"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 6
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Exactly.

    That is why the meaning of "arms" and "keep" and "bear" must be given meaning.
    Many of us on the site (as well as across the nation) HAVE given the words "Arms", "Keep", "Bear", and "Right" meaning and you (along with the biased and agenda embracing judges) refuse to accept the definitions and meanings given them by us, "the people". Was the 2nd Amendment written to protect the right of "the people"? Or do we now need to define what "The" and "people" mean?

    If the courts decide the 2nd Amendment no longer provides any "Right" to any individual or militia to "Keep" or "Bear" "Arms" of any kind, what would you do? Do you even own a gun?
    When they begin to debate what "free" and "speech" mean with regards to the 1st Amendment, will you willingly accept the judgment? Even if it prevents you and others from voicing an opinion?

    I was going to write a question asking what level of infringement on a particular God given right would get action from you. Then the answer hit me, None... Since you don't believe God gave you life, how could you believe he gave you any rights? You really believe that any man/woman or group of people could better decide how you live your life? You would allow your freedoms to be issued and revoked as if granted by a license?

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Those terms are not limited to what the Founders understood them to mean.
    Says WHO???!!! So why not just re-write the Bill of Rights and allow anyone with countering ideas, political clout, and wealth to decide what rights people have, when they are allowed to exercise them, and how they are allowed to exercise them... Oh wait, George Soros is trying to do that. I bet you have Soros envy...

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The point is that there is no inherent meaning to those terms. They have to be given meaning to be operative.

    People who claim "it means exactly what I say it means" are just spewing Humpty Dumpty rhetoric.

    It might make them feel good, but it has no intellectual persuasive value. It is simply emotional BS.
    The point is that there are meanings given to the terms. The meanings and interpretations come from both sides of the spectrum Conservative and Liberal. Which term or definition is the correct one? Who is qualified to answer the previous question? Who is qualified to decide who is qualified? Who puts faith in the unbiased decision making process of the courts?

    Flawed humans trying to meddle in the affairs of other flawed humans under the guise of assistance, or enlightenment. Misguidedly believing that the assistance or enlightenment is truly required and that the assisted or enlightened have been bettered by such intervention. The mark of the inept liberal...
    I believe our Founders were trying to warn us and protect with the "Bill of Rights", from such manipulative and controlling individuals ignorant to their flaws and ineptness...

    You seem to be unable to accept the possibility that any of the interpretations offered by any of the posters here have any real or valid meaning with regards to the terms above. You seem unable to accept the idea that anyone else could possibly be aware of the meaning of the terms and what the intentions of our Founders may have been when writing the 2nd Amendment. You seem quick to assume that the rest of the posters to this thread are lesser individuals and have no education or poor education in comparison to your own, perhaps even believing that no mortal could understand what it is you know and therefore have limited understanding of what the 2nd Amendment or the entire "Bill of Rights" really is or was intended for...

    Perhaps your post "might make you feel good, but it has no intellectual persuasive value. It is simply liberal BS"...

    They are just words... That is how I interpret them... No Change...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Like the socialist who ran the country in 1950?

    The ones that didn't have "god" in the pledge?

    The ones that had a 91% top marginal tax bracket?

    those socialists?
    And as always, the democrats rely on the tactics and money of people like Tom Pendergast to further their agenda... Socialism...

    Tom Pendergast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Political Machine of Tom Pendergast of Kansas City, Missouri

    Like Soros is trying to do now... Same old *****... Same old democratic party... Chicago style tactics and corrupt belief system... And this is what the country gets by voting democrat...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    "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."

    In order to not be interpreting the amendment away from the original meaning and intent (abridging)one must know the meaning of those words when the amendment was written.

    "the people" meant all of the Free, White, Landowning (property could include slaves) , male citizens of the original colonies.

    Being freeborn, American, white, male and a landowner (sold all my slaves), I read that to mean I can have my guns. The rest of you darker skinned folks, trailer renting trash , rental apartment dwellers, West Coast weirdoes and females best not be having any guns, you are not covered.

    I really have no problem with an unabridged reading!

    (This should start some rather heated conversations!)
    I seriously hope you don't believe this tripe...

    One has to look no further, than the declaration of independence to fully understand that your (I hope) sarcastic view is fundamentally flawed...

    Further, as far as I am concerned, your post is that of a troll, attempting to crap on the thread...
    Please refrain from such further posts...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #54
    It not only was sarcasm, which I am not sure you understood, but makes the point that all of the people should be included in the provisions of the 2d Amendment. It just didn't fit into your narrow concepts so therefore my right of free speech should be abridged and I should cease and desist to post. After all, free speech is not the 2dA so we don't have to observe it.

    The sarcasm was to point out this singular problem of trying to interpret any individual part of the Constitution by itself . Any document written centuries ago was written in the language, with all of it's attendant nuances and word meanings, of that day. This even includes the Declaration of Independence. It was written by a group of rich aristocrats to seek a break with another group of rich aristocrats. The common people were only included by accident. Many of the original laws written in this country right after the new government was formed were as oppressive to the farmer and small merchant as were the laws of the king. Over times we have grown to "abridge" those laws to include all of "the people." Now , couched in the terms of our day, these documents do a wonderful job of protecting us.

    But you have to be realistic. The ability to use today's term "people' has been the result of a long battle in the courts to interpret the original clauses. The Constitution itself has been amended several times to make the term "the people" include all of us.

    To make the statement that we can take the second amendment, just as is, without the tempering value of the rest of the Constitution and language conventions is folly.

