Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51

Thread: Understanding the 2nd Amendment

  1. #31 | 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 Rune View Post
    I suppose you think Bravo is a liberal anti-gun nut too?
    He doesn't have to be a liberal to be a moron.
    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

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    "This message is hidden because Rune is on your ignore list."

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    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 Abatis View Post
    Establishment of the National Rifle Association . . .
    huh, learn something new every day. thanks.
    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.

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    "This message is hidden because Rune is on your ignore list."
    Promise?
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  5. #35 | Top
    Guns Guns Guns Guest

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson View Post
    He doesn't have to be a liberal to be a moron.

    Poor Blabo.

  6. #36 | Top
    Guns Guns Guns Guest

    Thumbs up What the Second Amendment says



  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    And the Supreme Court has said for over 135 years that inspecting the 2nd Amendment for guidance on what the citizen's right is, who it belongs to and its scope, is not legitimate.

    --------------------------


    • "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

    PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U. S. 252 (1886)
    (paraphrasing an earlier decision, US v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876))


    ------------------------

    Why do you advocate reading conditions, qualifications and restrictions from words upon which the right in no manner depends?

    The citizen's right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there, or from any particular "individual right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    The citizen possess the right to keep and bear arms because the We the People never conferred a shred of power that would permit the government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.

    All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government the exercise of powers never granted to it.

  8. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)



    "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



    "The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)



    ". . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . " MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)



    "[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . . DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

  9. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Besides the incompatibility with the founding principles, Constitutional rights theory, history and the legal record, any reading of the 2nd Amendment's dependent clause as modifying the independent clause fails as an exercise in English grammar.

    The independent clause can stand on its own without the dependent clause and remains true and actionable without any regard to what the dependent clause actually says:

    --------
    Being a horrible, violent criminal, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.
    Being a wonderful, generous person, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.
    --------

    Either way, Steve is taking the dirt nap at sunset.

    A dependent clause just can not be read (or interpreted) as creating an iron clad rule or condition:

    --------
    All things considered, that is a really bad idea.
    --------

    Deciding whether or not an idea is truly bad or not, can not really depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered because that endeavor can never be completed.

    Let's try another simple one:

    --------
    The teacher being ill, all classes will be canceled today.

    --------

    Can classes only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
    What if he is really lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; will classes be held?
    Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill, even for just the sniffles?

    Let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the independent, restrictive clause in sentences grammatically constructed similar to the 2nd Amendment with an inactive, dependent, declaratory clause preceding the actionable, independent, restrictive clause:

    --------
    A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.

    --------

    Can the people only drive on this governmentally maintained road system?
    Can the people only use their automobiles to commute to and from work?
    Can the people only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
    Can retired persons or "stay at home" Moms or the unemployed or the independently wealthy be "deautoed" because they do not work?
    Can people be prosecuted for taking a scenic route to and from work; is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"
    Has a mandate been created that a governmental entity build and always maintain the "well maintained road system" and that system must exist for the people to be "allowed" to drive?


    Let's examine another, this one of near identical construction as the 2nd Amendment:

    --------
    A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

    --------

    Can people who are not registered and active voters have their right to keep and read books "infringed?"
    Can people considered not well educated, including members of the "electorate," have their right to keep and read books infringed?
    Are only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" to be owned and read?
    Can access to particular books deemed to not directly be "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" or deemed to not directly promote a, "well educated electorate" be restricted with permits / licenses / tax stamps?
    Does the right of the people to keep and read books only exist for them to be well educated voters and to perpetuate the free state? Can all other creation, aquisition and uses of books be restricted, qualified and conditioned and books themselves that do not meet that criteria, be banned by government?

    Hopefully you answered no to all those questions.

    If you did then I must ask . . .

    Why do you read such nonsense into the 2nd Amendment?
    Last edited by Abatis; 04-28-2012 at 07:17 AM.

  10. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    I find it more than a little bit amusing that you are stealing bandwidth from the pro-gun ownership Penn Shooting Club by hotlinking to the image hosted on the upenn.edu server.

    http://www.dolphin.upenn.edu/shootin...mendment-1.jpg

    The simple act of getting a hotfile account or subscribing to some other hosting service is just too much to ask of you.

    It doesn't surprise me in the least that you have no respect for such things . . . perfectly in character for you.

  12. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials
    and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

    West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

  13. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    "As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion . . . To view a particular provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution." -- Ullmann v. United States 350 U.S. 422, (1956)

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Abatis For This Post:

    Cancel 2018. 3 (04-28-2012)

  15. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default


  16. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    LOL..abatis completely schooled poor legion

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
  •