"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 10
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. There is no point in arguing over semantics. We all basically want the same thing, the right to carry firearms as we would feel most prudent for ourselves. There are enough liberals out there that would be very happy to keep dissension through out the pro-2a groups to prevent any unified front.

  2.   
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    There is no point in arguing over semantics. We all basically want the same thing, the right to carry firearms as we would feel most prudent for ourselves. There are enough liberals out there that would be very happy to keep dissension through out the pro-2a groups to prevent any unified front.
    Agreed.. My issue is simply this; why fight a battle with compromise as the tool?... The liberal gun grabbing left will expect it and they will keep coming to take more and more.

    I've written this before, Those who are willing to compromise their freedom for the moment will have none of it by days end...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    More to read on the subject of gun laws, restrictions, interpretations, and where compromise eventually leads us and leaves us...

    New Jersey Gun Case Exposes 'Patchwork' of State Laws, Experts Say - FoxNews.com

    Here is a nice write up regarding the case that kinda sums it up... Enjoy...

    The case of a New Jersey man who is serving seven years in prison for possessing two locked and unloaded handguns he purchased legally in Colorado is a perfect example of how a law-abiding citizen can unwittingly become a criminal due to vastly differing gun laws among the states, gun rights experts say.

    I'm going to stop with the quotes from the story right here, because nothing more needs to be quoted.

    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.

    What is the Second Amendment? It is recognition of a right.

    Parse that sentence again: Rights can be either recognized or abrogated but they cannot be granted.

    In order to grant something, you first must have it. The State does not possess the right to the people's self-defense (by definition) against either personal tyranny (e.g. a thug breaking into their home) or government tyranny (e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)
    You either accept that you, and everyone else, have an unalienable right to self defense or you do not.

    If you do, then the right to possess weapons suitable for self-defense (which most-certainly includes any sort of small arm such as a pistol) is inherently encompassed within that right.

    The NRA, the Brady folks and others all in fact argue over nonsense. They argue over "reasonable restrictions." But there are no reasonable restrictions when it comes to peaceable exercise of a right. NONE.

    Yes, I know that Miller says that short-barreled shotguns are permissible to restrict and there are other cases on the books that bear on this as well.
    But laws and rights are not the same thing. Laws either respect or disrespect rights, but they do not bestow them, because the government is not from whence rights flow, and you cannot bestow that which you do not first possess.

    This does not mean that there should be no legal strictures for non-peaceable acts - that is, violations of other people's rights. Your right to peaceable self-defense expires when you pull that weapon with the intent to use it for an unlawful purpose (like sticking up a convenience store.)
    But the principle of unalienable rights, standing alone, is that no government has a right to prospective constraint upon unalienable rights, as their peaceable exercise is unalienable - that is, beyond any government's ability to review.

    It makes many people very uncomfortable when one starts talking about topics in this vein, because everyone, it seems, wants to trade liberty for security in some form or fashion. Yet a long line of facts and history prove beyond any doubt - reasonable or otherwise - that such trades never secure actual safety, but always sacrifice liberty.

    Witness Chicago. It was illegal to possess a handgun unless you were a peace officer and functionally (despite Heller and friends) still is. Yet this has not prevented one thug from gaining possession of a handgun and waving statutes in front of said thug has not managed to stop one bullet in flight. In fact, the thugs are so impressed with these laws that they burn police cars in front of cops' homes in the middle of the night. The citizens? They (rightfully) refuse to step in and stop it. With what would they stop it? Their good looks? Remember, by definition a law-abiding citizen in that city is not armed! Nor is this confined to the right to peaceably exist (which is why we have a Second Amendment.)
    It also extends to the right to travel. Not only has that been turned into a privilege with things like Driver Licensing but it is in point of fact illegal to bicycle while intoxicated in Florida - and many other states. That's right - you can do the right thing by choosing to bike (instead of drive) if you intend to drink and get a DUI anyway. Worse, there's a recent case where the cops arrested someone for drinking in the back of a limousine. That is, the patron hired a driver specifically to avoid the risk of a DUI and was arrested anyway. Free to go upon the public roadways? A right to travel? Not any more - and we haven't even discussed the TSA and other similar goon-squad nonsense yet.

