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.
I’m for Constitutional government. This includes the BoR’s protection from states and staying within the numerated powers. I’m not for the big all powerful central government. I advocate for the government our founders envisioned.
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.
That is a total misreading.
The "well regulated militia" clause has nothing to do with what we regard as a militia today and it is taken out of context. That clause has been misinterpreted too many times to count. The wording wasn't even in the original draft of the second amendment and has more to do with the states rights debates that were going on at the time.
I am not a member of the NRA but there is no claim by they group that rocket launchers, bazookas, tanks, etc should not be regulated. That's just nonsense. Those are not considered firearms regardless. Actually ships of war at one time, and these could devastate entire towns, and cannons were unregulated.
The bill of rights addresses personal rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For some, the sport of firearms - target shooting, hunting, sports shooting, collecting - is a pursuit of happiness. Firearms itself don't abridge that right unless use illegally. There are already laws over that - murder, assault, attempted murder, etc.
When the DOI was passed, it was certainly as valid as anything else passed by the 2nd Continental Congress at the time.
The Declaration of Independence was not "passed."
It is not a law.
It is merely an essay. Probably the best example of an essay ever written since it includes a preamble to state the authors' views, presents an hypothesis, provides supporting evidence in support of its hypothesis, draws a conclusion and the makes generalizations.
When I taught Introduction to International Relations, I had to waste an entire class period teaching the Declaration of Independence as how to write an essay, since many of the students had never studied the Declaration and didn't know how to properly write an essay, which for university only requires the presentation of an hypothesis and supporting evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Yes. Because in my opinion when the DOI is written about in Supreme Court decisions, therefore, it has standing.
The Declaration of Independence is referenced only in passing, just like when the Articles of Confederation are mentioned.
The Constitution was ordained and established, among other things, to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save insofar as the Constitution, in express terms, qualified its exercise. Though the States were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
The fact that the Articles of Confederation are mentioned in passing doesn't mean it has any weight.
First, the assumption that it could be supported by a belief that "the King can do no wrong" has always been absurd; the bloody path trod by English monarchs both before and after they reached the throne demonstrated the fictional character of any such assumption. Even if the fiction had been acceptable in Britain, the recitation in the Declaration of Independence of the wrongs committed by George III made that proposition unacceptable on this side of the Atlantic.
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)
As you can see, the Declaration is merely mentioned in passing and not actually considered as a source of law.
Still, you can take solace in this tidbit:
It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
Just as sovereign States are vested with natural powers, so too are the People, who may abolish any government that does not serve.
It is merely an essay. Probably the best example of an essay ever written since it includes a preamble to state the authors' views, presents an hypothesis, provides supporting evidence in support of its hypothesis, draws a conclusion and the makes generalizations.
When I taught Introduction to International Relations, I had to waste an entire class period teaching the Declaration of Independence as how to write an essay, since many of the students had never studied the Declaration and didn't know how to properly write an essay, which for university only requires the presentation of an hypothesis and supporting evidence.
The Declaration of Independence is referenced only in passing, just like when the Articles of Confederation are mentioned.
The Constitution was ordained and established, among other things, to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save insofar as the Constitution, in express terms, qualified its exercise. Though the States were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
The fact that the Articles of Confederation are mentioned in passing doesn't mean it has any weight.
First, the assumption that it could be supported by a belief that "the King can do no wrong" has always been absurd; the bloody path trod by English monarchs both before and after they reached the throne demonstrated the fictional character of any such assumption. Even if the fiction had been acceptable in Britain, the recitation in the Declaration of Independence of the wrongs committed by George III made that proposition unacceptable on this side of the Atlantic.
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)
As you can see, the Declaration is merely mentioned in passing and not actually considered as a source of law.
Still, you can take solace in this tidbit:
It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
Just as sovereign States are vested with natural powers, so too are the People, who may abolish any government that does not serve.
It's always nice to have a lawyer explain the law to us commoners.
It's always nice to have a lawyer explain the law to us commoners.
It would be better if Americans didn't think the 2nd amendment is part of the declaration of independence. Don't need a lawyer to see a church by daylight.
The DOI is the invocation of God to trump monarchy and declare themselves independent
it originated and was almost written by English philosopher John locke, the founders were big fans of locke's and copied ideas from both locke's treatise.
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.
If you read the Declaration of Independence it says, .......that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Because the word AMONG was used, it implies that there are more rights than just those three. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will discover that the founding fathers agreed that you have the right to defends these rights by any means necessary.
It also say that this is the reason that governments are created among men, to secure these rights for ourselves and our prosperity.
