Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 241

Thread: Question on the 2nd amendment

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    6,594

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Then when you have a Bird, get some Gat Cranks for your door guns! $49.99 each!

    https://youtu.be/6qS0pF9EV5o

    Legal machine guns!! I bet an engineering kinda guy could mount ar's on stands and make that operate from the stick!!
    PaulF

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Freeland, WA
    Posts
    27,713

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Chief Justice Warren Burger, Burger for crissakes, believed the 2nd Amendment had zero to do with individual private gun ownership outside of a well-regulated militia. ZERO.
    Gerard>
    ​Freeland, WA

    Resistance is NOT futile.

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    If there were no government who would deprive you of your rights? Where does government get these rights you say they can give? Can you give an example of a right that is given by the government?
    All of them that exist. Your rights were written by and ratified by your government.
    They are in your Constitution and its amendments. You should try reading it some day.
    If rights are not defined in a body of legislation then they do not exist as then there would be no way of guaranteeing your continuing enjoyment of them, not any way to apply a sanction against some one who infringes what you imagine your rights to be.
    My rights evolved through changing legislation since there was a society to define them. The Normans removed a lot of the rights that existed under the Saxon and Danish kings, but since Magna Carta we have been improving on them again.
    Government is required through representative democracy to put in place as "rights" what ever the society that they represent require of them.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,047

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    All of them that exist. Your rights were written by and ratified by your government.
    They are in your Constitution and its amendments. You should try reading it some day.
    If rights are not defined in a body of legislation then they do not exist as then there would be no way of guaranteeing your continuing enjoyment of them, not any way to apply a sanction against some one who infringes what you imagine your rights to be.
    My rights evolved through changing legislation since there was a society to define them. The Normans removed a lot of the rights that existed under the Saxon and Danish kings, but since Magna Carta we have been improving on them again.
    Government is required through representative democracy to put in place as "rights" what ever the society that they represent require of them.
    What a risible effort. I knew it would be.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,797

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    What a risible effort. I knew it would be.
    risible?

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    What a risible effort. I knew it would be.
    This was the question put. Can you answer it? So far you have avoided the question, which is OK as it was not addressed to you. But as you shoved your oar in, perhaps out of courtesy you should offer an answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Rights are not inherent. Rights are what your society says they are, as expressed through legislation.

    If they are inherent, show me where they are written down by any one other than any government agencies.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    27,014

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    All of them that exist. Your rights were written by and ratified by your government.
    They are in your Constitution and its amendments.
    Wow, so wrong.

    But that’s ok. We threw out the English subservient mindset, and their militia, with our privately owned guns a long time ago.
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    Wow, so wrong.

    But that’s ok. We threw out the English subservient mindset, and their militia, with our privately owned guns a long time ago.
    I put the same question to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Rights are not inherent. Rights are what your society says they are, as expressed through legislation.

    If they are inherent, show me where they are written down by any one other than any government agency.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    27,014

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Is freedom a right, if not written down?

    The right to pursue happiness? Is it a right if not granted by an inbred Lord?

    Just what do the fine citizens of the UK feel free to do, without written permission from the Crown?
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  10. #45
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bradford, VT
    Posts
    7,480

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    The Honorable Justice Burger to the contrary, not withstanding, the SC, since has affirmed that the Second Amendment, like all of the others, protects the rights of the individual.
    I am not aware of any SC ruling on what, exactly, constitutes "arms"

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    Is freedom a right, if not written down?
    First off define freedom. An old thread on the topic indicated that no one could.
    However, this suggests that something needs to be written down to establish it, whatever it is
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Then you have a written Bill of Rights.
    So can you show me where rights are written down if not in the form of legislation enacted by a government.

    it is after midnight now so you have several hours to find some before I log in again.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    The Declaration of Independence states that inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Just so. Written down by a government (in potentia)
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,047

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    This was the question put. Can you answer it? So far you have avoided the question, which is OK as it was not addressed to you. But as you shoved your oar in, perhaps out of courtesy you should offer an answer.
    SeanM26 was right. When it comes to rights, the Constitution only defines those the government cannot deny, or infringe. That rights are inherent, inherent meaning innately characteristic, innate meaning existing naturally, inherent rights don’t need to be spelled out, a ridiculous thought in any case. Does the Constitution give me the right to eat a samwich?
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,807

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Lol, the dude with the biggest stick defines your rights. How naive of you to think otherwise. For instance, the patriot act still allows the government to define you as a terrorist and then poof!!! No more rights for you big guy, and I dare you to test that.
    Yep, and BrianW's posts are the risible ones, he hasn't gotten over the war of independence yet.
    And then there's the relict Royal Prerogative Powers held by the President, and continually extended by this one. Immunity from the law of the land, the power of pardon, and now a legislature of courtiers, medals awarded for personal partisan service and department administrators appointed by grace and favour with no actual powers as the President holds them all. No English monarch has held these powers for a few hundred years.
    Your Republic is leaking at the seams.

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    6,594

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Freedom is what wild animals have, the ability to exist only if they can, find enough food,avoid mortal conflict, win if they do get attacked..nothing more.

    Humans try, sometimes unsuccessfully, to make conditions a bit better for all.

    Yet there are those who game the system for profit, and we need to keep adjusting. Now is such a time.
    PaulF

  16. #51
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    51,935

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    However he had no comment on police having automatic weapons .
    go back to school jr

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    32,479

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    This post is temporary and my disappear at the discretion of the managment

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Where was it written that these are inalienable rights?

    Well, my English friend, it was written when the USA gave your country the figurative bird!

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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. — 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, 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.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    27,014

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    The Declaration of Independence states that inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rights written with-in the Constitution are changeable, flat out, read Article 5 and weep.
    Interesting article on the 10th Amendment...

    https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...ts/amendment-x

    This text is hard to read in the quote block. But if you click on the link, it's much easier to read.

    THE TENTH AMENDMENT

    By Gary Lawson and Robert SchapiroThe original Constitution of 1788 contained very few specific restrictions on the ways in which the power of the national government could be exercised against the people. It guaranteed the right to trial by jury in criminal (but not civil) cases, placed limits on prosecutions and punishments for treason, forbade bills of attainder (laws aimed at particular persons) and ex post facto laws (laws that punished conduct that was legal when it happened), limited any restrictions on habeas corpus to certain designated emergencies, and prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. But the Constitution that emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention contained nothing like a comprehensive bill of rights. Most state constitutions of the time had bills of rights, and many citizens—and members of the Constitutional Convention—expected the new national constitution to have one as well. Nonetheless, the state delegations at the Constitutional Convention voted 10-0 against including a bill of rights in the Constitution.
    The sense of the Convention delegates was that a bill of rights, in the context of the federal Constitution, was unnecessary and even dangerous. It was considered unnecessary because the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people. There was, for example, no need for a provision protecting freedom of speech against Congress because, as James Wilson put it, “there is given to the general government no power whatsoever concerning it.” Edmund Randolph made the same point regarding freedom of religion, emphasizing that “[n]o part of the Constitution, even if strictly construed, will justify a conclusion that the general government can take away or impair the freedom of religion.” Similar remarks were made during the drafting and ratification process regarding juries in civil cases, general warrants, and cruel and unusual punishment. The consistent line of the Constitution’s defenders was that no bill of rights was necessary because the limited and enumerated powers of the national government simply did not include the power to violate those rights.
    They even maintained that inclusion of a bill of rights would be dangerous, because it might suggest that the national government had powers that it had not actually been granted. As Alexander Hamilton put it, bills of rights “would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do?” Moreover, any list of rights would be incomplete. Such a list might indirectly endanger any rights not included on it.
    In sum, the Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people.
    Not everyone was convinced by these arguments. Indeed, the absence of a bill of rights threatened to derail ratification of the Constitution, especially in key states such as Massachusetts and Virginia. A number of states ratified the Constitution only on the express understanding that the document would quickly be amended to include a bill of rights. The first Congress accordingly proposed twelve Amendments, the last ten of which were ratified in 1791 and now stand as the Bill of Rights.
    The first eight of those ratified Amendments identify various rights of the people involving such things as speech, religion, arms, searches and seizures, jury trials, and due process of law. The last two address the concerns of the Constitution’s defenders that these enumerations of rights were pointless and even dangerous.
    The Ninth Amendment warns against drawing any inferences about the scope of the people’s rights from the partial listing of some of them. The Tenth Amendment warns against using a list of rights to infer powers in the national government that were not granted. In referring, respectively, to “rights . . . retained by the people” and “powers . . . reserved . . . to the people,” the Ninth and Tenth Amendments also evoke themes of popular sovereignty, highlighting the foundational role of the people in the constitutional republic.
    The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.
    In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941). No law that would have been constitutional before the Tenth Amendment was ratified becomes unconstitutional simply because the Tenth Amendment exists. The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.
    Nonetheless, beginning in 1976, a line of cases has emerged that seems to give substantive constitutional content to the Tenth Amendment. In 1986, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that a city was required to comply with federal labor laws, and that state sovereignty interests should be protected by the participation of states in the national political process, rather than by judicially-enforced principles of federalism. However, while Garcia has never been explicitly overruled, in subsequent cases the Court has indeed found judicially-enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate states (and their political subdivisions) directly. So it is now meaningful to speak of “Tenth Amendment doctrine.” Those cases all involve action by the federal government that in some way regulates or commands state governments, such as by telling states what policies they must adopt, New York v. United States (1992), forcing state or local executive officials to implement federal laws, Printz v. United States (1997), or conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on compliance with certain conditions, South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment hasnot been invoked by the Court to protect individual citizens against the exercise of federal power.
    Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?


    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Where was it written that these are inalienable rights?

    Well, my English friend, it was written when the USA gave your country the figurative bird!

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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. — 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, 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.
    My point entirely. They exist because your government wrote them down, defined them. With out that written definition you got nothing.
    I asked you for a written definition not drafted by a government, still waiting.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,807

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Sean, #58.

    You'd better have a good look at what you posted and examine it against the present state of your nation. Don't be distracted by the 2nd, in fact today it erodes all of what you posted for almost 40,000 fellow citizens a year. But it also distracts from what other powers are being gathered into the Presidential authoritarian basket. Powers that in the past only Kings, Emperors and authoritarian rulers held.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    The second amendment erodes nothing. It wasn't written to guarantee tools for murder. It guarantees tools for defense. Personal defense and defense against tyranny. Just because I do not call for violent revolution and publicly express to hate for those who govern us does not mean I am happy with what id going on.

    And Nick, the Magna Carta was written by your countrymen. You should know as well as any that governments do not create rights. The Queen was not endowed by God as your master.

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14,418

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Makes you wonder when "conservatives" rejected the position of Ronald Reagan and embraced the position of the Black Panthers on gun control.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment


  25. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default

    An excellent argument can be made that the single class of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment is that class of arms ordinarily carried by a foot soldier ("original intent", eh?), since the the point of the exercise is to ensure that the common militia, of which every able-bodied male of fighting age is a member, is armed and equipped (because you bring your own arms to the party).

    In today's terms, that means assault rifles, hand grenades, and the like are protected, but hunting rifles and handguns, say, are not.

    Sanford Levinson's Yale Law Review article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment":

    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/...54&context=ylj

    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/201...ra-didnt-help/
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14,418

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    An excellent argument can be made that the single class of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment is that class of arms ordinarily carried by a foot soldier ("original intent", eh?), since the the point of the exercise is to ensure that the common militia, of which every able-bodied male of fighting age is a member, is armed and equipped (because you bring your own arms to the party).

    In today's terms, that means assault rifles, hand grenades, and the like are protected, but hunting rifles and handguns, say, are not.

    Sanford Levinson's Yale Law Review article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment":

    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/...54&context=ylj

    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/201...ra-didnt-help/
    IMO, the second amendment was intended to protect the right of a citizen to join the state's armed forces, not the individual's right to own a weapon.

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    Lots of drift here, but I hadn't heard of a "Class III weapon". Who decides what is in this category?

    The 1934 National Firearms Act, followed, and strengthened by, the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  28. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    The second amendment erodes nothing. It wasn't written to guarantee tools for murder. It guarantees tools for defense. Personal defense and defense against tyranny. Just because I do not call for violent revolution and publicly express to hate for those who govern us does not mean I am happy with what id going on.

    And Nick, the Magna Carta was written by your countrymen. You should know as well as any that governments do not create rights. The Queen was not endowed by God as your master.
    You really are silly.
    Go read the Constitution, that defines what the militia is for and how it is run. The second was written to facilitate the militia. It says so right up front. Neither says anything about personal defence, nor "tyranny".

    I'll ask you again. Where are these rights written down? Where are they defined?
    Magna Carta was written down by what passed as the government of the time, and ratified by the King, not by the peasantry, not by the freemen of the towns, but by the ruling gentry. You have made my point.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  29. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    You keep harping on the 2nd only applying to militias, except the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees.

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]
    And it does not matter who or where it was written, your liberty was given to you by something that is beyond the governance of men. Another man cannot be your master without your consent. That is called slavery.

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    IMO, the second amendment was intended to protect the right of a citizen to join the state's armed forces, not the individual's right to own a weapon.

    Read the constitution, then read the paper. He makes an excellent argument backed by good scholarship... one that he didn't set out to make.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    580

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    The courts decided what they think it means, the politicians argue about what they want it to mean. But in the end it's argued about so much, by so many, that it is very obviously broken, and will not be fixed until a super majority of the population decide it needs to be fixed. So the question isn't what do you think about the 2nd. It's what are you going to replace the second with? And how do you convince 100 million voters it's the right replacement?

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvida View Post
    The courts decided what they think it means, the politicians argue about what they want it to mean. But in the end it's argued about so much, by so many, that it is very obviously broken, and will not be fixed until a super majority of the population decide it needs to be fixed. So the question isn't what do you think about the 2nd. It's what are you going to replace the second with? And how do you convince 100 million voters it's the right replacement?
    Easy: Civil war.

    This country will not be broken from the outside.

  33. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default

    100m voters would be easy.

    Not so easy?

    Both houses of Congress, and then the legislatures (and governors) of 2/3 of the States.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  34. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    100m voters would be easy.

    Not so easy?

    Both houses of Congress, and then the legislatures (and governors) of 2/3 of the States.
    Sorry. Finding the answer to his question was easy. The actual way of convincing so many will not be easy.

  35. #70
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    51,935

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    You keep harping on the 2nd only applying to militias, except the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees.



    And it does not matter who or where it was written, your liberty was given to you by something that is beyond the governance of men. Another man cannot be your master without your consent. That is called slavery.
    “Guns and gun ownership will continue to be regulated”

    Training, license, registration and insurance. Enabling a huge proliferation of firearms does not promote the general welfare but threatens it. This is a different century than 1791. 325 million instead of 4 million. There were no building codes, pollution regulations, aircraft certification or vehicle standards etc back then. The nation has well regulated police and standing military now, it didn’t then. It’s time to grow up.

Posting Permissions

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