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 expected you to avoid the conversation. If you want to discuss it as a right owing to second amendment, use the entirety of the second amendment, not selective parts of it.
No I am not avoiding. Actually, you are avoiding stating your point. You have not make such claim so far in this thread. I have stated my view and explained why, something you have not. It is your turn, don't you think so? Also, it seems you are just as selective while focusing on the first part. Again, I may be selective because of the OP title, you did not address it at all yet and what you have addressed in the form of simply using leading questions has been on the first part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
That said, it is impossible to say whether it is a right or a privilege.
You may be right on this one. Why? Because as I have read on the subject I recall in one book that the the second ammendment writing is the most unclear according to some people. On purpose? I do not know. It is open for people to interpret the wording itself in different ways.
That is why my next step is going to the historical record in letters, laws, court decisions, Founding Fathers actions, etc. to try to get an idea what is it that they supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
They say it is a right, but at the same time, is it a right like a right to life? Or, a right to free speech where your speech may be regulated via many means, and can cost you? We know they say free speech. But, is it free? Is it a right? Or, is it a privilege?
I think it is a right but I do not think is the same as the right to life. I can survive without a rifle from what I can see, but not without food, water, or air after a while. I would say the same about speech.
Actually, you are avoiding stating your point. You have not make such claim so far in this thread. I have stated my view and explained why, something you have not. It is your turn, don't you think so?
I wish you were a bit coherent here.
Quote:
Also, it seems you are just as selective while focusing on the first part. Again, I may be selective because of the OP title, you did not address it at all yet and what you have addressed in the form of simply using leading questions has been on the first part.
Your being selective is something I’m questioning. I know you have a good reason to. And you will stick with it at all costs, all the while claiming shamelessly that… “No I am not avoiding”.
Quote:
You may be right on this one. Why? Because as I have read on the subject I recall in one book that the the second ammendment writing is the most unclear according to some people. On purpose? I do not know. It is open for people to interpret the wording itself in different ways.
We can certainly agree on that. And that also explains your reluctance (above).
Quote:
That is why my next step is going to the historical record in letters, laws, court decisions, Founding Fathers actions, etc. to try to get an idea what is it that they supported.
But, why did they mess it up when actually writing the amendments to the constitution? I do think that the founders didn't really believe in a banana republic.
Quote:
I think it is a right but I do not think is the same as the right to life. I can survive without a rifle from what I can see, but not without food, water, or air after a while. I would say the same about speech.
Well, something is a right or it isn’t. I don’t believe in such things as “half-right”.
No, it is not. I have explained my position. You have not. Make your claim and then you will see my response. Again, I HAVE STATED MY CLAIM AND EXPLAINED IT. YOU? asking questions and not claim. Your turn. So it will remain to be seen until you decide to make your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I wish you were a bit coherent here.
How so? Did not understand what was said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Your being selective is something I’m questioning. I know you have a good reason to. And you will stick with it at all costs, all the while claiming shamelessly that… “No I am not avoiding”.
AGAIN, the OP is a right or privilege? Yes and I explained why. YOU? asking question, no point explained. Make your move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
We can certainly agree on that. And that also explains your reluctance (above).
Once you make your claim you will see not apparent reluctance because there is none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
But, why did they mess it up when actually writing the amendments to the constitution? I do think that the founders didn't really believe in a banana republic.
It not necessarily that they intended to mess anything up. No one is perfect and maybe they could have written this ammendment more clearly. The last part has no relevance, neither prove or disprove anything.
Why do you think historians, judges, legislators, etc. do go to the historical record to try to find the meaning of writings in the past? To get as clear a meaning as possible! It makes sense. I do not see why seems irrelevant to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Well, something is a right or it isn’t. I don’t believe in such things as “half-right”.
Don't twist things. Is life more important than owning a rifle? I would hope you think so. Now, some rights may not be what people consider natural rights. Other rights may be a result of what a society deems to be a right. Have you read theorist like Maslow pyramid of needs? Which is higher? The need at the bottom pretty much falls in the same area of natural rights. The needs above do not seem as important but still important due to the critical importance of each.
AGAIN, the OP is a right or privilege? Yes and I explained why. YOU? asking question, no point explained. Make your move.
What is the OP about? Selected parts of what is presented as a right, or in its entirety? Either way, it has been a right extended to some, a privilege in effect and neither to many. Heck, is even life a right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
Don't twist things. Is life more important than owning a rifle? I would hope you think so.
When I said that something is either a right or it isn't, I wasn't using an emotional response but a logical one. That is straight talk, not twisting things.
Quote:
Now, some rights may not be what people consider natural rights. Other rights may be a result of what a society deems to be a right. Have you read theorist like Maslow pyramid of needs? Which is higher? The need at the bottom pretty much falls in the same area of natural rights. The needs above do not seem as important but still important due to the critical importance of each.
We call so many things "rights" that we were dealt a whole amendment to cover them: Ninth.
When I said that something is either a right or it isn't, I wasn't using an emotional response but a logical one. That is straight talk, not twisting things.
OK, fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
We call so many things "rights" that we were dealt a whole amendment to cover them: Ninth.
Irrelevant to the topic in discussion. If you think it is relevant, explain then.
Bottom line, to the point. Is it a right? Yes? If so why?
No? If so, why not?
You somewhat replied half way comparing it to the right to life. We are not comparing rights. The topic is clear. Stay with it. Take care.
Its relevance is explained by our inability to explain what is life. As I said (in an edit above)... is even life a right?
Again, the topic is "Right or privilege to bear arms? Can you stay with it? The topic is not whether what life is or even if it is a right. Don't go off the tangent into "our inability to explain what is life." or "even if life is a right...". Come on guy. How far do you want to go with this? Is it a right or not? Take care.
The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law. As Bentham put it: "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
IT IS A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is the Constitution and anyone that wants ANY gun control or other type weapons restriction is violating or wanting to violate that right and at that moment should be removed with force from office and jailed. The only reason they are not removed is all the cowards that agree with their scumbag ideas.
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The problem, in a nutshell, is that the prohibition against "infringement" does not preclude "regulation." Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:
‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)
‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
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.
