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.
Because George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and all the others that fought tyranny...... Were considered criminals, by the British!!!!!!!!!
PONDER THAT... for more than an emotional second. Think deeply, before you respond.
they may have been considered criminals by the british GOVERNMENT, remember that EVERYONE in the colonies was considered a british citizen at the time, but even then the british government had rules under which they were to operate, and until such time as washington and the leaders of the fledgling US government were actually caught, and given due process, their rights could not be suspended, what few they actually had that is.
and even today, until someone is adjudicated in a court of law, and found guilty if a crime, or deemed mentally defective, that person does not have their rights suspended under the law. once given due process though, and found guilty of a crime, or found mentally defective, federal law allows that said persons rights are suspended. they do have recourse to get those rights back though once their debt to society is fully paid, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Because George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and all the others that fought tyranny...... Were considered criminals, by the British!!!!!!!!!
PONDER THAT... for more than an emotional second. Think deeply, before you respond.
Hmmm, well if I were to actually interpret the second amendment for the time it was written, I'd be paying just as much attention to the "well-regulated militia" language in the article.
Because George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and all the others that fought tyranny...... Were considered criminals, by the British!!!!!!!!!
PONDER THAT... for more than an emotional second. Think deeply, before you respond.
Someone who only considers the issue superficially is telling me to think deeply?
Here are some things for you to ponder and explain . . .
Why do you promote the idea that the right to arms emanates from the 2nd Amendment?
Why would you hold up any particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as the foundation of your theory that the right has no limits placed on it? Is the right to arms completely dependent upon a momentary prevalent interpretation of the 2nd?
For a silly absolutist, that seems to be a completely incongruous path . . .
I would enjoy hearing you explain your understanding of subordinate powers because it seems that you believe that this limitless right to arms exists only in the context of the federal government.
Since regular police powers and normal operations of the criminal justice system including punishment and civil disabilities of rights (after "due process") were never federal interests, I lean towards your assessment -- at least as the federal government goes. But your holding up of the 2nd Amendment as the source of your position is not only absurd, it is dangerous and your total lack of consideration of subordinate governments is inexplicable (under the rules of normal pondering).
Last edited by Jeerleader; 02-25-2016 at 04:59 AM..
Hmmm, well if I were to actually interpret the second amendment for the time it was written, I'd be paying just as much attention to the "well-regulated militia" language in the article.
And you would be arguing an even more absurd premise than BentBow.
The right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it exists without any reference to the 2nd and can not be argued to be dependent in any manner on the Constitution or any structure that is itself completely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence -- such as the organized, "well regulated militia" or a citizen's enrollment status in it.
I don't think that the point one thinks they are making here are able to be made. No, the founders did not exclude criminals from the rights they acknowledged but they then did put in place a system that allows for the removal of those rights also.
And you would be arguing an even more absurd premise than BentBow.
The right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it exists without any reference to the 2nd and can not be argued to be dependent in any manner on the Constitution or any structure that is itself completely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence -- such as the organized, "well regulated militia" or a citizen's enrollment status in it.
So, basically you're saying the right to bear arms emanates from the same place as does your right to a routine and timely bowel movement?
So, basically you're saying the right to bear arms emanates from the same place as does your right to a routine and timely bowel movement?
I would say that original, fundamental, fully retained rights emanate from a plane separate and distinct from the legislative acts of man. The "inherent rights" theory of Locke and Sidney were promoted as an oppositional theory to the absolutist 'divine right' of the King to rule and were embraced by the founders / framers of the US system . . .
If you OTOH would like to put on a miner's helmet on and plumb the depths of your rectum for your rights, feel free. I however would recommend actually learning about the philosophies upon which the US system is built; one might encounter less ridicule.
Well, if you really want to get picky, it doesn't say firearms either.
I think they really meant "bare our arms," really, no laughing matter. It is so sad when some people are so closed minded. Now, it seems there has been a society created when we all need to protect ourselves from just about everyone. Maybe, the founding fathers knew more than we know. Seems, they knew human nature.
Can't people that are so afraid of some gun measures that may save even just one loved one see the other side? Are we too late to think about what has happened, or can we get some common ground and make it so we don't have to be afraid to go out on a Saturday night, go to a movie, go to school, sporting events, church...................well, I am afraid of people with hair trigger tempers and the hair trigger finger on a gun, when I am driving, too. Life just does not have the joy it once had, because of all the nut jobs lurking around corners...........IMO
I have know idea what 18th century British law was concerning colonial insurrectionists owning firearms. However, I'm sure that if the British had won the war that George would have no longer owned a gun. Nor his life.
To understand what would have happened to America, see "The Bonnie Price Charlie Rebellion" in Scotland in the 1740s. What happened after that was called "the clearing" and moved Highlanders off thier lands, burned thier homes, confiscated weapons, and even made bagpipes illegal.
Many of those "cleared" came mostly to the American southern US, only to exact revenge on the Brits later.
One of my ancestors was "cleared" as a young boy, only to be a privateer in the "Continental Navy". The Brits, in true form, along with their Indian allies, burned down his village in New York and killed everyone.
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.
