"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 9
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. I have conjugated both of your responses and found them both full of contradictions and creates some serious problems. One is " At that time the individual has forfeited rights to self protection by the act of violating another individuals rights". If a right is undeniable, how can one forfeit it? You speak of no compromise, no exceptions, yet you say "A "nuke in a box" will most certainly infringe on the rights of others if used in a self defense situation such as indicated above", that would be a compromise and an exception. Also known as a "regulation", one I would call "reasonable". This one a few issues. "IF said individual is deemed unfit to be in society, the government is already taking 24x7 responsibility for said individual during said incarceration...
    He/She has no need for self-protection because it is provided..."
    One is who determines who and what deems one unfit for society? Unless there is a serious shift in administrative power that would be the Judiciary branch of Government. These are mainly appointed positions, and not subject to elections and constituent ire. That is granting a lot of power to a single branch of government. Such power reminds me of Hitler and Stalin as they were creating the two most repressive governments in recent history. Another issue is as there are no exceptions to the RTKBA, how can you deny the individual this right because you feel it is not necessary. That undeniable right would then be denied. You are both suggesting regulations to the RTKBA and/or granting greater power to the judiciary.
    Before you get all defensive, I think its great that you thought it out this far and hope you keep up the fight. There are just some problems and consequences with your ideas you may not have thought about.

  2.   
  3. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    The inanity of your question aside, laws that restrict the SALE of and PURCHASE by restricted criminals will make it harder for them to simply walk into the Walmart and buy a shotgun and ammo, load up in the store and proceed to rob it. It will not make the violent criminal suddenly abide by the laws they have already broken, but add a quantifier to any crime they commit again. Using your logic, as the RTKBA does not have the word "except" Charles Manson should be able to sit in his prison cell fully armed because to not allow him to do so violates his second amendment rights. As the RTKBA does not have the word "except" theres nothing to prevent him from doing so. I look forward to reading on how your "no exceptions" stand deals with these factions of society.
    Well...the assholishness of your response aside...there have been laws against criminals buying, having or using guns for quite a while...yet there has never been any correlation to any lessening in crime as a result.

    The funny part here...and what you apparently missed in your rush to assholery...is that I have no problem at all with reasonable restrictions that have a true public safety basis. The problem is letting them be accomplished by fiat or even simple legislation in the face of the lack of constitutional authority. I will type the words "amendment process" very slowly and possibly this time it won't fly by without registering. The more things we allow done without constitutional authority because they seem like a good idea and we can possibly and marginally semantically justify "bending" the Bill of Rights, the weaker we the people become in our dealings with the government.

    As far as your Charles Manson "argument", it was well established in common law long berfore the constitution was written, that prisoners could not possibly enjoy the rights of a free person...though, as a person who was once named as a defendant in over 60 suits by state inmates claiming denial of one right or another, the idea has a certain pucker factor involved.

    As I read your other posts, it really seems like we don't disagree much except you (for whatever reason) seem to trust the government more...maybe I just worked for them for too long. I'm not sure why you felt the need to react as you did, but I am certainly willing to revert to civility if you will.


  4. #83
    If you say that reasonable restrictions are OK then who gets to decide what those reasonable restrictions are? Does each individual decide what is reasonable? Why is it that we think that the only way to defend ourselves is with a gun? I see so many posts that seem to proclaim that without a gun a person is totally defenseless and a lamb among wolves waiting to be slaughtered. For the thousands of years that man existed before guns were invented how did they survive. Just because a person doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they are defenseless and 2A doesn't say anything about reasonable or any other type restrictions.

    To me once a person is convicted of a crime then there are three things that must be completed before that person is restored of their rights.

    First is rehabilitation - Can they be trusted not to do it again by the courts.

    Restitution - Second they must pay restution to society. This can by jail time or a monetary fine. Either way they pay their debt to society. Once they have met the rehabilitation and restitution to society then they can be allowed to walk among society.

    Third they must provide restitution to their victim. Once they have properly restored their victim then they may have their rights returned. I have no problem at all of taking forever the rights from the drunk driver who puts someone in a wheelchair that prohibits them from being able to ever defend themselves again.

    Once a criminal meets all three of the criteria then rights should be restored. Until then the heck with them. They will have to find some other way to defend themselves. Millions of people do it every day so why should they be special.

  5. #84
    Just so everybody is crystal clear...

    "The Amendment Process" does not give Congress or anybody else the authority to step on or modify/nullify/eliminate fundamental, pre-existing rights such as the Second Amendment or the First Amendment...
    Or make exceptions thereof...

    That is one of the key tenets of the "Constitutional Republic" we were founded as...

    The right to keep & bear arms IS a fundamental, pre-existing right, that allows anybody living and breathing and not currently under the 24x7 protection/incarceration of an applicable government entity...
    to defend themselves, their family, neighbors, etc., by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against them...
    Against all enemies, foreign or domestic, including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...
    Regardless of whether said arm is a Cannon, Tank, Rocket Launcher, Full-Auto Machine Gun or a fricking baseball bat...
    "Equal or greater force than may be brought against them."

    Without the Unabridged Second Amendment, WE THE PEOPLE have no effective means to resist or replace a tyrannical government...
    Further, the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc., are not worth the paper they are written on...
    As they are unenforceable without it...

    WTFU Sheeple, take back the Republic...

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

  6. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Just so everybody is crystal clear..."The right to keep & bear arms IS a fundamental, pre-existing right, that allows anybody living and breathing and not currently under the 24x7 protection/incarceration of an applicable government entity..
    I've searched the Constitution and all amendments but I can't find that exception to the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms.

    It must be one of those funky interpretations.

    And who determines whether someone is living and breathing?

    Or whether someone is "under the 24x7 protection/incarceration of an applicable government entity"?

    We are back to your Humpty Dumpty rule.

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    I have conjugated both of your responses and found them both full of contradictions and creates some serious problems. One is " At that time the individual has forfeited rights to self protection by the act of violating another individuals rights". If a right is undeniable, how can one forfeit it? You speak of no compromise, no exceptions, yet you say "A "nuke in a box" will most certainly infringe on the rights of others if used in a self defense situation such as indicated above", that would be a compromise and an exception. Also known as a "regulation", one I would call "reasonable". This one a few issues. "IF said individual is deemed unfit to be in society, the government is already taking 24x7 responsibility for said individual during said incarceration...
    He/She has no need for self-protection because it is provided..."
    One is who determines who and what deems one unfit for society? Unless there is a serious shift in administrative power that would be the Judiciary branch of Government. These are mainly appointed positions, and not subject to elections and constituent ire. That is granting a lot of power to a single branch of government. Such power reminds me of Hitler and Stalin as they were creating the two most repressive governments in recent history. Another issue is as there are no exceptions to the RTKBA, how can you deny the individual this right because you feel it is not necessary. That undeniable right would then be denied. You are both suggesting regulations to the RTKBA and/or granting greater power to the judiciary.
    Before you get all defensive, I think its great that you thought it out this far and hope you keep up the fight. There are just some problems and consequences with your ideas you may not have thought about.
    I'll try and break it down for easier digestion of each section and topic and further explain what I'm thinking/pondering when writing.. No defensive posturing on my part.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    One is " At that time the individual has forfeited rights to self protection by the act of violating another individuals rights".
    Upon becoming a ward of the state (being incarcerated or remanded to a state hospital) the individuals rights to self protection or self defense with a firearm has been forfeit as part of the punishment... He's free to defend himself by any other means necessary. Yes, the "Right" to life still applies...

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    You speak of no compromise, no exceptions, yet you say "A "nuke in a box" will most certainly infringe on the rights of others if used in a self defense situation such as indicated above", that would be a compromise and an exception. Also known as a "regulation", one I would call "reasonable".[/I]
    In a self defense situation such as a personal confrontation or attack, the use of a "nuke in a box" would infringe on the rights of others not involved in the assault by causing them serious injury or death. It would also most certainly negate the concept of self defense as a means of remaining alive. It's the same as the example I gave about shooting the innocent bystander. I was indicating with the right there is a responsibility...

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    This one a few issues. "IF said individual is deemed unfit to be in society, the government is already taking 24x7 responsibility for said individual during said incarceration...
    He/She has no need for self-protection because it is provided..."
    Since this was Bohemian's statement I'll allow him to address it. I have an idea where he's going with it, but would rather have him explain it further if he feels the need. Just to confirm...

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    One is who determines who and what deems one unfit for society? Unless there is a serious shift in administrative power that would be the Judiciary branch of Government.
    "Society" will be held responsible for that duty as they are now. A trial by a jury of your peers is exactly that very same thing is it not? If found guilty of a violent assault or homicide, the offender has been deemed unfit and should be punished. Punishment should be set severely in the case of violent assault against a fellow citizen. Death should be the punishment for murder/homicide. I know the eye for the eye thing is kinda harsh, but at some point criminals will need to be held accountable for that type of behavior.

    Our justice system is flawed as we humans are. It's not perfect and will be influenced by biasing, bigotry, and prejudice by both judge and jury.
    Again, life in general comes with no guarantee of fairness...

    Punishment for a crime should not be pleasant, that is the purpose of punishment is it not? Make it easy and pleasant and many will see it as a way of life, a system of support... Much like it is now. Behavior on the part of the punished while in the punishment phase should weigh in when it comes to their fitness for society. Once a man/woman has paid their debt to society for a crime committed, are they not members of society once again? Their past deeds and history will follow them for the remainder of their life and many will judge them by the past. What they do going forward is up to them. Repeat offenders have by their actions, indicated a propensity for that type of criminal behavior and should be punished accordingly. Those who continue to prey on and assault fellow human beings while in the punishment phase have indicated the same propensity for behavior that society should not tolerate.