    You want to talk about liberty? Fundamental, unalienable rights? Which ones? You only have the rights endowed by your creator you are willing to defend.

    Today, that's a blank sheet of paper, all in the name of "just a little compromise" or claimed acts "for your safety" (which in fact do not deliver what was promised, and liability for that failure by those in government is then, of course, refused.)

    Just ask the 40,000+ dead on our nation's roads every year or the 3,000 ghosts of those who were alive prior to 9/11, all of which were promised "safety" in consideration of giving up their liberty. They got neither, and to top it off a man who was peaceably going along his path in life, who had committed no offense upon the peace, was searched, arrested, tried, convicted and is now in prison because he peaceably exercised an unalienable right.

    Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and the rest would damn this nation and it's government to eternal Hell were they alive to see this travesty and the millions just like it that are committed each and every year.
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  5. #94

    Right to Bear Arms

    Arms, meaning, for the most part, but not exclusively to mean only firearms in the day of the forefathers, are the only consumer product protected by the Constitution.

  6. #95
    Arguing over 2A is much like arguing with a stop sign. No matter what you say or how much you argue you are not going to change the wording of either one but only what the opinions of some people as to the meaning of it. Most of the jaw jacking going on these days about 2A has no actual reflection on what the intentions of the writers envisioned but rather how those words apply in todays society. The concern of the Founders was that of the defense of the nation whether from internal or external foes and they chose the words that they felt best fit that meaning. In 2A there are five words that have great meaning and how they are interpreted and applied today.

    People - The Founders may have meant all people but they did not adhere to it. Only certain persons were actually included in The People. Did they mean all people including slaves and criminials? How about women? Do we only consider the ones that they included or do we now change it to include everyone. How about minors or the insane?

    Keep - To own and have readily available. To have as private property and cannot be taken away.

    Bear - Their concern was that arms would be available if needed and that the militia would not be hindered when carrying those arms to the battle field. They of course meant for self-protection but that was such a given to them that it was of little concern. They wanted to be sure that men had arms available if needed and that there were no restrictions on them being able to have them.

    Arms
    - This is a great point of discussion as to what did they mean by arms. During the revolution most of the arms, which included everything used from rifles to cannons and ships were privately owned. They were not owned by the government and the full intent of 2A was that if needed those arms would be available, from pistols to ships. To put it in todays world it would include planes, missles and nukes. When they said arms they meant arms.

    Prohibited - Does prohibited mean the actual ownership of arms or does it mean everyday use. We can stretch prohibited to mean lots of things but it must be placed in context of the four previous terms.

    Nowhere in 2A is reasonable nor is the exact definition of these terms so arguing over what 2A says is like arguing with the stop sign. Until someone provides a universal definition of the five major words in 2A and everyone agreed we will continue to argue with the stop sign. I think that the definitions will wind up somewhere between the third grader taking the suitcase nuke for 'show and tell' and a total ban on all firearms owned by private citizens. In 1776 pistols were not the common defensive weapons for the common man, rather the rifle or knife. The shotgun wasn't even around in its common form unless you want to consider the blunderbuss a shotgun.

    In the last 200+ years the wording of 2A has not changed, maybe the definitions of some of the words have changed and definitely lots of other things have changed. We have some insight into what the Founders were thinking when they wrote those words but I don't think we know exactly what they were thinking and I don't think that if they were to write it today they would use the same words.

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Arguing over 2A is much like arguing with a stop sign. No matter what you say or how much you argue you are not going to change the wording of either one but only what the opinions of some people as to the meaning of it. Most of the jaw jacking going on these days about 2A has no actual reflection on what the intentions of the writers envisioned but rather how those words apply in todays society. The concern of the Founders was that of the defense of the nation whether from internal or external foes and they chose the words that they felt best fit that meaning. In 2A there are five words that have great meaning and how they are interpreted and applied today.

    People - The Founders may have meant all people but they did not adhere to it. Only certain persons were actually included in The People. Did they mean all people including slaves and criminials? How about women? Do we only consider the ones that they included or do we now change it to include everyone. How about minors or the insane?

