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.
You should read up on the Turtle. A submersible used for an attack on the British fleet during the Revolution. The Founding Fathers certainly were thinking ahead and willing to employ new technology.
They started the ball rolling that led to the establishment of a Nuclear Navy.
Fighting those that are out to harm you, your family and your property is natural instinct. it is a natural right and a duty to your freedom.
Its a biological impulse. "Natural Rights" implies it is universal and exists outside the realm of man. A wild animal that is cornered will fight for its life. Its not because it is granted Natural Rights but because its biological impulse is to do so. Guns grants you the ability to defend your life, it also grants you the ability to commit mass murder. Yes, society should grant people the ability to defend themselves, but it also shouldn't give people the capability to kill dozens be it hundreds of innocent people.
Just because someone can prevent you from exercising your natural right to self defense doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
If someone prevents a woman from having an abortion, does that make Roe v Wade null and void?
Did that slave being whipped not have a natural human right to escape or otherwise prevent being whipped if he could?
Say you and I are the last two people on Earth after some natural disaster.....
Now, being that I'm well over 6 foot and a hair shy of 240 lbs......chances are better than average that I'm bigger and stronger than you are. ....(maybe you're bigger, doesn't really matter)
If I decide that you have stuff that I want and I'm willing to beat you ....or worse to get it....
Do you have a natural right to defend yourself from me in any way you can?
Keep in mind there are no police to call.
No courts to convict me.
Do you or do you not have a right to defend yourself and your property against me?
There is NO SUCH THING AS NATURAL RIGHTS. As another poster already stated, these are human constructs much like right and wrong in general. Only God could grant such rights, but as the same poster stated, now you must prove the existence of God.
By your definition of natural rights, it is my natural right to hunt you down with my lever 30-30 just like a deer, butcher you, and then eat you. That is no different that defending myself if were talking "natural."
Its a biological impulse. "Natural Rights" implies it is universal and exists outside the realm of man. A wild animal that is cornered will fight for its life. Its not because it is granted Natural Rights but because its biological impulse is to do so. Guns grants you the ability to defend your life, it also grants you the ability to commit mass murder. Yes, society should grant people the ability to defend themselves, but it also shouldn't give people the capability to kill dozens be it hundreds of innocent people.
Natural rights, I don't need anyone else to do for me. I don't need to call the Sheriff to come shoot you.
He may be right about the wording, but as far as I know, courts have upheld reasonable, common sense regulations. NY allows only 7 bullets per gun, and as far as I know courts have said this is constitutional. Washington State just passed a law that all guns must be unloaded and securely locked up when not in use. The NRA is suing to get that overturned.
Like most gun laws, that makes no sense.
If they are securely locked up, why should they be unloaded?
Isn't it odd that a government instituted to secure Creator endowed rights of the people, which includes the right to life and to defend that life - rights which exist INDEPENDENT of the constitution - would enact laws to deny that right?
Oh, right, such laws are limited to those who consented to be governed, and thus abrogated endowed rights. My bad.
You do know how and when you consented, right?
The 2nd Amendment lets the states ban assault rifles and guns that shoot too fast or too many bullets at once.
Many of these state laws have NOT been challenged in the courts because most courts are dem picked judges. The dems run to the 9th Circuit a LOT because of ts open liberal stance on many issues and it also happens to be the MOST overturned court
The times have changed and Trump has replaced a LOT of these judges and is not done yet.
When we get more Conversationalist judges, I foresee more challenges to these state gun laws and if try have to go all they way to the Supreme Court will be found NOT Constitutional, like the Heller ruling, IMO.
Get off your high horse. Humans are citizens, not much else qualifies. I keep a pocket constitution right on the side table beside me, within reach where I sit right now. Do you really think they wrote the constitution to be a document just temporary in nature? Of course not!
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, we are a constitutional republic, our nation is founded on that document. The constitution contains within it the means to modify itself if needed so obviously it was envisioned that it would survive and might have to be modified, rather than trashed and ignored which is so popular now.
And again, technology simply doesn’t matter. It isn’t about technology, it’s about rights. The SCOTUS tells us the intent of the constitution and its writers with each new challenge, whether based in technology or not.
Many of the writers of the Constitution believed the Declaration of Independence is what the Constitution is taken from. They BELIEVED in certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
These beliefs are all through their writings about when the Constitution wes written and explained WHY they felt as they did in writing it.
Our problem today is way TOO MANY have NEVER READ any these writings and because they DON'T agree with the conventional wisdom of those that have, go on and on arguing out of ignorance and their OWN beliefs.
The Constitution does not mention anything about assault style weapons. Is it not true that the weapons of the time were 'flintlock' that shot one at a time, and could take minutes to reload?
Assault style weapons can hold 30 ammunition bullets, and are designed for mass slaughter. In my view that goes against the 5th & 14th Amendment's requirement of 'due process,' and violates the spirit of the Declaration's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause.
"The Constitution does not mention anything about assault style weapons."
The Constitution does not mention anything about ANY style of weapons.
It says "ARMS", meaning ALL arms since no specifics arm were excluded or included.
It looks like English is NOT your strong suit!
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.
