Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 67
Results 211 to 241 of 241

Thread: Question on the 2nd amendment

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    S.V.Arlie is so confusing. He hates guns and he hates the current government. But he is hell bound to make sure the current government is the one in control of all the guns.

    This administration is one of the very reasons the 2nd Amendment was written.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    S.V.Arlie is so confusing. He hates guns and he hates the current government. But he is hell bound to make sure the current government is the one in control of all the guns.

    This administration is one of the very reasons the 2nd Amendment was written.
    Your ignorance surpasseth all understanding.
    The Militia Clauses

    Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

    Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
    There is nothing in the Second that says anything different.
    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.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,396

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Cross post?
    Yeah. Sorry ... I would have quoted a relevant quote to put my considered reply into context, but the insane rantings of the NRA-apologists gets my blood boiling.

    Andy
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Is there some question that Brexit and England's reluctance WRT to human rights have shared roots?

    In November 1994 Lord Lester introduced a bill in the Lords which was based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights which would give the Convention a similar status in UK law as that accorded to European Community law by allowing courts to disapply future and existing Acts of Parliament which were incompatible with it, imposing a duty on public authorities to comply and making provision for effective remedies including damages for breaches. Introduced during a period of concern over the impact of European Community law on the Parliamentary sovereignty, the bill did not receive support from the Conservative government and failed in the Commons due to lack of time.

    -- wikipedia
    The concept of human rights means that no government anywhere, anyplace, any time has the legitimate authority to act in violation of them. This must be taken to be a limitation on parliamentary supremacy.

    No country in the world is required to accept the law of another country as domestic law, yet human rights are universal. Countries may differ as the extent of a given human right in a given case. What countries may not do is to claim that their disposition of a case is beyond the scope of human rights entirely. A country may say, the law complained of does not violate the right to free speech; it cannot say there is no right to free speech. Thus there is an unavoidable conflict with parliamentary supremacy, and England will not budge. It's a backup tactic, an evasion, to say that the doctrine has always meant that human rights are whatever the governing authorities at the time say they are. That has never been the doctrine, it couldn't possibly be. It's a self-contradiction and an absurdity.

    There is clearly no purpose to it other than to except England, which can have no foundation other than English exceptionalism. In theory Brexit may rest on English exceptionalism but doesn't have to. The thing is, in practice, it does.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Is there some question that Brexit and England's reluctance WRT to human rights have shared roots?



    The concept of human rights means that no government anywhere, anyplace, any time has the legitimate authority to act in violation of them. This must be taken to be a limitation on parliamentary supremacy.

    No country in the world is required to accept the law of another country as domestic law, yet human rights are universal. Countries may differ as the extent of a given human right in a given case. What countries may not do is to claim that their disposition of a case is beyond the scope of human rights entirely. A country may say, the law complained of does not violate the right to free speech; it cannot say there is no right to free speech. Thus there is an unavoidable conflict with parliamentary supremacy, and England will not budge. It's a backup tactic, an evasion, to say that the doctrine has always meant that human rights are whatever the governing authorities at the time say they are. That has never been the doctrine, it couldn't possibly be. It's a self-contradiction and an absurdity.

    There is clearly no purpose to it other than to except England, which can have no foundation other than English exceptionalism. In theory Brexit may rest on English exceptionalism but doesn't have to. The thing is, in practice, it does.
    Rather than a selective, misleading quote from Wikki, perhaps you should read this: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-h...rights-bill-hl Followed by https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...man-rights-act
    As to your ignorant waffle about Brexit, it just indicates your groundless prejudice about the UK.
    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.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Just checked, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, and it still includes the 2nd Amendment.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    The AR-15 is a military rifle specifically modified to be legal for sale to civilians.
    I don't think you really understand the difference between an M16 and an AR-15.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Just checked, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, and it still includes the 2nd Amendment.
    And neither of them say what you think that they say. Go read 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.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    I have read the Consitution many times. I have also read the many decisions made by the SCOTUS regarding interpretation of the document.