    I am a Constitutionalist and a Conservative, albeit an Independent, but I do believe that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the entire document, not just one line or clause. In this way it is much like any of the Holy Scriptures: it must be interpreted by its whole not by just one part.

    To fixate on one clause of the Constitution is like fixating on one verse of scripture, you are going to miss the big message.

    When you try to test an issue to verify its Constitutional basis, you have to ask "What does the Constitution(the whole document) say about it?" and not just " What does the 2nd Amendment say about it?"

  6. #55
    Even though the post mentioned above was meant to be sarcastic and everyone should have taken it to be there is some truth in it. All the talk about how great and noble the founding fathers were they had many faults just like the politicians of today and I am not sure how much different they were. The reference to "The People" was just as what was alluded to that the founders did not mean all of the poeple but only a certain group. Ironically The Constution and Declaration of Independence taken as a whole you will probably find many different meanings of "The People". We must remember that in writing these documents there was a lot of compromise and backscratching (sound familiar) to reach the final wording. I was also written in the thoughts of what the world was like in the 1700's and thought was given to the future it was not meant to be absolutely complete and never changing or interpreted. Each of us have our own opinions of what they meant when they finally agreed upon the wording, and there is some disagreement as to whether or not the final draft was the wording agreed upn, but we must compare the wording to the thoughts and world of today.

    One of my favorite quotes relating to this is the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson:

    For the initial draft of the Virginia Constituion he proposed, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

    After thinking about it and proposing a second draft he wrote, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements."

    Then in his third draft he wrote, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements."

    I haven't found any evidence that he proposed a fouth draft of this line.

    None of the three actually made it to the Virginia Constitution. (Compromise, maybe?)

    Note the word freeman and think about what his definition of a freeman was. Also remember that most scholars now conclude that his slave/mistress was actually his wife's half-sister.

    Compare the three to each other and to the Second Amendment. Just some food for thought, discussion and argument.

  7. #56
    Unfortunately, some of our forum/thread participants appear to be willing victims of the liberal philosophy of a living Constitution, and that it does not apply to all citizens equally...

    Or that the words somehow mean something different today than when they were written...

    Or that they can be re-interpreted ad nauseum...

    Or that the Second Amendment somehow cannot stand on its own...

    I am sorry for those whom have failed to do their own due diligence research that would easily show the fallacy in their thinking...

    Suffice to say, without the Unabridged Second Amendment, none of the founding documents, are worth the paper they are written on...

    The Unabridged Second Amendment is the teeth of our entire "Constitutional Republic" that we were founded as...

    IF you get nothing else out of this, try to get your head around the fact that the "Bill of Rights" was written to be understandable by all common people... (Every Fricking Body IF that is not clear enough for you...)

    That is why they clearly were originally written in the most unambiguous terms possible...

    You simply cannot, no must not attempt to add...
    "... Shall not be infringed" Except...

    Try to read and comprehend the following...

    It should make things crystal clear...

    READ - The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    READ - The Unabridged Second Amendment...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    Without our fundamental liberties and freedoms we were born with, we have nothing...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Unfortunately, some of our forum/thread participants appear to be willing victims of the liberal philosophy of a living Constitution, and that it does not apply to all citizens equally...

    Or that the words somehow mean something different today than when they were written...

    Or that they can be re-interpreted ad nauseum...

    Or that the Second Amendment somehow cannot stand on its own...

    I am sorry for those whom have failed to do their own due diligence research that would easily show the fallacy in their thinking...

    Suffice to say, without the Unabridged Second Amendment, none of the founding documents, are worth the paper they are written on...

    The Unabridged Second Amendment is the teeth of our entire "Constitutional Republic" that we were founded as...

    IF you get nothing else out of this, try to get your head around the fact that the "Bill of Rights" was written to be understandable by all common people... (Every Fricking Body IF that is not clear enough for you...)

    That is why they clearly were originally written in the most unambiguous terms possible...

    You simply cannot, no must not attempt to add...
    "... Shall not be infringed" Except...

    Try to read and comprehend the following...

    It should make things crystal clear...

    READ - The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DONíT COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    READ - The Unabridged Second Amendment...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    Without our fundamental liberties and freedoms we were born with, we have nothing...
    OK I read it, and it was like General George S. Patton described - crap going through a goose.

    All emotion, no reasoning.

  9. When the forefathers wrote our Bill of Rights, murderers and other violent criminals were either imprisoned for life (parole was not even a thought) or put to death. So the idea that these criminals would be able to have guns was not a concern. Only todays liberal ideals creates this problem. So with that in mind, the original intent of the Bill of Rights was that the right to keep and bear arms was with out limitations. They also did not have automatic weapons, armor piercing ammo, or other modern pieces of weaponry. So no, I do not believe that the second amendment is with out limitations.

  10. #59
    I used to think I was a conservative but now I find that I must be a flaming liberal. I do not believe that 2A means, nor do I believe that the founding fathers meant that it is OK for a third grader to take a suit case nuke to school for show and tell. According to some of the interpretations expoused in this thread some of you think that it does. Since I believe that there are limitations on 2A that makes me a liberal and if it does then so be it.

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    The limitations and restrictions and interpretations will be the demise of the God given right... The liberal left will continue to see to that... Shall we allow that to happen without reaction?

    Those who are willing to compromise their freedom for the moment will have none of it by days end...

    Yes it is emotional. I get emotional when the "talk" is of compromise for the sake of keeping our rights. If that is the vehicle by which most see it being done, I'll keep walking my way... Armed...

    Understand what the gift truly is...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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