    Perhaps members of the judicial system should be elected? Evaluate their performance and make sure they are serving the best interests of society as we the people indicate. Or at the discretion of the newly elected president, they can be unseated and replaced in some limited number? Perhaps the lifetime seating policy needs to be reinterpreted and evaluated. Allow the people to further decide how their interests are best represented. Some turnover perhaps would be a good idea. Government service should not become a career... Thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Such power reminds me of Hitler and Stalin as they were creating the two most repressive governments in recent history. Another issue is as there are no exceptions to the RTKBA, how can you deny the individual this right because you feel it is not necessary. That undeniable right would then be denied.
    Hitler and Stalin were dictators. We have a checks and balances system here.
    Well, unless you have a president pushing a leftist-liberal socialist agenda and a congress and senate who are supporting that same agenda along with a judicial system stacked with liberal agenda supporting judges, then you have the potential to "fundamentally transform America"... Until the elections come along and the people of America decide that is not how things should be... As was the case in the last election and I believe, will be much the same readjustment in the upcoming elections. The swing..

    The part of your statement "Another issue is as there are no exceptions to the RTKBA, how can you deny the individual this right because you feel it is not necessary. That undeniable right would then be denied."

    I'm looking for further clarification so as not to misunderstand. Is this in reference to the incarcerated individual?
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I've searched the Constitution and all amendments but I can't find that exception to the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms.

    It must be one of those funky interpretations.

    And who determines whether someone is living and breathing?

    Or whether someone is "under the 24x7 protection/incarceration of an applicable government entity"?

    We are back to your Humpty Dumpty rule.
    I've read the exact same 2nd Amendment and I've yet to see the indication of what weapon can be used, where it can be used, when it can be used, etc... Only if x=x or y=y... The liberal Humpty Dumpty rule seems to be in effect now...

    Living and breathing really don't require interpretation... If the life support system is stopped and the breathing stops, wait and see, as it will become apparent to all...

    Some sure fire ways to tell if you're dead or deceased:
    1. Lack of respiration (breathing).
    2. Rigormortis.
    3. Severe swelling followed by severe or extreme weight loss.
    4. A rotting smell.

    As far as the incarceration part, If you try and leave the "facility" and individuals try to stop you by using extreme physical force or chase after you and forcibly bring you back to the facility in which you were being kept every time you try and leave, basically you are "under the 24x7 protection/incarceration of an applicable government entity"...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  9. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    As far as the incarceration part, If you try and leave the "facility" and individuals try to stop you by using extreme physical force or chase after you and forcibly bring you back to the facility in which you were being kept every time you try and leave, basically you are "under the 24x7 protection/incarceration of an applicable government entity"...
    And where in the 2nd is that exception?

    You want to "interpret" the "right" as you see fit.

    We live under a social compact in an organized and civil society in which we have chosen to allow our courts to make such interpretations. Not individuals bent on anarchy.

  10. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    And where in the 2nd is that exception?

    You want to "interpret" the "right" as you see fit.

    We live under a social compact in an organized and civil society in which we have chosen to allow our courts to make such interpretations. Not individuals bent on anarchy.
    No, I simply want the 2nd Amendment to stand as it is written... Without the interpretations of the liberal left, gun grabbers, Rights tramplers... That constitutes infringement...

    We live in a society that was created by revolutionaries... They flew in the face of the rules thrust upon them by the king and the monarchy... They longed for a place where mankind could be free... Truly free... They despised anarchy and hated tyranny as much... Some will argue the contrary, that in fact there was some bit of anarchist in some of them... Further debate... Were they all like minded and cohesive in all of their decisions? No... There was debate and disagreement much the same as we are having here.

    A Constitutional Republic... Which has survived many attempts at "fundamental change"... Although I'm sure there will many more attempts...

    If you can interpret it, the courts can interpret it, why am I not free to interpret it? Is that not what "critical thinkers" do?

    "Critical thinkers like me don’t allow such nonsense to flourish unchallenged."

    Yes we have a system in place and the right to change it...

    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  11. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    The inanity of your question aside, laws that restrict the SALE of and PURCHASE by restricted criminals will make it harder for them to simply walk into the Walmart and buy a shotgun and ammo, load up in the store and proceed to rob it. It will not make the violent criminal suddenly abide by the laws they have already broken, but add a quantifier to any crime they commit again. Using your logic, as the RTKBA does not have the word "except" Charles Manson should be able to sit in his prison cell fully armed because to not allow him to do so violates his second amendment rights. As the RTKBA does not have the word "except" theres nothing to prevent him from doing so. I look forward to reading on how your "no exceptions" stand deals with these factions of society.
    Then give him his gun but the 2A does not say he has a right to the ammo needed to fire said arms. And far as the government providing protection to prisoners they are doing a piss poor job. Most men are raped in prison so how good of a job is the government doing protecting them? Let alone the deaths and beatings that happen to prisoners. in prison. That is one of the reasons I obey the law, I do not what the piss poor protection the prison guards give to prisoners.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 06:57 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, 05:02 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment extended to states and local governments
    By Stiofan in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 12:39 PM
  4. Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 08:37 PM
  5. Americans Say 2nd Amendment Is Individual Right
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 11:17 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