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.
How many gun mongers in this thread have pointed out the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" as an inspiration to the Declaration? And that phrase (and other from The Declaration) laid the groundwork for parts of the Constitution.
The Declaration has sentimental, not legal, standing.
I think your understanding of what liberty is and a big government police state is lacking. While there is a place for police and military, it should be as minimal as possible and a free people take more responsibility for their needs and safety. The Founders are clear on this.
If the ultimate goal in life was saving lives, we could do a lot of things like, eliminating cars, junk foods, airplanes etc... We could electronically chip everyone, put cameras on every corner and in every home. We could post armed guards everywhere. But, is this freedom? Your solution just expands the big government police state. I propose we take the path of a free people.
Of course we take of the path of a free people, but what is the definition?
I think most people's current criticisms of the US do not tend to be "it's a big government police state" unless of course, you are an ethnic minority who feels oppressed, or you live in a state where the local police have been allowed to make up their own rules.
I think criticisms tend to be more frequently along the lines of chaotic and uncontrolled gun ownership resulting in mass shootings along with the recent disposal of many EPA regulations passed to ensure the safety of our ecosystem. There is also current chaos in our failed public schools, immigration system,
lack of support for the country's infrastructure and so on.
A President who flauts laws and conventions regarding the divestiture of personal business interests and nepotism in the office of the presidency and supports and refuses to defend against an enemy of the US (Russia) could also be a criticism.
So, do we now "take up arms against the state" as individuals to defend our country or do we vote them out before it gets worse?
Love to hear your ideas.
The Second Amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms, due to the need for a "well regulated militia." The national discourse on this amendment should be the current need for this well regulated militia, and if there is still such a need, it should be established as such, and it should be well regulated, as the framers intended.
Extending the current NRA logic (regardless of mental state, age, or criminal background) anyone should be able to obtain rocket launchers, bazookas, death rays, howitzers, tanks, bombs, jet fighters and anything else that they desire, and can afford, as part of the right to bear arms. There is little regulation in the arms acquisition process.
However, there are other rights involved in this discourse. The three "inalienable rights" found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, if something abridges one of these rights, is that not to be a concern? No one should lose an inalienable right (such as life) because the Second Amendment has not been reviewed and interpreted according to the needs of today.
America pioneered some of the most interesting concepts that lead it to be called "the Geat Experiment. And it's just that. Example: Citizen watch in the court system. You'll see in County courthouses people, often seniors, who are there, just watching the process.
When I do that in Canada I've got three Security guys (AFTER I go through the metal detector) wanting to know "what I'm doing in court". The glass for the Crown Counsel is now not only restricted, they don't even have an address outside of a box number. The legistlation states that a Freedom of Informaton request must be at the very least ACKNOWLEDGED within 90 days, but it never is, ever.
And to Canadians this is the new normal. The next step is secret trials?? A trani to the camps?
America leads these issues of responsibilty. You won't run into too many other countries where average joe's can cquote their Constitution or Billl of Rights (Charter, Declaration of Man, etc). But combinging religigion, rights, and your little threatened corner of the world in an "all in one" solution is the trap.
In Switzerland every able bodied male is a memeber of the Swiss standing army, BUT they have none of the "issues" because they don't combine paranoia with the idiocy. We can do better.
In Switzerland every able bodied male is a member of the Swiss standing army, BUT they have none of the "issues" because they don't combine paranoia with the idiocy. We can do better.
The Second Amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms, due to the need for a "well regulated militia." The national discourse on this amendment should be the current need for this well regulated militia, and if there is still such a need, it should be established as such, and it should be well regulated, as the framers intended.
The arguments for and against ratification of Constitution are evident in the state conventions. New York ratified the Constitution, but it included with the ratification statement a declaration of rights and a statement that ratification was made with the assumption that the rights enumerated in the declaration could not be abridged or violated and were consistent with the Constitution. New York made it clear that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that the militia was to include all the people capable of bearing arms, not just a select few.
New Hampshire also required the addition of Amendments to ratify the Constitution. It's 12th Amendment stated: Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Pennsylvania's contribution stated: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.
Massachusetts: The right of the people to keep and bear arms was included as was the statement that a militia composed of the body of the people was the natural and safe defense of a free state.
The North Carolina convention proposed that a declaration of rights be added to the Constitution which explicitly identified the right of people to keep and bear arms as a natural right and one of the means necessary to the pursuit and obtainment of happiness and safety.
In summarizing the State ratification process, three States, New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify until individual rights, including the people's right to keep and bear arms, were recognized by amendments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmm0484
Extending the current NRA logic (regardless of mental state, age, or criminal background) anyone should be able to obtain rocket launchers, bazookas, death rays, howitzers, tanks, bombs, jet fighters and anything else that they desire, and can afford, as part of the right to bear arms. There is little regulation in the arms acquisition process.
I am unaware of any NRA position that claims what you have said.
Do you have a link or authoritative source?
Otherwise, your argument is nothing but a Straw Man.
The 2nd Amendment clearly says "...to bear arms...", not ride in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmm0484
However, there are other rights involved in this discourse. The three "inalienable rights" found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That is not what the Declaration of Independence says.
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.
[emphasis mine]
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not the only unalienable rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmm0484
So, if something abridges one of these rights, is that not to be a concern? No one should lose an inalienable right (such as life) because the Second Amendment has not been reviewed and interpreted according to the needs of today.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent tyranny, and to allow the People to alter or abolish government.
That need has remain unchanged since the inception of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763
The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway in America, it's not part of any law. The 2nd amendment is. You can argue about the lengths to which the 2nd amendment can be applied but using the Declaration as any type of counter-argument is legally meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763
The Declaration has sentimental, not legal, standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
No. It has been included in Supreme Court decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763
"No. It has been included in Supreme Court decisions."
Which ones? I'm not familiar with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarsMac
Yes, I would like to know, as well.
The US Supreme Court mentions the Declaration of Independence numerous times, I think about 252 times to be exact, but no decision is actually vested in the Declaration of Independence.
Of course we take of the path of a free people, but what is the definition?
I think most people's current criticisms of the US do not tend to be "it's a big government police state" unless of course, you are an ethnic minority who feels oppressed, or you live in a state where the local police have been allowed to make up their own rules.
I think criticisms tend to be more frequently along the lines of chaotic and uncontrolled gun ownership resulting in mass shootings along with the recent disposal of many EPA regulations passed to ensure the safety of our ecosystem. There is also current chaos in our failed public schools, immigration system,
lack of support for the country's infrastructure and so on.
A President who flauts laws and conventions regarding the divestiture of personal business interests and nepotism in the office of the presidency and supports and refuses to defend against an enemy of the US (Russia) could also be a criticism.
So, do we now "take up arms against the state" as individuals to defend our country or do we vote them out before it gets worse?
Love to hear your ideas.
Of course we vote and petition our government to preserve our rights. When they cross the line, we do not comply. If they try to force compliance, we have a problem. An example would be the registration of AR-15 and high capacity mags in Connecticut. The people refused to comply, they voiced strong opposition, the state backed down. Generally, the government stays in its bounds. On occasion it treads upon rights. The people protest and the government hears them. Same old song and dance with gun control every time we have a shooting event. We do not have chaotic and uncontrolled gun ownership. This last shooting was a prime example of government not doing its job. It was also another prime example that we cannot rely on government to protect us.
I wish I could give you more positive feedback for this post.
The founding fathers wanted a fiscally responsible, small and limited government with mainly conservative/libertarian views.
In current America our government continues mutating and growing at an amazing rate growing ever stronger and more powerful every single generation. Many People have placed the government up on a pedestal to where they have given it more power than it should have. The government is not your babysitter, caretaker, Santa claus, Nanny or provider. People should take pride in doing things themselves and exercising personal control and responsibility. The government now spends insane money on idiotic things.
The single biggest issue I have with curre t government is they spend 99% of their effort on increasing regulations, making new additional laws, increasing government control. It should be the opposite. They should be spending 99% of their energy trying to streamline things, reduce government power, increase personal freedom and liberty, reduce unnecessary legislation etc..
I couldn't agree more.
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.
Citizenship as a responsibility
