and or enslave.

[Private Pickle]

In the case of you and your compatriots, I suspect it is far too late.

You have a culture that will likely destroy you.

Well at least I know that my culture will take yours with it. Enjoy being at the bottom of the food chain?

[Awryly]

Do you think it couldn't happen again with others? If you disarm people then it's easy to kill many without a way to protect themselves.

So, as I have asked before again and again, who is going to kill you?

Your democratically elected government? Why would they want to?

[Awryly]

Well at least I know that my culture will take yours with it. Enjoy being at the bottom of the food chain?

Good question mark. We are well at the top.

[Awryly]

People with guns and a moral imperative not to kill will be able to protect themselves from those whose moral imperative is to kill, control and or enslave.


And they are who?

[Dr. Who]

Maybe because we remember that the Jewish had no chance and don't want the same to happen in another country or ours. While she may be strong in her words doesn't mean she doesn't care for the safety of our citizens.

My ignoring Shoot the Goose had nothing to do with his or her opinion, but with the complete disregard for simple manners. If a person can't restrain the urge to hurl outright abuse at people, simply because they have a different opinion, that person is uncivilized, and might I add, has a significant problem controlling their temper.

[Awryly]

And they are who?

Do you expect that you will one day elect a reincarnated Hitler?

Is your democracy that shallow?

[Private Pickle]

Do you expect that you will one day elect a reincarnated Hitler?

Is your democracy that shallow?

Democracy is only shallow if the people have no weight behind their voice. Bottom line, if your government wanted to it could bend you over the barrel and make you bite pillows to its hearts content. You're helpless and naive...a dangerous combo...

[Shoot the Goose]

In the case of you and your compatriots, I suspect it is far too late.

You have a culture that will likely destroy you.

And you espouse a culture that will surely allow others to destroy you.

We are the longest standing Republic in the history of the Universe ? And what are you ?

A: A parasite who cowers under our protective umbrella according to all history ! If ever NZ is worth a crap, as perhaps the Chinese will covet a place to make fantasy movies about short people some day, then defend yourselves !

Noodle-spined sheep fornicators.

[Dr. Who]

People with guns and a moral imperative not to kill will be able to protect themselves from those whose moral imperative is to kill, control and or enslave.

And if you ultimately arrive in a place where bad economics and moral deprativity results in a larger population of have-nots with no social conscience vs haves with a social conscience, you are doomed. Of course you could end up with equally depraved haves and have-nots, and then you will simply extinguish each other.

[Shoot the Goose]

My ignoring Shoot the Goose had nothing to do with his or her opinion, but with the complete disregard for simple manners. If a person can't restrain the urge to hurl outright abuse at people, simply because they have a different opinion, that person is uncivilized, and might I add, has a significant problem controlling their temper.

The whining and cowering of an idiot. You can't debate. At least not today. And I suspect not tomorrow. Been a small pleasure making you run and hide. The Founders would spit on you were they alive to do so.

[Awryly]

And if you ultimately arrive in a place where bad economics and moral deprativity results in a larger population of have-nots with no social conscience vs haves with a social conscience, you are doomed. Of course you could end up with equally depraved haves and have-nots, and then you will simply extinguish each other.

But there's an upside.

The survivors will get to make a movie about it.

[Private Pickle]

And if you ultimately arrive in a place where bad economics and moral deprativity results in a larger population of have-nots with no social conscience vs haves with a social conscience, you are doomed. Of course you could end up with equally depraved haves and have-nots, and then you will simply extinguish each other.

What exactly do you think would happen if you were unarmed and you arrive at a place of bad economics and moral depravity? Give ya a hint...it would look like 1939.

[Dr. Who]

I imagine that had the Jews been armed they would have at least died on their feet and not in ovens. The gun-grabbers are Satanic.

The Jews were not armed because they did not, at that point in history, believe in violence. It's not like they were unable to acquire weapons. They were pacifists. That changed after WWII. Arming them would not have made a significant difference because they had a religious objection to killing. It would be the same as asking the Amish or Quakers to take up arms.

[roadmaster]

So, as I have asked before again and again, who is going to kill you?

Your democratically elected government? Why would they want to?

There will come a time when civil unrest will hit the country with fury because of the decisions of this President, past Presidents and the greedy. May not happen in my lifetime but something will happen to spark angry protest, find out their money is worthless, they will then send out people to control order. Think what you would do if your 401 was wiped out, checking and savings freezed and money useless to buy goods? Now the government doesn't want to deal with individuals having guns of their own. I won't go into prophesy because I know you don't believe. What would you do if you knew they were coming after you and would you have a plan?

[Private Pickle]

Wha? Gun restrictions, especially from the Jews, was one of the first things Hitler did...

