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.
It is very straight forward.
What has changed is the meaning of the constitution. It was intended to chain down government, not chain down people.
The Bill of Rights is not for government to reinterpret. It is there to prevent government from trying to redefine it.
And when all peaceful means to keep government from intruding on the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment stands as the final solution to maintain a free state. To organize and fight for liberty again, as outlined in the preceding document to the US. Constitution... The Declaration of Independence.
If it was that straightforward we wouldn't be having this discussion. As with any law, issues arise as to the exact meaning. The courts exist to decide on these issues. SCOTUS handles cases and issues decisions when the case is of national scope and impact.
Since the BOR was written there have been 17 brand new amendments added for various reasons. Right now there are proposals for amendments dealing with treatment of the U.S. flag and abortions. If the Constitution and BOR had been complete and absolute as written, there would have been no reason to add , subtract, discuss, or debate and decide on anything. SCOTUS would be completely unnecessary, because lower courts would all decide everything the same way. As with interpretations of scripture, there are often disagreements on the meanings due to the ambiguity of language that have to be decided before new business can be taken on.
Do a bit of reading. You will find that 2A has meant several different things over the years. All you can be certain of is, it will change again, and my bet is, fairly soon.
However, the natural right of every human being to self defense from aggression should not be in question by anyone but the most delusional of thugs and tyrants...
It is just my humble opinion, but I believe you to be representative of the majority of Americans who are tired beyond belief of the intransigent, disparate and immovable positions struck on this issue.
There will always be extremists on either side of the fence, the all or nothing attitude.
But what I find discouraging "arguing" with the gun toting my rights freedom individuals is what appears to be their total blindness to the bigger picture. I don't care what the 2nd amendment says or means (to a point). One thing I know is undeniably true is this world is vastly different when the constitution was written.
When I made mention of the no fly list legislation that was taken down by the GOP's, I heard crying about due process. No one said that would go away, because those who continue to be NRA brainwashed idiots are missing the much more complex issue at hand, and that is terrorism. Terrorism grows in groups, individually, globally. It's a brainwashing where followers flock like they did to Hitler. But it's an unseen enemy.
So if for some reason you make it to that list (and comparably to the population it is VERY small), a list that means you have been determined to be a possible threat, then use your due process to get yourself off the list and then you can buy a gun. It is so tiresome that people refuse to put the puzzle pieces of society together with the gun control issue and hang their hats on only one shred of the picture. The over zealous liberals who want to infringe on rights with excessive overt the top legislation, and the GOP having rights stuck up their a$$ - two extremist viewpoints. No one can convince me that the no fly list no gun legislation was such an infringement of rights or excessive because due process still existed, but it meant one step first to clear your name from the list.
There will always be extremists on either side of the fence, the all or nothing attitude.
Never seen a moderate left. All lefts are extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmancpa
But what I find discouraging "arguing" with the gun toting my rights freedom individuals is what appears to be their total blindness to the bigger picture. I don't care what the 2nd amendment says or means (to a point). One thing I know is undeniably true is this world is vastly different when the constitution was written.
Thank you. At least we can have an honest conversation. Yes, let's trash the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmancpa
When I made mention of the no fly list legislation that was taken down by the GOP's, I heard crying about due process. No one said that would go away, because those who continue to be NRA brainwashed idiots are missing the much more complex issue at hand, and that is terrorism. Terrorism grows in groups, individually, globally. It's a brainwashing where followers flock like they did to Hitler. But it's an unseen enemy.
So if for some reason you make it to that list (and comparably to the population it is VERY small), a list that means you have been determined to be a possible threat, then use your due process to get yourself off the list and then you can buy a gun. It is so tiresome that people refuse to put the puzzle pieces of society together with the gun control issue and hang their hats on only one shred of the picture. The over zealous liberals who want to infringe on rights with excessive overt the top legislation, and the GOP having rights stuck up their a$$ - two extremist viewpoints. No one can convince me that the no fly list no gun legislation was such an infringement of rights or excessive because due process still existed, but it meant one step first to clear your name from the list.
If you don't give a crap about or understand the constitution, why even bring in due process?
