Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Understanding the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default Understanding the 2nd Amendment

    apparently there's still some people out there who don't get the 2nd Amendment.

    The right to keep and bear arms is for the people only, not the government, not the national guard, and not law enforcement organizations.

    Simply repealing the 2nd Amendment does not do away with the right to bear arms because this right pre-exists the constitution.

    Those who think that they can ban guns with laws and just send out gov forces to collect them all seriously need to rethink the idea, unless they actually want to pursue a higher body count than all the other governments combined in the last century.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    if they ban guns, I will buy one out of spite.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    The NRA won. Look, I'm all for remaining vigilant but the gun wars are over and the gun-grabbers lost. No one is going to repeal the 2nd Amendment or ban guns. Not going to happen.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    The US CONSTITUTION WON.......but never say never........Our freedoms are only as safe until the next election.....
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bravo View Post
    The US CONSTITUTION WON.......but never say never........Our freedoms are only as safe until the next election.....
    The NRA may have won, since most states still require permits for firearms, but the constitution certainly has not won yet, especially since the only appeals court cases so far have decidedly determined that the USSC only defined the 2nd Amendment as a right to have firearms ONLY in the home and not in public.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    The NRA may have won, since most states still require permits for firearms, but the constitution certainly has not won yet, especially since the only appeals court cases so far have decidedly determined that the USSC only defined the 2nd Amendment as a right to have firearms ONLY in the home and not in public.

    Isn't that all the Supreme Court did decide in Heller?

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,507
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    The NRA won. Look, I'm all for remaining vigilant but the gun wars are over and the gun-grabbers lost. No one is going to repeal the 2nd Amendment or ban guns. Not going to happen.
    If those who believe that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment means the same thing as "the people" in the rest of the constitution do not remain vigilant, I believe that the gun grabbers will continue trying. In fact I think they'll continue until they are successful.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    Isn't that all the Supreme Court did decide in Heller?
    the Heller case decided that prohibiting ownership was a violation. I still need to see what intellectual dishonesty and illogical reasoning someone came up with to be able to split the terms 'keep' and 'bear' in relation to 'home' and 'self', when there are many other cases previously, whose dicta suggests that 'bear arms' meant to have upon one's person for self defense in case of conflict. Even ginsberg has several of her opinions bearing this out.

    Unless you're going to attempt to say that in over 200 years, nobody could possibly have known that the framers meant for 'bear arms' to mean carry in public, how does one come to the logical conclusion that 'keep and bear arms' applies only in the home?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    the Heller case decided that prohibiting ownership was a violation. I still need to see what intellectual dishonesty and illogical reasoning someone came up with to be able to split the terms 'keep' and 'bear' in relation to 'home' and 'self', when there are many other cases previously, whose dicta suggests that 'bear arms' meant to have upon one's person for self defense in case of conflict. Even ginsberg has several of her opinions bearing this out.

    Unless you're going to attempt to say that in over 200 years, nobody could possibly have known that the framers meant for 'bear arms' to mean carry in public, how does one come to the logical conclusion that 'keep and bear arms' applies only in the home?

    Whether there was a right to own a firearm in the home was the only issue presented for determination by the Court. Dicta don't matter.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    If those who believe that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment means the same thing as "the people" in the rest of the constitution do not remain vigilant, I believe that the gun grabbers will continue trying. In fact I think they'll continue until they are successful.

    Like I said, I'm all for remaining vigilant, but talking about "body counts" and banning guns is a bit much in the current political environment. The NRA has been wildly successful not only at advancing gun ownership rights, but at preventing anyone from actually trying to impose restrictions on gun ownership.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    Whether there was a right to own a firearm in the home was the only issue presented for determination by the Court. Dicta don't matter.
    great. they decided that very narrow issue. how does that then mean that 'to keep' can be split apart and redefined or ignored from the 'bear arms'? and if dicta doesn't matter, why is it always brought up in other cases?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    internet
    Posts
    39,189
    Thanks
    7,082
    Thanked 17,235 Times in 10,345 Posts
    Groans
    1,025
    Groaned 1,490 Times in 1,337 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    i really need to donate to the NRA. It's amazing how passionate I am about gun rights given that I don't own a gun. I can't imagine what it's like for people like billy et al that actually do O_O

    I think gun rights is the #1 issue I am most passionate about when it does not directly affect me.


    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Grind is basically right
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Grind’s got you beat by miles. He is very intelligent.

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    the Heller case decided that prohibiting ownership was a violation. I still need to see what intellectual dishonesty and illogical reasoning someone came up with to be able to split the terms 'keep' and 'bear' in relation to 'home' and 'self', when there are many other cases previously, whose dicta suggests that 'bear arms' meant to have upon one's person for self defense in case of conflict. Even ginsberg has several of her opinions bearing this out.

    Unless you're going to attempt to say that in over 200 years, nobody could possibly have known that the framers meant for 'bear arms' to mean carry in public, how does one come to the logical conclusion that 'keep and bear arms' applies only in the home?

    The 'gun grabbers' refuse to recognize how the 2nd Amendment was viewed when it was written into the Bill Of Rights....its obvious how citizens owned and carried firearms in
    those days......and its just as obvious that those rights have been and are being eroded little by little every day, over the last 200+ years.....
    the gun grabbers are making advances and the ranks of the pinheads are ever growing......thus, the Constitution is always in danger of becoming meaningless....
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    Like I said, I'm all for remaining vigilant, but talking about "body counts" and banning guns is a bit much in the current political environment. The NRA has been wildly successful not only at advancing gun ownership rights, but at preventing anyone from actually trying to impose restrictions on gun ownership.
    It depends on how you define restrictions. While overt laws are not being pushed, even in traditionally anti gun districts (except California of course), less obvious approaches, like the ATF having no written procedure for classifying a machine gun. They, as an example, are entirely arbitrary and essentially make up the rules based on either who is enforcing it at the time, or whatever preconceived agenda they want to fulfill.

    Then you still have things like the 1934 NFA, the 68 GCA, the illegally passed Hughes amendment. Police brutality over exercising of carry rights (this isn't limited to just 2A rights, but it fits in). While significant gains have been made in that past few years, it is by no means perfect, or over.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    SmarterthanYou (04-24-2012)

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,855
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 649 Times in 481 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 64 Times in 62 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Owl in Now View Post
    i really need to donate to the NRA. It's amazing how passionate I am about gun rights given that I don't own a gun. I can't imagine what it's like for people like billy et al that actually do O_O

    I think gun rights is the #1 issue I am most passionate about when it does not directly affect me.
    I'm actually stuck in between both extremes with both sides hating me. I'm all for gun ownership, I even like concealed carry permits, but I want registration and I want people with a criminal record prohibited from owning guns. Now let me finish first, when I say criminal reccord im talking about felonies, not misdemeanors and I want convictions, I don't care if a guy who was caught speeding owns a gun but I definitely don't want somebody who's been convicted twice of domestic violence owning a shotgun so that when he gets drunk he can kill his wife.
    "In the bath tub of history the truth is harder to find than the soap and more difficult to hold on to."

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    It's not the cops fault that the douchebag is a fraud.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Disillusioned For This Post:

    Rationalist (04-25-2012)

Similar Threads

  1. Understanding the slave mentality
    By SmarterthanYou in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 04-20-2012, 01:49 PM
  2. Understanding Engineers
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-16-2011, 12:49 PM
  3. Understanding Socialism
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 598
    Last Post: 11-24-2010, 10:15 AM
  4. 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-20-2009, 03:31 PM
  5. Understanding the Bank Bailout
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 10:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •