Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 241

Thread: Question on the 2nd amendment

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    580

    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.
    No one in US history has convinced that many voters to act, including all prior constitutional amendments. First off, because that many voters didn't exist until recently. Proportionally it's never been done at a single time either. Which means it will require and extended campaign for decades, with a concise and convincing message that's more effective than 'No, don't take my guns'. Which may not sound very convincing, but it's incredibly on point, and easy to stay on message. And until there's a message to beat that one, we're going to have a gun violence problem in America.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    Is there a constitutional right to own a tank? A fully-armed combat aircraft? A Thomson submachine gun? Is there a line somewhere, and what is it? Who gets to set it?
    Now that the right to keep and bear is an individual right, a fundamental human right, courts are the ultimate arbiters of the definition.

    Ostensibly, the limitations are :

    1. Time, place and manner . . . similar to the right of free speech.
    2. Weapons in common use, not dangerous and unusual.

    #1 is straightforward. #2 is a joke. Common use when? 1789? No. Anything that has come into common use, e.g. stun guns. Unusual, compared to what? What the "militia" would use? No. Caetano vs. Massachusetts.

    So it seems anything not already banned may become customary, and if it does, the right to keep and bear it becomes a fundamental human right. AFAIK this is the only fundamental human right that expands and contracts in this way . . . no more pikes and halberds? Since courts are the deciders, the only way to find out is ban something and get the courts to rule on it. That could take years. Suppose it comes into "common use" in the meantime?

    3. Anything you can take in your hands and wear. This is from the concurring opinion. But it's not a limitation on the right. The right includes anything you can wear or carry. That doesn't mean the right is limited to things you wear or carry.

    So go get your armored vehicle or whatever. You may not be able to drive it on public roads, and you may have to have a license. Guess you could trailer it.

    Looks like the need to address the Second Amendment kind of sunk to the bottom of the liberal punch bowl. And now it's too late.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  3. #73
    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
    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.
    His point seems to be that the South had a constitutional right to launch the Civil War.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    6,593

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Your liberty exists only if you can enforce it, your government may do a good job of that, perhaps not. Your rights also end just about where mine begin.
    PaulF

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,047

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    There exist two founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The progressive/statist will ignore the Declaration and designate the Constitution a dated instrument in need of modernizing. When you take both documents in the consideration the Founders intended, you get:

    “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.”

    And that would be possible because:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” had been observed.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,797

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Well, let's see! 60% of all Americans want gun regulation mdh. Mazy be higher, at best, 40% don't want any regulations. However, the 40% seems to Trump the 60%. Want to explain that mdh?

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14,418

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Seems like gun regulation already exists, and is constitutional. Only argument is what is regulated, and that is up to congress.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Well, let's see! 60% of all Americans want gun regulation mdh. Mazy be higher, at best, 40% don't want any regulations. However, the 40% seems to Trump the 60%. Want to explain that mdh?
    This is why the US is a Consitutional Republic and not a democracy. Just because the majority want something doesnt mean they necessarily get it.

  9. #79
    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 SeanM26 View Post
    This is why the US is a Consitutional Republic and not a democracy. Just because the majority want something doesnt mean they necessarily get it.
    Agreed and the NRA etc. shouldn't get it!

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Like stated above, there are a lot of regulations that have been deemed Consitutional. If you want more you are eventually going to have to have the 2nd Amendment repealed.

  11. #81
    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 SeanM26 View Post
    Like stated above, there are a lot of regulations that have been deemed Consitutional. If you want more you are eventually going to have to have the 2nd Amendment repealed.
    Working on it, the 2nd Amendment is archaic and long out ion date.

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Working on it, the 2nd Amendment is archaic and long out ion date.
    Then, arguably, so is the rest of the Consitution.

  13. #83
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,970

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    “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.”

    And that would be possible because:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” had been observed.
    Why can’t we just vote the f***ers out?
    \"A little too tall, coulda used a few pounds...\"

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowolf View Post
    Why can’t we just vote the f***ers out?
    Eventually we are going to have one voted in that refuses to leave.

  15. #85
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,970

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Eventually we are going to have one voted in that refuses to leave.
    Does the constitution deny him that?
    \"A little too tall, coulda used a few pounds...\"

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    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.
    If that's what you think, you're not an American. Laugh about that.

    Imagine Trump declares himself King. You don't know what he means but it doesn't matter. It's not in the Consitution and is ipso facto illegal and morally wrong. Next, the people who command and staff the institutions that are supposed to curb such things say, no, we think it's a good idea. There is an attempted overthrow which fails. Now look at yourself in the mirror while you say these words:

    "Donald Trump is King by right. Might makes right, therefore, might can do no wrong."

    Politics is the means by which our moral sense is translated into law . . . A slow-motion revolution in how this is done, in progress since the 17th century, has made a clean break with the past. People are still fighting and dying in that revolution.

    -- John MacBeath Watkins, The Outlaw John Locke & Why Liberalism Is Worth Fighting For (2018)
    Fighting and dying for your rights, pal. For something worth fighting and dying for. Are they naive?

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    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.
    Rights do not disappear by being violated. O B V I O U S L Y
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,797

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Sorry, I don't have a gun fetish although once in a while I enjoy shooting skeet. Don't need an AR 15 for that. Although I suspect some owners do.

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    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.
    Long subservience produces a characteristic form of sadomasochism. That the sovereign majesty is exalted means, you and I ain't S (especially not you! . You are nothing except insofar as you have the favor of the sovereign majesty -- formerly the monarch, then Parliament. The only aspect of your moral standing that is certain is that you are a subject.

    The refusal to acknowledge this, to call BS on the sadomasochistic game, was and is a reproach. "You don't have to play it either, if you can find the courage." It was the source of the particular fury of England towards the American colonies. "Just who do you think you are?"

    America does a similar thing. The refusal of the rest of the world to follow our plan seems willful and wicked. Very annoying.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  20. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    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.
    It doesn't mean what you think it means. The rights do not exist by virtue of appearing in the Constitution, or not, or partially; no way, shape or form.
    Last edited by Osborne Russell; 08-12-2019 at 04:06 PM.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  21. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    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!
    And in England before that, supposedly. As to the rights of Englishmen, not the rights of man, better believe it.

    But, not. Only symbolically.

    The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries.

    -- wikipedia
    You know why England doesn't have a Bill of Rights that means anything? Because they can't.

    The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarized in three points:

    • Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
    • No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
    • A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
    The structure of English government allows Parliament to enact a Bill Of Rights one day and repeal it the next. In order to rationalize the situation, they must deny that rights have any other source than the will of the sovereign. It would be an infringement of Parliamentary supremacy.

    Exactly as things stood in 1776.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  22. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    28,403

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie
    ... the 2nd Amendment is archaic and long out [of] date.
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26
    Then, arguably, so is the rest of the Consitution.
    Nonsense.

    Disagree? Then display your logic.

    "Arguably" meaning: "can be shown by argument." So show us your argument that if the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is archaic then so is the entire U.S. Constitution.

    I despise such facile statements made by WBF Bilge trolls. Show your work or be silent.
    .
    Last edited by Tom Montgomery; 08-12-2019 at 04:39 PM.
    "Trump's authoritarianism is a feature not a bug." -- Sky Blue





  23. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,797

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    SeanM26, what kind of gun did the colonials use in 1789? That is the gun the writers wrote the 2nd Amendment for Not Ar 15s and guns that can shoot multiple times without reloading. That's why I say the 2nd is archaic.

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Now that is funny.

  25. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    28,403

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    .
    Beware of wasting much energy on this one, Jamie.
    "Trump's authoritarianism is a feature not a bug." -- Sky Blue





  26. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,804

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment


  27. #97
    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 Tom Montgomery View Post
    .
    Beware of wasting much energy on this one, Jamie.
    It's the teacher in me, I can't help trying to save the ignorant.

  28. #98
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bradford, VT
    Posts
    7,480

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    If you want to go down the rabbit hole of comparing hardware available to the late 1700s colonists vs today, fairness demands that you compare arms available to the military vs arms available to the populace. Similarly, fairness again demands that you include a discussion of quill pens vs computers

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    17,690

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    This showed up on my Facebook feed today:

    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  30. #100
    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 David W Pratt View Post
    If you want to go down the rabbit hole of comparing hardware available to the late 1700s colonists vs today, fairness demands that you compare arms available to the military vs arms available to the populace. Similarly, fairness again demands that you include a discussion of quill pens vs computers
    Quil pens and computers don't kill people. The Constitution refers to guns they were familiar with. Maybe if it had been written in 2015, it would have taken into account and be specific as to what types of guns are acceptable now. Of course, we don't need a regulated Army now. that was replaced by the national guard.

  31. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Quil pens and computers don't kill people. The Constitution refers to guns they were familiar with. Maybe if it had been written in 2015, it would have taken into account and be specific as to what types of guns are acceptable now. Of course, we don't need a regulated Army now. that was replaced by the national guard.
    Need a little editing?

  32. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    28,403

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by David W Pratt
    If you want to go down the rabbit hole of comparing hardware available to the late 1700s colonists vs today, fairness demands that you compare arms available to the military vs arms available to the populace. Similarly, fairness again demands that you include a discussion of quill pens vs computers
    Fairness demands that the 2nd Amendment be understood within the context of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitutiion.

    Hoplophiles, the NRA, and their Red servants don’t want to hear this of course.
    "Trump's authoritarianism is a feature not a bug." -- Sky Blue





  33. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    17,690

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    The subject of what the 2nd Ammendment actually means with regards to modern weaponry and modern America came up in a story on CBC Radio 1 on the weekend. They re-played a 2013 CBC's interview by Michael Enright with Professor Saul Cornell, whom is the Paul and Diane Gunther Chair in History at Fordham University. He's the former Director of the Second Amendment Research Center, and he's the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

    Linky: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayed...ment-1.5240959
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    That's all philosophy . . .
    The foundation of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    . . . and assuming everyone is on board with operating within said rule of law.
    Regardless of whether anyone else is on board.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    If someone is holding a gun to your head, you have no rights.
    If they fire it and kill me, I have rights which the administrator of my estate will enforce against them.

    Rights do not disappear because they are violated.

    You're not an American. People have sacrificed a lot to carve out a space where you can persist in your error. Shame.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    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).
    And further, that even so, no individual right was created. The Second Amendment was never about individual rights, it was about federalism, the rights of people as constituted in a state of the union. Suppose a nation that is not a federation. Is there nevertheless a right to keep and bear arms? Suppose a state in a federation decides not to have a militia. Is there nevertheless a right to keep and bear arms?
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

Posting Permissions

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