    Keep - To own and have readily available. To have as private property and cannot be taken away.

    Bear - Their concern was that arms would be available if needed and that the militia would not be hindered when carrying those arms to the battle field. They of course meant for self-protection but that was such a given to them that it was of little concern. They wanted to be sure that men had arms available if needed and that there were no restrictions on them being able to have them.

    Arms
    - This is a great point of discussion as to what did they mean by arms. During the revolution most of the arms, which included everything used from rifles to cannons and ships were privately owned. They were not owned by the government and the full intent of 2A was that if needed those arms would be available, from pistols to ships. To put it in todays world it would include planes, missles and nukes. When they said arms they meant arms.

    Prohibited - Does prohibited mean the actual ownership of arms or does it mean everyday use. We can stretch prohibited to mean lots of things but it must be placed in context of the four previous terms.

    Nowhere in 2A is reasonable nor is the exact definition of these terms so arguing over what 2A says is like arguing with the stop sign. Until someone provides a universal definition of the five major words in 2A and everyone agreed we will continue to argue with the stop sign. I think that the definitions will wind up somewhere between the third grader taking the suitcase nuke for 'show and tell' and a total ban on all firearms owned by private citizens. In 1776 pistols were not the common defensive weapons for the common man, rather the rifle or knife. The shotgun wasn't even around in its common form unless you want to consider the blunderbuss a shotgun.

    In the last 200+ years the wording of 2A has not changed, maybe the definitions of some of the words have changed and definitely lots of other things have changed. We have some insight into what the Founders were thinking when they wrote those words but I don't think we know exactly what they were thinking and I don't think that if they were to write it today they would use the same words.
    All of this is your opinion and by God given right, you're entitled to have and express it... Neither you nor I, will ever know exactly what the founders were thinking. We can imagine and contemplate their thoughts and ideas by reading what they have written...

    The discussions, disagreements, arguments, etc. will continue despite your willingness to partake in them or not. And when they happen in the courts the opinions and decisions will affect you and I and all the rest of the law abiding gun owners... If we allow that to be the case...

    There are those among us that would see to it if possible, that no individual allowance to own any guns of any kind existed. Not muzzle loaders, flintlocks or BB guns... NONE... I'm not inclined to comply with the will of the liberal left nor the UN...

    Read the case of the man in NJ (indicated above in one of the previous posts) and imagine that being you. Because you own guns (assumption) it could happen... It's just a matter of another interpretation of a restriction or infringement that should not be...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  8. #97
    The case of the man in NJ that I assume you are refering to was about a man arrested and sentenced to 7 years for having gun in the trunk of his car. There was a little more to this case than is mentioned in most of the articles about it but to me is one of the most horrible miscarriages of justice that I know of in our justice system. Given all the background it was just WRONG.

    I would like to know from anyone that want to respond. Are you in favor of the 3rd grader with thr suitcase nuke? If not then where do you draw the line? What is your definition of arms and people? Does your right to carry a gun for self-defence trump all other rights such as personal/private property rights?

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    The case of the man in NJ that I assume you are refering to was about a man arrested and sentenced to 7 years for having gun in the trunk of his car. There was a little more to this case than is mentioned in most of the articles about it but to me is one of the most horrible miscarriages of justice that I know of in our justice system. Given all the background it was just WRONG.

    I would like to know from anyone that want to respond. Are you in favor of the 3rd grader with thr suitcase nuke? If not then where do you draw the line? What is your definition of arms and people? Does your right to carry a gun for self-defence trump all other rights such as personal/private property rights?
    Why would a third grader have a suitcase nuke? You keep bringing it up but what responsible parent would allow their kid to carry one? The same parents that leave their guns out for their kids to find are who would. So quit bringing it up it is just an asinine thing to keep saying.

    We are all adults here so you should be able to understand how illogical you commits are. Try sending your third grader to buy handgun ammo or shotgun shells. You will see that there are laws in place that keep them from being able to acquire them. You have to be 21 to buy handgun ammo and 18 to buy rifle or shotgun ammo.

