Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are completely and thoroughly incorrect on the Framer's intent. Bet you learned this from a leftwing professor.
Now, back to school with you and no more posting until you know what you're talking about (which you plainly do not).
LOL so you think the founders intended to have a Federal Government so powerful it could tell states what the states what the states' gun laws should be? The bill of rights initially was never intended to apply to the states. That is the premise of Barron v Baltimore and US v Cruikshank. It wasn't until the late 19th and early 20th century with cases like Twining v. New Jersey that the bill of rights was expanded to apply against the states. Therefore the 2nd Amendment was merely a way to stop the federal government from preventing states from forming and arming militias. We have however, abandoned that view as can be seen by recent decisions of the Supreme Court.
You clearly are one of those "Constitutionalists" who doesn't know anything about the Constitution. This is obvious in that you can only sling insults and use platitudes to back up your criticism.
If you actually wanted to take a true and legitimate Constitutionally Conservative position on this you would say that the federal government has no business in gun control and gun control, or lack there of should be entirely decided by the states.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-21-2012 at 03:40 PM..
I'm no longer an absolutist in regards to gun control, and I don't like the idea of revisiting constitutional issues every time a tragedy occurs (I'm waiting for someone to blame the Batman movie itself for what happened in Aurora).
However, there are two important points to made in regards to The Second Amendment:
The wording, as ratified by the states is this:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Linguistically, this is a complex sentence. Had there been no intent to consider the dependent clause ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State") as relating directly to the independent clause ("The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."), the former would be totally unnecessary. The reasonable conclusion is that the right to bear arms was envisioned within the context of maintaining a "well-regulated Militia".
The second point is that, if we take the right to bear arms in a literal and absolute sense; there can be no limitations whatsoever to the right. This means that I can amass nuclear warheads in my garage, and maintain vials of biotoxins and chemical agents in the basement. Few people, even NRA extremists would likely be in support of this definition of The Second Amendment.
I've made my peace with the existence of handguns and hunting weapons; but it isn't unreasonable to suggest that prohibitions be enacted at some level, based upon the potential for destruction a given weapon is capable of wreaking. Nor is it unreasonable to argue that many types of modern high-tech weapons and ammunition should fall into the prohibited category.
Sadly; your logic will be wasted here. This issue is all wrapped up with machoism and ego support. far too many view a weapon as a character bolster that somehow manifests their very "maleness".
Guns are equated with being brave or stalwart while the will and effort to regulate them is seen and villified as being "weak" or subjugating. You'll never break through this barrier. Going back to the mid to late 1800's where everyone rode about with a gunbelt and rifle scabbard attached to their horse is viewed by many John Waynes as America's finest hours.
"They" cannot wait to get back to that regressive nonsense.
No. Your right to anything is defined by law, and nothing else. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way things are ordered. If you think that you are above the law, you're in for a big fall. If you think that you can defy the law, you're subject to prosecution, and on conviction, incarceration. So, get these thoughts out of your mind. It's much easier to be part of the social system. If you want to change that system - then vote your preferences. That's the way our system works.
Where was all this outrage when George Dubya Bush was stomping on the constitution with the Patriot Act, starting an illegal war based on outright lies, releasing the name of Iraq War whistleblowers who called out his lies, banning the media from even taking pictures of returning coffins from the war, etc etc.
I think some people are afraid when it's a Black Man doing those things because they fear he may want some revenge for the many terrible things that White Americans have done to Blacks throughout US history.
people did complain about bush signing the patriot act, but understand that the patriot act was initially written by a democrat(joe biden), and later used as the basis for the current patriot act. but let me ask you this regarding the patriot act, are you upset with obama for signing the patriot act renewal?
as for the wars, first what was illegal about them? second what lies did bush tell? third are you going to excoriate many democrats that told the same "lies" as bush as much as two years BEFORE bush was elected to office? as for your last argument, that is rubbish for the most part. yes there are racists who dont like obama because he is black, however the vast majority of people object to obamas policies, not his race. we objected to carters policies also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
No, Gungnir, your comparison is inapposite. The overthrow of monarchy/dictatorship does not equate with violent opposition to the lawfully constituted government. The oath of citizenship is to uphold the Constitution; it is not to take the law into one's own hands.
and there is the fallacy in your argument. we are to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. and if that enemy is a president or other politician who is trying to usurp power to their own ends, then we as citizens have the right and responsibility to defend the constitution.
I'm no longer an absolutist in regards to gun control, and I don't like the idea of revisiting constitutional issues every time a tragedy occurs (I'm waiting for someone to blame the Batman movie itself for what happened in Aurora).
However, there are two important points to made in regards to The Second Amendment:
The wording, as ratified by the states is this:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Linguistically, this is a complex sentence. Had there been no intent to consider the dependent clause ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State") as relating directly to the independent clause ("The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."), the former would be totally unnecessary. The reasonable conclusion is that the right to bear arms was envisioned within the context of maintaining a "well-regulated Militia".
No, no, no, no , no ... this is mental gymnastics and contortions. The 2nd amendment is far from being a complex sentence, particularly when considered in proper context. First, a "dependent clause" is also referred to as a "subordinate clause", meaning that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..." is subordinate to " .... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shaw not be infringed" which stands alone in delivering the operative foundation of the statement. The dependent or subordinate clause portion can therefore be considered a "preamble", that simply states a reason for the independent and operative portion of the statement.
As an example, the statement "Given my proclivity for suffering hangovers, I shall endeavor to ensure an ample supply of Alka Seltzer is always found in my medicine cabinet". Is this a complex statement too? No! It's very clear ..... and it could be less eloquently stated as "I drink often, and I always get terrible hangovers, so I need to keep lots of alka seltzer always on hand. The operative portion is the need to keep lots of alka seltzer on hand, and the reason for that is because I drink a lot. The underlying insinuation is that one drinks a lot of alcohol ... it isn't directly stated, but is definitely implied, since drinking milk isn't generally associated with causing hangovers.
Take this same approach to breaking down the rather simple statement made in the 2nd Amendment, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly the operative language, with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." is simply a stated reason.
Too much effort has been focused on distorting the reason, to the extent that it becomes the focus of argument, rather than the clear operative language stipulating the right to keep and bear arms without interference. This effort to distort has used every nuance of the preliminary or preamble portion of the statement including the words "well regulated" and "militia". Those that understand those terms in the proper context of their use at the time of the writing of the constitution are not the least bit confused ... it is only those who want to reinterpret the meaning by applying modern usage to the terms who are engaging in fraud, by creating a layer of complexity that really doesn't exist.
In proper context ... "well regulated" meant well equipped and prepared. This provides context to the operative portion "..... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The unstated but implied portion suggests that it is not simply adequate to own or carry arms, but is necessary that the bearer be well equipped and well prepared, which would necessarily include keeping the most modern and effective firearms available. The "militia" in proper context meant the people ... the common citizen who constituted the militia at that time, which is further supported in the follow on language that specifies the right of "the people" .. and not the right of the "militia" or the right of the "state" to keep and bear arms. And who do you think the founders were referring to when they prohibited the "infringement" of that right? Who do you think the founders were concerned with as a potential threat to freedom ... or the "security of a free state"? I'll tell you ... the same source that the rest of the constitution focused on ... the federal government!
Who were they considering a threat to freedom of speech? Who did they consider a threat to unlawful searches and seizures? Who did they consider a threat to due process? Who did they fear would prohibit the right of assembly and of petitioning the government for the redress of grievances? Who did they suspect might impose cruel and unusual punishments?
Obviously the founders felt there existed a sufficient threat to freedom of the people which compelled them to guarantee the people all of the rights outlined in the constitution ... with the right under the law to keep (own) and bear (openly carry, display) arms being necessary to secure all of the rest of those rights, if the 1st amendment was ignored. Do you think the founders were referring to England? Russia? China? NO!! They deemed the Federal government as the primary threat.
Why do you think the founders had such an aversion to a Standing Army, and preferred the "militia" concept of defense? The obvious answer is that they did not trust the Federal Government, and deemed a standing army to be a threat to the liberty of the people. So this pretty clearly shows that the source threat to security the founders feared most came from a government gaining too much power over the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
The second point is that, if we take the right to bear arms in a literal and absolute sense; there can be no limitations whatsoever to the right. This means that I can amass nuclear warheads in my garage, and maintain vials of biotoxins and chemical agents in the basement. Few people, even NRA extremists would likely be in support of this definition of The Second Amendment.
Typical liberal hyperbole. First, nuclear weapons are not firearms, and you do not have the means to create or purchase one. Biotoxins and chemical agents are not firearms either, and this is yet another example of the extremism of liberal non-thinking. Should the US Supreme Court declare it out of bounds and not relevant to the 2nd amendment to deny the average citizen the right to own nuclear weapons and weaponized biologicals and chemicals ... I'm all for that. If however one is so dense as to mistake these items for an AR 15 rifle ... then YOU should be restricted from having any weapons whatsoever ... but for the rest of us who do see the very clear difference ... leave our rifles alone! You can have our nuclear weapons though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
I've made my peace with the existence of handguns and hunting weapons; but it isn't unreasonable to suggest that prohibitions be enacted at some level, based upon the potential for destruction a given weapon is capable of wreaking. Nor is it unreasonable to argue that many types of modern high-tech weapons and ammunition should fall into the prohibited category.
