What Does The Right To "Bear" Arms Really Mean? (Mexican, drug)
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.
For instance, when a Right-to-Carry case inevitably ends up in front of the Supreme Court, what arguments and evidence might the pro-gun side present to the justices from the founding era in order to prove that the founders intended a Right to carry for personal defense?
Originally Posted by steven_h Is it a thought provoking dialogue you're after, or an argument? I'm done explaining the obvious to people who are one-sighted.
The last word you'll hear from a gun grabber is "we don't want to take your guns" as they take your guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Apparently there's a lot of people on here who don't pay attention to the user handles of the posters in this forum. If you were familiar with my posts, you'd know I'm anything but a gun grabber or anti-gun. To answer your question, it's thought provoking dialogue I'm seeking, not an argument. I'm not trying to push an agenda, further a policy, promote an ideology, or anything else you might want to call it. I'm very pro-gun, pro-self defense, etc.
I think it makes all the sense in the world for people to arm themselves for defensive purposes in their every day lives if they so desire. All I am attempting to discuss, is whether or not the scope of the 2A was actually intended to enumerate that right or not.
To break it down for you, I have no problem with people carrying guns, I'm just not so sure that the 2A was intended to give you a Constitutional "Right" to do that.. I could be wrong, and I'd very much appreciate your perspective on it if you believe the founders did indeed intend to enumerate a Right to carry.
The problem is you've argued with every person who responded with "this has been gone over ad nauseam", and fairly relentlessly at that.
We understand what the intent was, and read it as a literal meaning. You, like progressives and liberals, want to read in what your interpretation is, and argue with anyone who doesn't see it your way.
You have the right to believe what you wish, and we have the right to believe what is. (not the "is" that Clinton wondered what is, is?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temp43k
So, you think citizens in 1792 had locks on their doors, stayed inside all day and all night, never went out to tend a garden, travel to the next village, never encountered an unwelcome stranger, had a phone to call a cop?
Do you think citizens in 1792 never hopped a horse to ride out to the country side - which, BTW, was much closer to where they lived than it is today. And what of those citizens from Georgia, Rhode Island, any of the 13 colonies who had to travel to Pennsylvania to claim their rights?
Yes, I think the citizens were fully aware of the dangers of living in the colonies with no Brit soldiers to protect them from the king. OH wait, they were going to have representatives who had to travel strange country roads to get to the vile suburbs of New Amsterdam, later to the swamps of Washington DC.
And I believe they were fully aware that none of their new lifestyles were guaranteed by any person, on any day, for any reason. They had just gotten rid of an oppressive government. Why in the almighty gawdz names would they give up personal protection?
We understand what the intent was, and read it as a literal meaning. You, like progressives and liberals, want to read in what your interpretation is, and argue with anyone who doesn't see it your way.
You have the right to believe what you wish, and we have the right to believe what is.
Great! But "I believe it to be true, and so therefore it is" isn't an argument. WHY do you believe what you believe? What evidence have you of your position other than your own desire to believe it to be true? Again I ask, when a right-to-carry case ends up before the SCOTUS, which it no doubt will at some point, what are the arguments and evidence that the pro-gun side will present from the founding era to prove their conclusions that the term "bear" means to carry around, and doesn't exclusively mean to "bear" or "use" in the context of battle?
That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, to educate myself on the matter.
The courts are a prosecutor armed with facts/clues and a judge to oversee the procedings.
By your statement, one is put on trial by society.
Society is we, the people.
We the people are not the courts. Says it right there in the Constitution, Article 3. The courts are the judicial branch of government. Your confounding roles with existence, a judge is one of the people (from his existence), but when acting as a judge he is an officer of the judicial branch.
We the people are not one society either, there are many different societies within the United States, while there is some commonality with them all, they are uniquely different. We can discuss the rabbit hole of what a society is in another thread if you so wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
Your assertion should be... one is put on trial by an authoritarian figure of sorts, most likely a local government, if not state or federal.
Which is more concisely stated as the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
Society is the 12 jurors who judge the guilt of one on trial.
Oh, no, they're not, they're an organ of the court when serving on the jury. While a jury can annul a law, it cannot find guilt where the law does not specify a crime has occurred.
That has more to do with the current interpretation of the 2A as defined by the SCOTUS in present day. I'm more interested in discussing the interpretation of the Founding Fathers in their day. I should have known better than to expect an educational, informative discussion.
Living breathing document. All that matters is today, the courts and the other two branches of government.
But you got schooled by Mircea already so I won't beat your dead horse of an argument anymore.
Living breathing document. All that matters is today, the courts and the other two branches of government.
But you got schooled by Mircea already so I won't beat your dead horse of an argument anymore.
It can't only be a living, breathing document when it's convenient for you, and not so when it isn't....
If that is the case, then how do we respond to those that think we should do away with or ignore the 2A altogether because they say it's irrelevant or no longer needed today? If the Constitution is a living, breathing document, then we can no longer say our Rights are protected by the Constitution.
There is only one way in which the document was intended to "breath".... and that is through the Amendment process. If we are to accept that the Constitution is a living, breathing document absent an amendment, then it ceases to be a binding document. Furthermore, how could we possibly make the Justices who sit on the Supreme Court swear to uphold a document that in theory, they are allowed to re-write at will? Short of an amendment, it means today what it meant in 1791 when it was ratified, and should be interpreted the same by the courts.
And I'm curious, what is this "tired argument" you think I'm making? I haven't made an arguments one way or the other. I merely asked a question, one that apparently, people don't want to have to answer.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-09-2014 at 08:08 PM..
The problem is if you throw out any national second amendment protection then it makes it WAY easier for any state/muni/city or even the feds themselves to make all kinds of gun restrictions. People could make the argument that the second amendment only applies to national guard as they are the new "milita" (even though they can be federalized to leave the country) which was never the intent of the land based milta when the constitution was written.
So while your argument might be logical at an intellectual level it does not protect me and my family when some dead beat trys to rob us or rape my girl friend. I am not going to be able to hand him an intellectual paper to save my family, I am going to need to shoot him.
It could be arugued that purse snatchers and thugs are domestic terrorists. Maybe not purse snatchers but violent gangs and thugs are really indistinguishable from terrorists.
I think some people only hear what they want to hear......
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlife2
The problem is if you throw out any national second
amendment protection then it makes it WAY easier for any state/muni/city or even
the feds themselves to make all kinds of gun restrictions
Who suggested throwing out the Second Amendment? I certainly didn't, that's for sure. It's as important today as it ever was.
Quote:
. People could make the argument that the second amendment only applies to
national guard as they are the new "milita"
Anyone who makes that argument is wrong. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate and prove that the founders meant what they said when they said "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and has nothing to do with service to a militia, and even if it did, the founders considered the whole of the people to BE the militia.
Quote:
which was never the intent of the land based milta when the
constitution was written.
Correct. The founders intended the people to be able to form a citizens militia not only to lessen the need for a Federalized standing army, but to protect against it if it should ever exist.
Quote:
So while your argument
Don't take this the wrong way, but clearly you don't understand "my argument"
In fact, I'm not even making an argument in this thread, I'm seeking evidence and opinions. Some people argue that we have a Right to carry a gun around in our daily lives for personal defense, I say that was not a Right that the framers intended to enumerate and that it falls outside the scope of the 2A, because the 2A was less about personal self defense and more about the security of the State and the Nation. Now let me spell this out so that you don't make an unfounded leap in judgment here: I'm not against the carrying of weapons by law-abiding people, I carry myself, but I'm not convinced that we have a Constitutional Right to carry a weapon. Show me why I'm wrong.
This is such a volatile topic and I think people just assume that you must be anti-gun altogether if you dare question the 2A in any way, even if it's just to learn. We always tell people to "go educate yourself" when they make draconian claims about gun Rights, but how will anyone ever learn anything if we shun them for simply asking a question?
I think some people only hear what they want to hear......
Who suggested throwing out the Second Amendment? I certainly didn't, that's for sure. It's as important today as it ever was.
Anyone who makes that argument is wrong. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate and prove that the founders meant what they said when they said "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and has nothing to do with service to a militia, and even if it did, the founders considered the whole of the people to BE the militia.
Correct. The founders intended the people to be able to form a citizens militia not only to lessen the need for a Federalized standing army, but to protect against it if it should ever exist.
Don't take this the wrong way, but clearly you don't understand "my argument"
In fact, I'm not even making an argument in this thread, I'm seeking evidence and opinions. Some people argue that we have a Right to carry a gun around in our daily lives for personal defense, I say that was not a Right that the framers intended to enumerate and that it falls outside the scope of the 2A, because the 2A was less about personal self defense and more about the security of the State and the Nation. Now let me spell this out so that you don't make an unfounded leap in judgment here: I'm not against the carrying of weapons by law-abiding people, I carry myself, but I'm not convinced that we have a Constitutional Right to carry a weapon. Show me why I'm wrong.
This is such a volatile topic and I think people just assume that you must be anti-gun altogether if you dare question the 2A in any way, even if it's just to learn. We always tell people to "go educate yourself" when they make draconian claims about gun Rights, but how will anyone ever learn anything if we shun them for simply asking a question?
Personally I don't really care, if I can use the 2A as a mechanism to carry around a glock every day I will and when some dead beat thug trys something it will be him in a casket and not me. What ever legal mechanism I need to get there I will take.
If that constitutional right went away there would be a lot of states doing away with carry rights and your little intellectual arguemnts in acadamia land would not mean too much when/if one of 2 things happened, the swat team broke down your door for having an "illegal carry firearm" or your wife was raped and murdered and you had little means to stop it.
Most people that carry just want to protect themselves and their family they don't really care what mental and legal gymnastics it takes to keep a swat team out of their house.
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.