Let me get this straight for you. For some unknown reason that a person gets on the "list" without due process. The person is automatically stripped of his rights again without due process. Then the person must fight to get off the list going through the due process while no such process currently exists?
Why? Let's just stick to no right for anybody and be done with it. Life is much simpler that way.
Rights cannot be stripped by government...only privileges are subject to governmental whim. Natural human rights are not subject to government benevolence.
However, the natural right of every human being to self defense from aggression should not be in question by anyone but the most delusional of thugs and tyrants...
You have knives, cars, spoons, swimming pools, and baseball bats. With all those deadly weapons you shouldn't even need a gun.
Rights cannot be stripped by government...only privileges are subject to governmental whim. Natural human rights are not subject to government benevolence.
True, but you can willingly forfeit those rights through your own actions. That is one of the resaons government exists.
True, but you can willingly forfeit those rights through your own actions. That is one of the resaons government exists.
The only right that I do not have is to initiate force upon others. What "government" believes are my natural human rights is moot. The only right anyone or anything has to limit my natural rights is to use retaliatory force against me if I initiate force upon them. Natural rights are neither given nor taken away, hence why they are natural human rights. They encompass all human action which is not an initiation of force upon another.
As it stands, the only reason that governments exist is for "some" people to "justifiably" initiate force upon other people. For one "group" to enslave another. For one "group" to impose their will upon another. As it stands, governments are evil institutions of aggression and are anti-human and anti-freedom. Until a government obeys the non-aggression principle, there will be none which are morally justifiable in any sense whatsoever. Until then, there will be no real "society" or "civilization" in a real sense. Until then, humans will continue to be violent aggressors and animals towards each other on a grand scale, because it is institutionalized into the fabric of our "communities".
As the right to bear arms debate rages on, it's the same finger pointing. One side whines about their rights being taken away. The other side tosses news in front of you about all the senseless deaths from guns. THis debate amongst citizens is the same going on in government, and while all the finger pointing and name calling goes on nothing gets done except make the side who cries rights a bit more happy because nothing is getting done.
Call me a liberal, but this fight is not a 50/50 fight where both sides have equal footing. All those who cry rights seem to have such a refusal for compromise. I've heard it all, from too many laws on the books already, to what's next if my rights are taken away? What do people not understand about history and compromise?
The 2nd amendment was written in different times - duh. Things have changed A LOT over the centuries. The weapons are much more lethal. The population is much larger. The world is connected and news travels in a flash. It's an angry world with divisions everywhere - religion, politics. This current election process is spotlighting civil unrest and a separation among citizens of the U.S. - the gap is widening.
I don't have the answers to gun control. But I have yet to hear a logical reason why any citizen requires an assault weapon and not a handgun. Why does someone need a weapon that can kill as evidenced with the mass murders that have taken place? Why can't people be put through a much more thorough and nationwide education program. I had to sit for 3 days of exams (and study hard) to become a CPA. So I guess doing someone's taxes is considered dangerous, whereas someone can literally get a gun in a day. Why can't there be limitations on certain high powered weapons meant for warfare? How can one crey rights when it's limitations on certain guns? Why isn't there compromise? And why isn't the NRA at least doing what the tobacco companies did (as lame as it was) and publicly show they realize there's an issue. Tobacco companies labelled the cigs as dangerous and even had ads about it. And marketing for cigarettes is about 10% what it was only a few decades ago. Tobacco companies still exist today with those compromises. And sure, a smoker's right in public places has been greatly diminished, but that's good for the rest of us who don't smoke.
Forward movement in gun control. Anyone who things status quo is fine is a complete moron in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The interpretation of 2A has changed a number of times through the years depending on the political climate and the makeup of SCOTUS. The current interpretation is due for an overhaul, and I doubt it will be too long after the election before the makeup of the court is going to change dramatically. The rulings they produce will set the climate for the next fifty years.
The laws that Jerry Brown just signed in California are well within 2A, and are compatible with Scalia's writing in the last major case brought before SCOTUS, the Heller decision of 2008. Get used to change. It's coming.
LOL... no.
If those restrictions were dealing with abortions they would be struck tomorrow. The SCOTUS has shown how they "interpret" the constitution for gun rights (enumerated right) vs abortions (non-enumerated).
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.