  10. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Why would a third grader have a suitcase nuke? You keep bringing it up but what responsible parent would allow their kid to carry one? The same parents that leave their guns out for their kids to find are who would. So quit bringing it up it is just an asinine thing to keep saying.

    We are all adults here so you should be able to understand how illogical you commits are. Try sending your third grader to buy handgun ammo or shotgun shells. You will see that there are laws in place that keep them from being able to acquire them. You have to be 21 to buy handgun ammo and 18 to buy rifle or shotgun ammo.
    So are you for or against keeping those laws in place? Why should a person be required to be 18 to buy shotgun ammo? I bought it long before I was 18 and also bought .22 ammo before I was 18. That is the whole point of this discussion. are the present laws justified and it appears that to you they are. I am in favor of doing away with many of the present laws on guns and ammo, just right now I am not sure how many of the laws we need to do away with. As for what responsible parent would allow a child to handle onw, what percentage of parents would you put in the group of responsible parents. How about those Islamic parents that strap a C4 bomb to their children and send them into a restaurant full of Americans. Are they in the responsible parent category?

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    So are you for or against keeping those laws in place? Why should a person be required to be 18 to buy shotgun ammo? I bought it long before I was 18 and also bought .22 ammo before I was 18. That is the whole point of this discussion. are the present laws justified and it appears that to you they are. I am in favor of doing away with many of the present laws on guns and ammo, just right now I am not sure how many of the laws we need to do away with. As for what responsible parent would allow a child to handle onw, what percentage of parents would you put in the group of responsible parents. How about those Islamic parents that strap a C4 bomb to their children and send them into a restaurant full of Americans. Are they in the responsible parent category?
    Really? Ok those laws are in place due to the fact that the 2nd amendment only says we have the right to bear arms. The ammo those arms use was not included in the 2nd amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    How about those Islamic parents that strap a C4 bomb to their children and send them into a restaurant full of Americans. Are they in the responsible parent category?
    ???? Ok, I am going to play your game. That would depend on what your definition of responsible parent is. I will use your example of the Islamic parents that strap a C4 bomb to their children and send them into a restaurant full of Americans. Depending on how you define "responsible parent" determines if they are or aren't. So in your example they are responsible parents due to their beliefs that their children will now be with Allah in heaven.

    Like Christianity, Islam teaches the continued existence of the soul and a transformed physical existence after death. Muslims believe there will be a day of judgment when all humans will be divided between the eternal destinations of Paradise and Hell.

    On the Last Day, resurrected humans and jinn will be judged by Allah according to their deeds. One's eternal destination depends on balance of good to bad deeds in life. They are either granted admission to Paradise, where they will enjoy spiritual and physical pleasures forever, or condemned to Hell to suffer spiritual and physical torment for eternity. The day of judgment is described as passing over Hell on a narrow bridge in order to enter Paradise. Those who fall, weighted by their bad deeds, will remain in Hell forever.

    The Qur'an specifies two exceptions to this general rule:

    Warriors who die fighting in the cause of God are ushered immediately to God's presence (2:159 and 3:169); and
    "Enemies of Islam" are sentenced immediately to Hell upon death.

    So the real problem here is peoples dumb founded beliefs that their god is the only god. Going from the Bible the Ten Commandments "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."

    Who are these other gods that God does not want us to put before him. And why is it that our god has no name? The Greek gods all have names along with the Pagen gods so why is it the father of Jesus Christ has no name but his son does have a name? These are the thoughts that run through my mind. I can not say if gods are real or not due to not having proof to prove it one way or the other. What I do have is the Bible and from reading that there has to be more than one god because god said "You shall have no other gods before Me".

    So if we could all just agree to let people believe in what ever god they want and let god deal with them when they die the world will be a better place.

    Sorry to the rest of you all for taking the topic of this post off topic but I am hoping that FN1910 will learn that is what he is doing when he keeps bringing up giving a third grader a suitcase nuke.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 05:57 PM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 04:02 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment extended to states and local governments
    By Stiofan in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 11:39 AM
  4. Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 07:37 PM
  5. Americans Say 2nd Amendment Is Individual Right
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 10:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast