"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 4
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Anything a soldier of the time had available, so, in this modern time it would mean the exact same thing, we should have ANYTHING that our modern military soldier has. The government doesnt get any advantage over us........

    "The reason the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place"
    Ah, so now that you have given definition to the term, why is it that you don't think the SCOTUS is not the arbiter of competing definitions? Or do you think you are the author of the one and only dictionary?

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Ah, so now that you have given definition to the term, why is it that you don't think the SCOTUS is not the arbiter of competing definitions? Or do you think you are the author of the one and only dictionary?
    *Sigh*

    Yet another example of Gov't indoctrina.. er, Public schools......... Let me put this as simple as I can for you nogods.......

    You have proven by your post that you are ignorant......... Now, before you go and start flaming me for calling you a bad word... maybe you would be better served to see what a word means for yourself... like do some research and study things out before inserting your foot in your mouth again.....
    You are in luck though.... I will explain things to you this time, but please do go and VERIFY what I am writing when I am done, THEN you can come back and reply with a valid argument...

    Ignorance is not a bad word, it simply means you do not know something..... My reason for using it to describe your last post is because you very obviously do not understand or know why we have the Constitution and the Amendments and the "checks and balances" of our system of Government.

    As an "citizen" in our society/country it is our DUTY to watch our elected officials and hold them to the bounds/limits set by the Constitution/Amendments/etc.....

    How can we do this if we dont know what the words in those documents meant when they were written? If we are too stupid or lazy to find out for ourselves just what the words mean, and the implications of just standing around with our heads in the sand (or other dark places ) we deserve what we get from our government, which is what got us into the situation we are in now.

    You have accused me of quote "you think you are the author of the one and only dictionary" If I am wrong in how I defined a certain word or phrase, or my conclusion of the reason they are there... please enlighten me (us) to what it really means, what did I get wrong?

    The Supreme Court does have the job of judging the laws that Congress passes, yes, you are correct, but what if they are wrong? How do we know if they are wrong if we havent studied it (Constitution) ourselves? What if they want to make it (Constitution/Amendments/etc..) say what they they want it to, to carry out their own agenda/views? Do we then just throw up our hands and say "Well, that is the final word, they say it is Constitutional" and that is the end of it?...
    No, that is NOT THE FINAL WORD, or the end of the argument.... WE, the citizens of this country, have the final say in what is legal, or allowed to happen.... How do we back this up?.... With our "ARMS" ..... if we have any left after ignorant people allow them to take them away from us that is......

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    St Pete Beach, FL
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    I believe there should be no limitations.

    The Second Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Limitations are infringements...period. It doesn't say shall not be infringed except...or it shall not be infringed unless...it is an unabridged right as written.

    As far as the guys who killed someone robbing a store, I also do believe they should lose their gun rights...right along with their breathing rights. What good does it even do (even if it weren't anathematic to 2A) to make it illegal for a criminal to have a gun? If they are freaking criminals, they don't care...if they want a gun, the law isn't going to make them change their minds. If we cannot trust someone with a basic human right like tools of defense, we can't trust them in our society period...end of story.

    I agree 1000%...

    All criminals (Felons) are restricted from gun ownership.
    MOST will continue to own/carry guns after release...

    If we actually PROSECUTED felons in this country, and stopped persecuting/restricting the law-abiding instead... The 2nd Amendment could stand un-abridged...

    Jeff

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Ah, so now that you have given definition to the term, why is it that you don't think the SCOTUS is not the arbiter of competing definitions? Or do you think you are the author of the one and only dictionary?
    That depends on what your definition of definition is.

  6. #35
    So it is OK 3rd graders carry suitcase nukes to school for show 'n' tell. I am not sure where the limitations should be but I am in favor of some limitations and unless you think it is OK for the 3rd grader with the nuke then you are too.

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    *Sigh*

    Yet another example of Gov't indoctrina.. er, Public schools......... Let me put this as simple as I can for you nogods.......

    You have proven by your post that you are ignorant......... Now, before you go and start flaming me for calling you a bad word... maybe you would be better served to see what a word means for yourself... like do some research and study things out before inserting your foot in your mouth again.....
    You are in luck though.... I will explain things to you this time, but please do go and VERIFY what I am writing when I am done, THEN you can come back and reply with a valid argument...

    Ignorance is not a bad word, it simply means you do not know something..... My reason for using it to describe your last post is because you very obviously do not understand or know why we have the Constitution and the Amendments and the "checks and balances" of our system of Government.

    As an "citizen" in our society/country it is our DUTY to watch our elected officials and hold them to the bounds/limits set by the Constitution/Amendments/etc.....

    How can we do this if we dont know what the words in those documents meant when they were written? If we are too stupid or lazy to find out for ourselves just what the words mean, and the implications of just standing around with our heads in the sand (or other dark places ) we deserve what we get from our government, which is what got us into the situation we are in now.

    You have accused me of quote "you think you are the author of the one and only dictionary" If I am wrong in how I defined a certain word or phrase, or my conclusion of the reason they are there... please enlighten me (us) to what it really means, what did I get wrong?

    The Supreme Court does have the job of judging the laws that Congress passes, yes, you are correct, but what if they are wrong? How do we know if they are wrong if we havent studied it (Constitution) ourselves? What if they want to make it (Constitution/Amendments/etc..) say what they they want it to, to carry out their own agenda/views? Do we then just throw up our hands and say "Well, that is the final word, they say it is Constitutional" and that is the end of it?...
    No, that is NOT THE FINAL WORD, or the end of the argument.... WE, the citizens of this country, have the final say in what is legal, or allowed to happen.... How do we back this up?.... With our "ARMS" ..... if we have any left after ignorant people allow them to take them away from us that is......

    Your response wasn't ignorant, it was just mindless gibberish. Probably the result of lack of education.

    Where in the 2nd do you see the words "ANYTHING that our modern military soldier has"?

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    nogods...

    I ask you again... what conclusion or point did I make that is wrong???

    Prove your point, dont just say "where does it say that?"

    When something is studied, researched and thought out, certain conclusions and statements can be made about what has been studied/researched.. Correct?

    I have made such a statement "anything a modern soldier has". If you do not believe I came to the correct conclusion from my studies... then it is up to you to PROVE my conclusion wrong, not just say it is.

    If we are to go by your statements so far... we have to believe that the 1st Amendment does not cover radio, television, the internet, telephones, etc... and we have no Constitutional Rights to use those mediums......
    Because they didnt exist at the time the Constitution/Amendments were penned, hence, we as civilians cant have/use them.

    If you cannot reply with a rational argument to prove my statements wrong, then they stand as true/correct. Until you prove them wrong with a valid argument/proof.

    Regardless of how much you stomp your feet, insult people and complain... you have not proven anything, (well, you have proven something about your character) and besides, that is not how adults with education prove their points.


    Using the "liberal" tactic of distraction, sticking fingers in ears and screaming "I cant hear you", throwing fits and such...when confronted with facts that you cannot dispute does not work here......

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Your response wasn't ignorant, it was just mindless gibberish. Probably the result of lack of education.

    Where in the 2nd do you see the words "ANYTHING that our modern military soldier has"?
    Along the very same lines of thought, where in the 2nd does it name, describe, or define the "Arms" the people are not allowed to keep or bear?

    Where in the 2nd does it spell out when and where the "Right" shall be exercised except where restricted or regulated by law? It simply reads "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."

    At the time the Amendments to the Constitution were being discussed and debated the term "Arms" would or could have been used to describe the tools that members of the military or militia had to use for defense of themselves or the army as a whole. The term "Arms" was never elaborated on with regards to what it entailed for the very reason being debated here in this thread. It would have lead to infringement and restriction or regulation.

    One man or a small group of men could have found fault with another man's desire to own a cannon or perhaps a pistol that could be hidden or concealed on ones person rather than a rifle that all could plainly see thus indicating he was armed.
    That was the very thing our Founding Fathers and authors of the 2nd Amendment were trying to avoid... By avoiding descriptive phrases such as "To keep and bear small arms" or "To keep and bear arms in or around their homes"...

    Again it's that liberal education that has hindered or perhaps derailed your train of "rational" thought. So I'll remain assertive in my assessment.
    Education and the manner in which it is administered or undertaken can be the very thing that makes understanding more difficult.

    Etymologically, the word education is derived from educare (of Latin origin) "bring up", which is related to educere "to bring out" or "bring forth what is within" and "bring out potential" and the like word ducere, "to lead".[1]

    It's that last part that causes many to become clouded and hindered by the judgments and emotions of those who lead. Adopting the thought process of the educator as part of the education. Bringing emotion into the argument makes the logical become illogical...

    Looking back to some of my previous posts which by the way, have unanswered questions and I was kind enough to answer your question regarding interracial gay marriage even though it's an unrelated topic with regards to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that I've been added to your ever expanding ignore list.

    Perhaps I'll celebrate and take stock in the evidence presented here further indicating the liberal's tactic of dealing with solid argument is exactly as the previous poster described above...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Along the very same lines of thought, where in the 2nd does it name, describe, or define the "Arms" the people are not allowed to keep or bear?

    Where in the 2nd does it spell out when and where the "Right" shall be exercised except where restricted or regulated by law? It simply reads "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."
    Bingo! There is nothing inherently definitional in the word “right” or “arms.” They are nothing but words to which we have to give meaning. In the United States we have a system for giving meaning to words, phrases, concepts and principles used in our Constitution, and that system is not the Humpty Dumpty Method:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

    Through the Looking Glass.

    Rather, our system places responsibility for interpretation in the lap of the courts, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of disputes. You might not like that system because you don’t get to make the words mean what you want them to mean, but this is not Humpty Dumpty’s world.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Looking back to some of my previous posts which by the way, have unanswered questions and I was kind enough to answer your question regarding interracial gay marriage even though it's an unrelated topic with regards to this thread, I've come to the conclusion that I've been added to your ever expanding ignore list.
    Your inability to see the clear analogy is perplexing. Both the right to bear arms and the right to marry have been designated rights that can’t be “infringed.” I ask the question because I know many people who believe the right to marry is dependent on a limited definition of marriage, but then claim that the right to bear arms is based on an expansive definition of arms. Critical thinkers like me don’t allow such nonsense to flourish unchallenged.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Again it's that liberal education that has hindered or perhaps derailed your train of "rational" thought. So I'll remain assertive in my assessment.

    Education and the manner in which it is administered or undertaken can be the very thing that makes understanding more difficult.

    Etymologically, the word education is derived from educare (of Latin origin) "bring up", which is related to educere "to bring out" or "bring forth what is within" and "bring out potential" and the like word ducere, "to lead".[1]
    People who rile against education usually don’t have one or don’t have a very good one.

    Education involves not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the development of the critical thinking skills to allow such knowledge to be used to further advance knowledge. Those most fearful of what others teach are the least knowledgeable, not the other way around.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    "Rather, our system places responsibility for interpretation in the lap of the courts, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of disputes."

    nogods,

    You are still wrong in that statement, no matter how many times you repeat it.......

    The citizens/people of these United States are the FINAL AUTHORITY/ARBITER, not the President, not Congress, not the Supreme Court................. and we ENFORCE that AUTHORITY with our ARMS..

    Please tell us, Mr oh so enlightened that we all appear as such uneducated fools......

    Why is the 2nd Amendment even written if not for this very thing??

    There is no other reason, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue.



Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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