To make my point while staying on topic, I live in NY state. I've been going through an undue and unnecessary burden to exercise my constitutional right to own a pistol. I've spent 2 days off of work, a couple hundred dollars and have been waiting almost a year, to get my pistol permit. Absolutely unacceptable. I can't "legally" own an AR15 that would be perfectly ok and legal 50 miles away in Pennsylvania. Just idiotic. I can build one in my garage in an hour if I so choose but can't legally buy one in a store.
Here are a few random Off topic examples, if someone wants to smoke pot, why can't they? They should be able to. Treat it like alcohol.
Do we need the government to waste time and money studying if plastic bags should be outlawed?
Of consenting adults want to exchange money for "adult activities" why can't they? It shouldn't be anyone else's business.
Do we need the government deciding that in have to pay a ridiclious amount of taxes that mostly go to support new York city and moochers including unnecessary social progran mandates?
If I choose to bake a cake or not bake a cake for someone because of my personal beliefs I should have the freedom to decide for myself if I do or not.
Why am I obligated to pay for a crappy high deductible insurance plan or to pay a tax instead?
Why do people get groped by the tsa at the airport for the privilege to fly?
Why are there so many over lapping layers of in necessary bureaucratic waste and excess
Etc
Sounds like you want to live in Arizona or CA. if you like prostitution and marijuana. Different states pass different laws in a representative democracy.
If you want the freedom to deny a homosexual a cake, do you want to also be able to deny a black or a Muslim? Have you actually considered the ramfications? On the ACA, read up on why they passed the mandate. There was a good reason.
You don't know why they're checking airplane passengers??? Plastic bags harm the environment in many ways- you don't care- obviously? There are VERY good reasons why the average nut should not have access to an AR15.
Sounds like there's a lot here you haven't really thought through. There's a logical position between anarchy and the rule of law. Of course, no one's in favor of bureaucratic waste and excess but there's a logical mid ground on legislation, especially when it comes to health and safety.
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.
But don't you see that the Natural Rights include the RKBA?
Surely if you have the right to something, whether that's your life, your liberty, or your property, then you ALSO have the right to defend it. It would be worthless otherwise. Meaningless.
So if you have the right to Life, then you have the right to defend that life, and by extension you have the right to acquire and possess and carry about wherever your Life/Property is present, an effective means to that defense.
And the NRA has never advocated for the RKBA to extend to anything but arms (which generally is accepted to mean things that can be carried by a person)....so including all that stuff seems like just a hyperbolic attempt to trash gun ownership by including it in a class of things nobody is demanding to carry around in public.
And there is quite a lot of regulation in the arms acquisition process. Granted here in CA that regulation is more infringing and robust than in some other states, so it might color our perceptions vs those in freer states.
But don't you see that the Natural Rights include the RKBA?
Surely if you have the right to something, whether that's your life, your liberty, or your property, then you ALSO have the right to defend it. It would be worthless otherwise. Meaningless.
So if you have the right to Life, then you have the right to defend that life, and by extension you have the right to acquire and possess and carry about wherever your Life/Property is present, an effective means to that defense.
And the NRA has never advocated for the RKBA to extend to anything but arms (which generally is accepted to mean things that can be carried by a person)....so including all that stuff seems like just a hyperbolic attempt to trash gun ownership by including it in a class of things nobody is demanding to carry around in public.
And there is quite a lot of regulation in the arms acquisition process. Granted here in CA that regulation is more infringing and robust than in some other states, so it might color our perceptions vs those in freer states.
Yes, and to add to the above - There is lots of confusion indeed - Constitution vs. Declaration of Independence, and the sub-section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights". The entire US Constitution is still unique in the world, it is still somewhat of an experiment, and it's what people in Europe and other countries can never get - it's not about what the government is allowed to do, but what the government is not allowed to do, and how an individual is protected. Not a group, but an individual. The Bill of Rights specifically is all about individual rights - and there are still people that define the 2nd amendment as a collective right. Do we truly think that the founding fathers thought only one amendment out of the 10 Bill of Rights was meant to be a collective right? Is the right to free speech a collective right where it's only allowed to a certain class of the population? Doesn't make any sense.
This is also not to say firearms should not be regulated. It is already regulated, and that does not conflict with the constitution within reason. But, OP, you should never define the 2nd amendment as in conflict with the declaration of independence, nor try to interpret it as only limited to a certain class of the population (militia or military or police). Never!
And indeed OP hyperbole regarding jetfighters and bombers does not help the elements of your debate. You just make yourself look goofy. That may work in your P&C forum where goofiness is the rule of the day, but not in other forums.
Last edited by Dd714; 03-09-2018 at 11:20 AM..
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.