[Dr. Who]

What exactly do you think would happen if you were unarmed and you arrive at a place of bad economics and moral depravity? Give ya a hint...it would look like 1939.
Yes, but it was initially just one country that declared war on the rest of the world. I suggest you look into the reason why the German people were so desperate that they would support a megalomaniac like Hitler. They were literally starving, as a result of forced reparation payments after WWI, as well as the recent world wide depression.

Let's suggest a US scenario where the middle class was all but eliminated due to bad economic policy, you would then have a large have-not class, a tiny middle class and and even smaller, albeit richer upper class. A situation ripe for revolution. Come to think of it, all of the heinous death aside, it would certainly rectify the current problems.

[Awryly]

There will come a time when civil unrest will hit the country with fury because of the decisions of this President, past Presidents and the greedy. May not happen in my lifetime but something will happen to spark angry protest, find out their money is worthless, they will then send out people to control order. Think what you would do if your 401 was wiped out, checking and savings freezed and money useless to buy goods? Now the government doesn't want to deal with individuals having guns of their own. I won't go into prophesy because I know you don't believe. What would you do if you knew they were coming after you and would you have a plan?

As far as I'm aware, your 401ks are being wiped out by private "enterprise".

And it would be banks who"froze your money".

You may protest and then the government might become involved against its will.

Which is just a way of saying the vaunted free enterprise system you are so fond of will have created the chaos from which the government will have to rescue you.

Didn't that happen recently?

[roadmaster]

Wha? Gun restrictions, especially from the Jews, was one of the first things Hitler did...

Not just the Jews. Everyone was merely required to register their guns. Then, right before he took over as a dictator, he had the authorities confiscate those guns. An unarmed populace is less able to resist.

[Private Pickle]

Yes, but it was initially just one country that declared war on the rest of the world. I suggest you look into the reason why the German people were so desperate that they would support a megalomaniac like Hitler. They were literally starving, as a result of forced reparation payments after WWI, as well as the recent world wide depression.

Let's suggest a US scenario where the middle class was all but eliminated due to bad economic policy, you would then have a large have-not class, a tiny middle class and and even smaller, albeit richer upper class. A situation ripe for revolution. Come to think of it, all of the heinous death aside, it would certainly rectify the current problems.

It would probably turn into another WW scenario. If you think any nation let alone the most powerful military in the world would allow its citizens to starve before going to war and taking the resources of others then you have missed your guess. Again, it would look like 1939....

[Awryly]

It would probably turn into another WW scenario. If you think any nation let alone the most powerful military in the world would allow its citizens to starve before going to war and taking the resources of others then you have missed your guess. Again, it would look like 1939....

So all that "freedom" and "liberty" applies only to Americans?

[Private Pickle]

So all that "freedom" and "liberty" applies only to Americans?

Given that Americans are the only ones who could actually fight oppression I would say, empirically, yes.

[Awryly]

Given that Americans are the only ones who could actually fight oppression I would say, empirically, yes.

It seems you have forgotten to mention this "empiricism" to the Taliban.

Much as you forgot to mention it to the Vietnamese.

[zelmo1234]

To be fair, I don't think there are many looking at a complete weapons ban in the US, just some reasonable restrictions. Most places in the world recognize that unfettered gun ownership is a liability.

I would agree that most are not looking to ban everything, but some look at this as just a stepping stone.

And while there are those athat look at gun ownership as a liability, once again that fact do not support this conclusion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented

very strict gun laws, and yet the have gun violence, and of course they have mass killings as well

But what happens when you do not put these ristrictions on the populis? The wild west right?

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

No the highest gun ownership in the world is also one of the safest places in the world.

so much so that it is omitted because it does not fit the gun ban objective of world leeaders.

You will also see that when the UK went to it's banning of firearms making then civilized, it only reduced their fireamr murder rate by.01%

But it created a violency problem in the nation, now making them the second most violent nation in the wealthy world

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

And if we llok at the cities and states with the toughest gun laws in this country, you will also see some of the highest crime rates in the country

Dc and Chicago come to mind.

Speacking of Chicago where guns are all but ban, had 319 school shootings this school year, did you here anything about it?

Chicago has about 41 murders a month with a near gun ban, again nothing?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/18/Media-Ignore-Equivalent-of-School-Shooting-Per-Week-in-Chicago

When you are trying to get tougher gun restriction you have to ignor the facts, that they do not reduce crime

just look at this Harvard study?

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

So when all this is taken into account, do we want to do somthing that will solve the problem and keep children alive? Like putting armed guards in the school or allowing teachers to conceal carry like in some districtic in TX.

Or do we want to be seen as compasionate and to be doing something, but when all is said and done our compassion increased the problem.