Baloney ... you've made your peace with the existence of our rights so long as you get to define the limits? Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" is so complex that it causes you so much confusion?
Sadly; your logic will be wasted here. This issue is all wrapped up with machoism and ego support. far too many view a weapon as a character bolster that somehow manifests their very "maleness".
Guns are equated with being brave or stalwart while the will and effort to regulate them is seen and villified as being "weak" or subjugating. You'll never break through this barrier. Going back to the mid to late 1800's where everyone rode about with a gunbelt and rifle scabbard attached to their horse is viewed by many John Waynes as America's finest hours.
"They" cannot wait to get back to that regressive nonsense.
There is no logic in a logical fallacy. It is failed logic due to false premises.
But your statements here take false premises to extremes that I've never seen ... and is pure straight jacket material. Literal craziness.
That you obviously fail to understand the need for people to be armed, does not prove that the need doesn't exist ... just that you are woefully lacking in the knowledge of history that proves that such need is never obsolete.
No. Your right to anything is defined by law, and nothing else. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way things are ordered. If you think that you are above the law, you're in for a big fall. If you think that you can defy the law, you're subject to prosecution, and on conviction, incarceration. So, get these thoughts out of your mind. It's much easier to be part of the social system. If you want to change that system - then vote your preferences. That's the way our system works.
You're dead wrong. And if I had to choose between that wise fellow that drafted the Declaration of Independence, or your brand of wisdom ... I'll take Jefferson's.
The unalienable rights mentioned by Jefferson come from our creator, and not subject to the arbitrary rules of man.
On average in 2009, 93 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day. Think about that, in less than two hours more people will die on US roadways than were murdered by the nutcase in Colorado and for this we are willing to surrender one of our fundamental rights?
And by outlawing guns what do you think we will become? Will we become more like Mexico which "enjoys" very strict gun control laws? Is that what you want?
There is no logic in a logical fallacy. It is failed logic due to false premises.
But your statements here take false premises to extremes that I've never seen ... and is pure straight jacket material. Literal craziness.
That you obviously fail to understand the need for people to be armed, does not prove that the need doesn't exist ... just that you are woefully lacking in the knowledge of history that proves that such need is never obsolete.
Literal craziness is the belief you need to walk around with a gun on your hip in 2012. The need for people to be armed narrowed to protecting yourself from your fellow citizens seem sane to you?
And your inability to think of a country where the citizens DON'T NEED to be armed shows and indeed means you're doomed to repeat your history over and over again with the same results.
My knowledge of history is just fine thank you. Your mistrust of your own government, which is the very foundation of the 2nd amendment is, or should be, obsolete. Otherwise why do you keep going through the motions of electing these guys you can't trust. How will you go about unseating any Federal government with your homespun militias when the gov't has control over the "real" military.
All talk of the ability to form a militia is now impractical, impossible and merely window dressing for the real reason you all crave your gun rights; to protect yourelves from each other!
Literal craziness is the belief you need to walk around with a gun on your hip in 2012. The need for people to be armed narrowed to protecting yourself from your fellow citizens seem sane to you?
And your inability to think of a country where the citizens DON'T NEED to be armed shows and indeed means you're doomed to repeat your history over and over again with the same results.
My knowledge of history is just fine thank you. Your mistrust of your own government, which is the very foundation of the 2nd amendment is, or should be, obsolete. Otherwise why do you keep going through the motions of electing these guys you can't trust. How will you go about unseating any Federal government with your homespun militias when the gov't has control over the "real" military.
All talk of the ability to form a militia is now impractical, impossible and merely window dressing for the real reason you all crave your gun rights; to protect yourelves from each other!
The past century has been the bloodiest in recorded history, all the result of governments, and you seriously believe mistrusting a government is obsolete? Our own government has dropped nukes on cities in living memory, assasinated citizens without trial, etc., and you think we should trust it so much we give up any means of defense against its abuses? Governmental power and stability is smoke and mirrors. If even 1/10 of 1 percent of the population rose up against it, it could be toppled. It has happened countless times including recently. Our mighty military can't defeat people half stuck in the 9th century in the Middle East, couldn't defeat a nation of uneducated rice farmers in Vietnam and we're still at a stalemate in Korea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