    So far, your interpretation does not match our Supreme Courts. Guess which one actually matters?

  10. #220
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    11,971

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    I don't think you really understand the difference between an M16 and an AR-15.
    Bull, all number and letters aside, he has it exactly right. The AR is a variant of a military weapon.
    Nosce te ipsum

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,801

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    I have read the Consitution many times. I have also read the many decisions made by the SCOTUS regarding interpretation of the document.

    So far, your interpretation does not match our Supreme Courts. Guess which one actually matters?
    But in a year or 10 the USSC may make another political decision to the contrary.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    27,014

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    I don't think you really understand the difference between an M16 and an AR-15.
    screen-capture.jpg
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  13. #223
    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

    The Militia Clauses
    Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

    Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.




    There is nothing in the Second that says anything different.
    True, which is why they wrote the part after the comma, the part not about the militia, but about the people.
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northwest Oregon coast
    Posts
    28,688

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Yeah. Sorry ... I would have quoted a relevant quote to put my considered reply into context, but the insane rantings of the NRA-apologists gets my blood boiling.

    Andy
    .

    Ask the people in Venezuela how they feel about being disarmed.

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,564

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    .

    Ask the people in Venezuela how they feel about being disarmed.
    Maybe try the people of Australia or New Zealand for a better answer. Also maybe ask your self, if owning 43% of the worlds privately owned guns hasn't made the US safer, what makes you think owning more will?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,564

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    .

    Ask the people in Venezuela how they feel about being disarmed.
    BTW No one is actually talking about disarming US citizens, removing semi automatic weapons yes but that is not disarming.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    Bull, all number and letters aside, he has it exactly right. The AR is a variant of a military weapon.
    Stoner designed the AR-15 in 1956. The US military adopted it in 1964. So no, the military adopted a civilian rifle.

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    BTW No one is actually talking about disarming US citizens, removing semi automatic weapons yes but that is not disarming.
    You are talking about trying to remove well over 100,000,000 firearms. How does that in anyway sound realistic to you?

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    6,593

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    You are talking about trying to remove well over 100,000,000 firearms. How does that in anyway sound realistic to you?
    What military unit were you with? Even in the Military police unit I ended my service with we had an Armory, where these weapons were kept, brought out for practice and training.
    In Vietnam in combat conditions, they were checked out and after service 13 months they were checked back in, magazines checked , weapons checked. Even when I was medevaced to the Repose ( hospital ship), they checked my weapons at the LZ on board, Rifle, pistol and frags. An example of a well regulated Malitia
    .

    To allow some dip to own and modify these weapons is nuts!
    And I think you know that.

    Think of the nit wits in your unit that you would not want next to you in a fire fight!
    PaulF

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,564

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    You are talking about trying to remove well over 100,000,000 firearms. How does that in anyway sound realistic to you?
    It's bloody stupid and in fact insane that a nation would allow the ownership of a particular type of weapon to overrule the safety of it's own citizens.
    However unrealistic as it may sound you have to try.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,564

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Stoner designed the AR-15 in 1956. The US military adopted it in 1964. So no, the military adopted a civilian rifle.
    Semantics again.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    It's bloody stupid and in fact insane that a nation would allow the ownership of a particular type of weapon to overrule the safety of it's own citizens.
    However unrealistic as it may sound you have to try.
    Fewer than 4% of all firearms homicides are by rifles, of any sort.

    Why the particular animus against AR-15's, since handguns are the major instruments of firearms homicide?

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    I have read the Consitution many times. I have also read the many decisions made by the SCOTUS regarding interpretation of the document.

    So far, your interpretation does not match our Supreme Courts. Guess which one actually matters?
    I agree. The US of A has been screwed over by a bunch of politicized lawyers in the pockets of their political patrons. Result. Thousands of US citizens have their rights terminally infringed every year, children, people at worship. All avoidable and unnecessary.
    So much for the Leaders of the Free World.
    Why? So that numpties can dream of being heroes overthrowing the government that they took part in electing to power?
    Do you really believe that ammosexuals crap?
    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.

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by kgr1 View Post
    Fewer than 4% of all firearms homicides are by rifles, of any sort.

    Why the particular animus against AR-15's, since handguns are the major instruments of firearms homicide?
    Are all of those mass killings irrelevant? 50 people at a music festival? Tens of people at churches? High capacity magazines and the facility of rapid-fire make it sooo easy to murder lots of people at the same time.
    That said no nation should sanction the ownership of any guns specifically sold and owned for the purpose of killing people.
    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.

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    FL. USA
    Posts
    6,778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    I have read the Consitution many times. I have also read the many decisions made by the SCOTUS regarding interpretation of the document.

    So far, your interpretation does not match our Supreme Courts. Guess which one actually matters?
    Thankfully, the SC does not have reading comprehension issues.

    The gun restriction advocates/progressives also forget that the Constitution was written and phrased in plain-speak for a reason, no matter how much they would like to inflict some twisted, lawyer-speak-interpretation to their favor, or that their higher education affords them a more qualified knowledge of what it means. Also at a time when a good portion of the population probably signed their name with an X. The basic meaning is more correct than any way it can be possibly spun.

    The fact that before, and immediately after the amendments were in effect and onward, the "people," were already keeping and bearing arms, right under the noses of such authority, is proof enough. The founders would have noticed their error, if there was such a possibility, and there would have been a lot of counter documentation to that effect at the very least that explained it further. Either someone, or even the language around the topic at the time, would have indicated otherwise. The 2nd Amendment was drafted from direct experience of the matter.

    The other consideration left out of this confusion over the idea of a "well regulated militia," outside of some government mandate, tends to discount the rather large presence of military experience residing within the general population spanning every generation since. We all know, and likely grew up with combat veterans in the house. I've known officers myself from all branches. Their experience does not just vaporize when they are discharged. It ends up being about as American as apple pie. Does anyone ever go to a Veterans Day parade, or a VFW around here?

    Some information with regard to the amount of households that had guns in early America. There is no way that the topic could have been handled with anything of complacency. Guns were a huge part of our culture then, as well.
    https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...9&context=wmlr

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by pipefitter View Post
    Thankfully, the SC does not have reading comprehension issues.

    The gun restriction advocates/progressives also forget that the Constitution was written and phrased in plain-speak for a reason, no matter how much they would like to inflict some twisted, lawyer-speak-interpretation to their favor, or that their higher education affords them a more qualified knowledge of what it means. Also at a time when a good portion of the population probably signed their name with an X. The basic meaning is more correct than any way it can be possibly spun.

    The fact that before, and immediately after the amendments were in effect and onward, the "people," were already keeping and bearing arms, right under the noses of such authority, is proof enough. The founders would have noticed their error, if there was such a possibility, and there would have been a lot of counter documentation to that effect at the very least that explained it further. Either someone, or even the language around the topic at the time, would have indicated otherwise. The 2nd Amendment was drafted from direct experience of the matter.

    The other consideration left out of this confusion over the idea of a "well regulated militia," outside of some government mandate, tends to discount the rather large presence of military experience residing within the general population spanning every generation since. We all know, and likely grew up with combat veterans in the house. I've known officers myself from all branches. Their experience does not just vaporize when they are discharged. It ends up being about as American as apple pie. Does anyone ever go to a Veterans Day parade, or a VFW around here?

    Some information with regard to the amount of households that had guns in early America. There is no way that the topic could have been handled with anything of complacency. Guns were a huge part of our culture then, as well.
    https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...9&context=wmlr
    Bit of a

    Your National Guard is the Well Regulated Militia defined in your Constitution. No other US citizen needs to bear arms. Own hunting rifles and shotguns yes, but bear arms, no.
    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.