[zelmo1234]

The Jews were not armed because they did not, at that point in history, believe in violence. It's not like they were unable to acquire weapons. They were pacifists. That changed after WWII. Arming them would not have made a significant difference because they had a religious objection to killing. It would be the same as asking the Amish or Quakers to take up arms.

I live in amish country, they have no objection to being armed to the teeth and feel the need to do so, as they can not call the police for help? No phones.

The jewish people also have not been agianst self protection, just a turning the other cheek has never ment to become a willing victom. In Germany 1929 guns were in fact ban from the public, as they were not allowed to have anything to stand up to the government.

So once again your opinion is not supported by facts

There is a disire to show compassion and to be seen as doing something to solve this problem?

Let me ask you this. we have had an assualt weapons ban in this country, and we have states that currently have magizine restrictions can you show me were the crime rate was lower when the assault weapons ban was in place? Or would it again have the opposite effect, but be seen as being compasionate. which is how liberals judge success by the way!

[zelmo1234]

Given that Americans are the only ones who could actually fight oppression I would say, empirically, yes.

While I agree with your positions on guns,

WE are not the only ones that can fight opression. As a matter of fact we do not even have the most gun ownership

Switzerland holds that distinction and they are in fact one of the safest places to live in the world.

AW while he trys to not admit it has very heavily armed population in NZ and while you must take safty and use course you are not ban from any weapon in NZ they have had great success in this education and they do test for mental illness but look to there neighbor Australia, which is what AW wants everyone to think that his country did, and they did ban most weapons, and they are the most violent wealthy nation in the world.

The examples go on and on, but they are not to be taken seriously by any liberals with gun bans on there mind, because the compasionate thing to do would be to ban guns. and if this creates more death and violence, remember that the compasionate thing to do is to ban guns. Results ar never to be judged, on intentions!

[zelmo1234]

Yes, but it was initially just one country that declared war on the rest of the world. I suggest you look into the reason why the German people were so desperate that they would support a megalomaniac like Hitler. They were literally starving, as a result of forced reparation payments after WWI, as well as the recent world wide depression.

Let's suggest a US scenario where the middle class was all but eliminated due to bad economic policy, you would then have a large have-not class, a tiny middle class and and even smaller, albeit richer upper class. A situation ripe for revolution. Come to think of it, all of the heinous death aside, it would certainly rectify the current problems.

Yes there ahve been times in the history of the world where the population has been told that the problems they ar facing is because the rich have stolen from them, they ahve been indoctrinatied that the rich are keeping them from being succesful, and that there is no hope for them.

governments in the past have put such strong restrictions and taxation on industry that there was no possibility of expansion and providing jobs.
They have printied money in the past to further reduce the value of the currency making in impossible for the poor to live. In the name of compassion they then create social programs that eventually break the back of ebven the wealthy and the government runs out of money and the social programs come to a complete stop, leaveing the masses that have become dependent on the government lost and without hope, with little education, but indoctrinated to beleive that the wealthy have acuse this problem.

Sound like any countries that you know about. This is the revolution that you desire, and thanks for having the courage to admit it!

There are 2 differences in the USA, #1 most of the wealthy in this nation are prepared for the collapse of the US dollar aw we can see that it is the objective ot the fed to do so, and #2 the most important thing for the government is to get guns out of the hands of the citizens expecially the wealthy, which will in fact obey the laws, while leaving them in the hands of the criminal element, so they can be the onse to exterminate the wealthy,

They will do this in hopes that the govenment will redistribute the wealth to the, when in fact the government will take this wealth to pay it's debt off and establish it self as the new rulling class with all of the wealth. Then using the military to exterminate the crimianl element!

Here is a guide to the nations that have practices the path that you desire

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

And of course we see that after these revolutions the population is worse off than before they started, only now as Russia and China are allowing personel ownership and capitalism to come into there economic system are they seeing growth and wealth.

So this is the path of socialism, it has never worked? But we have about half of the americans that are ready to give it a trt? the results will in fact be the SAME

[Chris]

The DoI did not delineate all of the "unalienable" rights, only the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Please find one place in the DoI that describes any but the aforementioned rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Nor did the original constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The transcript of the Bill of Rights begins with the following:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The rest is semantics.

As for the DoI, you omit a long list of grievances that make semantic sense only if the imply additional rights.

As for the BoR, you seriously misread if you thing its intent was to declare rights, it was to declare limitations on government against abuse of powers. And you forgot to bookend the opening with the 9th and 10th amendments.

[Chris]

Answer my question..

We in NZ do not plan to overthrow our government nor ever have.

What reason would you have for trying to overthrow yours?

This has been answered, in this thread, and in other arguments with you:


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Why don't you spend some time reading founding documents?

[Chris]

So do those who hallucinate.

What are you taking?

Why is this troll allowed to disrupt discussion after discussion?

[zelmo1234]

As far as I'm aware, your 401ks are being wiped out by private "enterprise".

And it would be banks who"froze your money".

You may protest and then the government might become involved against its will.

Which is just a way of saying the vaunted free enterprise system you are so fond of will have created the chaos from which the government will have to rescue you.

Didn't that happen recently?

My 401K looks great. Because we have a system that does not educate any more but is hell bent on indoctrination many di just what you do not want to do in a ression and that is sell your stocks at a loss.

Those that had reasearched funds that had good managers, and left there money in the market had a lot more shares even though there value was down 40% as the market came back, to 80% of its high they had all of there money back and then moved on to profits, Most stopped investing, and you should always buy during a fire sale. but again they are never told this in there educational path, because this does not fit the mold of the rich stole the money from you.

those that did use low market values to purchase and had good advice and good managers mad a killing.

Those like myself that thought this could happen invested in tngable assets that were a hedge against the printing of money and inlfation. Gold and silver. In purchasing these items before the collapse, we have had these values go up 3 to 4 times the purchase value. but not one educational system seeks to teach people to buy gold in smoking hot economies, when it has a lower value.

This is why the poor will be poor they bought stocks high and sold them low, and now are buying themhigh again, becasue of the fear created by the liberals in government and education. whiel those that have taken the time to educate themselves and have looked at history have done increasingly well by using the same principles.

Now we are just waitng for the right political leader to put in place policies that will start to create growth and jobs, then we will seel our gold and silver, which those that ahve been indoctrinates well and now have better jobs or at least jobs will buy up, at high prices and invest in realestate, which will be the purchase they will make! The values of gold will go down to noral lows and stocks will level off except for thos that manufacture durable goods as the booming economy will jmake those go through the roof, the weealty will invest there and then buy back there gold and silver and wait for the process to repeat itself.

[Chris]

He is behaving like a goose.

I too ignore geese. Because they can do no more than honk.

Again, I ask, why is this troll allowed to disrupt discussion after discussion with these personal attacks?

[Chris]

It's a right to us Americans. It would be like you giving up your right to Free Speech. Anyone who argues to give up their own rights is like cutting oneself to bring the inside pain outside.

Minor disagreement. Rights are naturally inalienable to all individuals everywhere: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our rights are protected by the BoR...or ought to be. The rights of others are protected, or ought to be, by their governments.

Thus, for example, foreigners, like Piers what's his name, have the same rights but not the same protections.

[zelmo1234]

It's never too late to go back. Good luck!

Pickle AW lives in a country that is practicing nearly every policy that the republicans are advocating, and it is working really well, he is a liberal that is out of power in his country and desparatly wants the policies that Obama is instituting with a 100% failure rate to be adopted by his coLiuntry

So he is on here trying to cause trouble. Like all libs he hates facts, but loves to make stuff up, keep hitting him with links to prove his points wrong, a great place to look is the New Zealand govenments own web site.

[Chris]

Why do you equate disarming the population with the loss of any other rights. Actually, few are even advocating disarmament only greater or lesser restrictions. Additionally, a live slave can still work on changing his or her destiny. Dead is just dead.

Goose explained that to you in post #140: "Amendment number 1 explains the most basic of such. Amendment number 2 is how you maintain ownership of such. Such that should anyone try to take them from you, under any circumstance, you retain the power to say "No"."

[zelmo1234]

i occasionally have one for dinner.

Would you like the recipe?

yes!

[Chris]

At what point does gun ownership hit a critical mass? Consider declining societal values in conjunction with gun ownership. If the moral imperative not to kill exceeds the moral imperative to protect life, then what?

Below 212,000,000:

http://i.snag.gy/qVeoK.jpg

[zelmo1234]

Right. That's the nub of it. Citizens protecting themselves from other citizens.

How has it come about that you have to do that?

This is the easiest one yet, look at what the libeal policies in educational and the economy have done for the oppertunity of the poor, even though we have a grant system so that the poor can go to collage free, they can not get into them because they are indoctrinatied and not educated in the primary schools. they are tought that only the government has there best intrest at heart, and the the rich are the reason that they are poor, while the government designs programs to insure that they remain poor.

Not hare to see where they loose hope is it! You know it is just the opposite of what you are doing in your country, that is why you are growing and we are stagnate at best, but don't worry if you want this to happen in your country, all you have to do is adopt the same policies, Printing money so that your poor have even less buying power is a great place to start.

[Chris]

So, as I have asked before again and again, who is going to kill you?

Your democratically elected government? Why would they want to?

Must you troll and twist everything everyone says? roadmaster was talking not about being killed but being slaves--as in dependent on government is the way I understood it, possibly in being slaves to one another.