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Nah. I'm not going to give the government (especially with Trump at the helm) a monopoly on power.

  28. #238
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    11,971

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Stoner designed the AR-15 in 1956. The US military adopted it in 1964. So no, the military adopted a civilian rifle.
    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Semantics again.
    The ArmaLite AR-15 is a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964, and adopted by the United States Armed Forces as the M16 rifle.[5] Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition. The original rifle was manufactured in a selective fire configuration, unlike its more modern counterparts.
    Not what I would call "semantics," more of an untruth.
    Last edited by Old Dryfoot; 08-20-2019 at 08:48 AM.
    Nosce te ipsum

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    FL. USA
    Posts
    6,778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Bit of a

    Your National Guard is the Well Regulated Militia defined in your Constitution. No other US citizen needs to bear arms. Own hunting rifles and shotguns yes, but bear arms, no.
    No. That was one half of the amendment. The comma after it, clearly indicates that in spite of that, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. The "people" and their 'kept' arms, many, if not most of which were indeed of military standard of the times as well, were present in that exact role. The idea that the founding fathers were ignorant of this while having this already present condition of it's citizenry as they drafted the amendment, and with most of them likely owning arms in this context as well, is what's the most ridiculous. It's been accepted as it is written in practice by those who actually wrote it, along with the common knowledge of the times before, during and after it was ever an amendment.

    Nice try though.

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Here's a list of state constitutional treatments of the right to keep and bear arms.

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

    Remember, until the 14th Amendment, the 2d Amendment only restrained the federal government. That supports the view that the 2d Amendment was only a matter of balancing the power of the feds vs. the states, i.e. not establishing an individual right.

    Further, no state provisions were necessary. Nevertheless, there appear to have been a few.

    That was then.

    After the 14th, there were more. Then another wave starting in the 1980's.

    There is no getting around the fact that the people believe that keeping and bearing is a fundamental human right. Whether they are correct is another question.

    CCW does not have unanimous support:

    Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, 13).
    Also,as in this example, there seems to be general indifference to whether there is an actual militia or not.

    Obviously, there could have been no right to bear firearms when there were no firearms, so such a right will always need to be supported as being within the right of self-defense; i.e. there's nothing special about guns.

    It is in this context that state provisions have to be interpreted, as to whether they establish a fundamental right. If the feds decide that gun law X is within some federal power, and doesn't violate the 2d Amendment, state provisions must yield. But the 2d was greatly expanded in scope by the Heller decision, so the 2d will block much federal regulation. Meanwhile, the states are largely free to have as little regulation as they please, and indeed are much restricted by their own constitutions.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  31. #241
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,879

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by pipefitter View Post
    No. That was one half of the amendment. The comma after it, clearly indicates that in spite of that, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. The "people" and their 'kept' arms, many, if not most of which were indeed of military standard of the times as well, were present in that exact role. The idea that the founding fathers were ignorant of this while having this already present condition of it's citizenry as they drafted the amendment, and with most of them likely owning arms in this context as well, is what's the most ridiculous. It's been accepted as it is written in practice by those who actually wrote it, along with the common knowledge of the times before, during and after it was ever an amendment.

    Nice try though.
    So, you are an expert in 200-year-old standards of punctuation now? Well, who'd ha thunk it?
    Language, both spoken and written changes through time. You are reading too much into a comma. It was not a full stop, separating two clauses, commas link ideas.
    From Wikki:
    Between the subject and predicate

    In his 1785 essay An Essay on Punctuation, Joseph Robertson advocated a comma between the subject and predicate of long sentences for clarity; however, this usage is regarded as an error in modern times.

    • The good taste of the present age, has not allowed us to neglect the cultivation of the English language.
    • Whoever is capable of forgetting a benefit, is an enemy to society.
    P.S. Mr Written English expert. My spell checker found 4 errors in your post.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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