Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

Damocles said:
In order to believe this nonsense that it isn't a personal freedom one must very deliberately pretend that when they said "The People" in every other part of the constitution they meant something different than when they said "The People" in the Bill of Rights and if such is the case they must begin to interpret the constitution to mean that only specific "people", whatever "interpretation" you may have that accounts for that word, have the rights that we all believe we have granted by our Creator.
Click to expand...

Were females "people" back then? Did I have the same rights granted by our "Creator", or were my rights granted to me by men?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
According to STY, the citizens should have better arms than the government so presumably tanks, rockets and nuclear weapons are all covered by the second amendment.
Click to expand...
argumentum ad absurdem.

you might try following some of the other numerous 2nd Amendment threads to find my exact position on this.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what's not there? that the founders meant 'national guard' when they wrote 'well regulated militia'? of course it's not there, because that's not what they meant.

here is what they meant.......
"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possilble." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey
Click to expand...

HHH was a founding father???? lol...


Sorry, I missed this post. It fails. None of those words are in the Constitution, are they? No. Especially Humphrey's. *giggle*

Fact is, you're basing your argument on a literal interpretation of the Constitution, not letters or statements of the founding fathers. If they wanted something in the Constitution, it would have been there. So obviously there were other founding fathers against arming all the citizens.

Madison put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as a compromise to shut up the states who were fearful of a national government. And we all know how limited the Constitution left the states, don't we?

Here's another quote:

"The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, which all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing...It's not a matter of policy. It is a matter of what those framers intended."

That's from Justice Stephen Breyer
 
Rana said:
Were females "people" back then? Did I have the same rights granted by our "Creator", or were my rights granted to me by men?
Click to expand...

You were "people" back then. Which enumerated right in the Bill of Rights was not afforded to women? Women went armed, they wrote articles, they gathered and protested, they participated in religion, they had the same 4th and 5th Amendment rights as men, etc.
 
Damocles said:
You were "people" back then. Which enumerated right in the Bill of Rights was not afforded to women? Women went armed, they wrote articles, they gathered and protested, they participated in religion, they had the same 4th and 5th Amendment rights as men, etc.
Click to expand...

Ahaha, you like to play dumb at times, but I'm not buying it.
 
Rana said:
Were females "people" back then? Did I have the same rights granted by our "Creator", or were my rights granted to me by men?
Click to expand...

YOu have the same rights granted by the Creator. We realized this and expanded the US Constitution to reflect that. No one is arguing about whether we expand rights. It is removing them that we object to so vehemently.
 
Howey said:
HHH was a founding father???? lol...


Sorry, I missed this post. It fails. None of those words are in the Constitution, are they? No. Especially Humphrey's. *giggle*

Fact is, you're basing your argument on a literal interpretation of the Constitution, not letters or statements of the founding fathers. If they wanted something in the Constitution, it would have been there. So obviously there were other founding fathers against arming all the citizens.

Madison put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as a compromise to shut up the states who were fearful of a national government. And we all know how limited the Constitution left the states, don't we?

Here's another quote:

"The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, which all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing...It's not a matter of policy. It is a matter of what those framers intended."

That's from Justice Stephen Breyer
Click to expand...

sorry bud, scotus did an extensive review of articles from the founders and other sources and came to the conclusion that the second applies to individuals.

tell me....how did scotus get it wrong?
 
WinterBorn said:
YOu have the same rights granted by the Creator. We realized this and expanded the US Constitution to reflect that. No one is arguing about whether we expand rights. It is removing them that we object to so vehemently.
Click to expand...

Winter, you know, as well as Damo that only white males were considered "we the people" when the document was drafted.

They believed the Creator gave them dominion over the Earth.

I like how you guys tip toe around the issues.

It shows that the document changes with the changes in society.

The Founding Fathers could not possibly see how advanced and destructive our wepons would become and how the arming of the population would have to be re-examined.

Do you think the general population should have the right to own weapons of mass destruction?

Women fought for the right to be considered a part of "we the people" as a result, the rights were amended to include females.
 
Rana said:
Winter, you know, as well as Damo that only white males were considered "we the people" when the document was drafted.

They believed the Creator gave them dominion over the Earth.

I like how you guys tip toe around the issues.

It shows that the document changes with the changes in society.

The Founding Fathers could not possibly see how advanced and destructive our wepons would become and how the arming of the population would have to be re-examined.

Do you think the general population should have the right to own weapons of mass destruction?

Women fought for the right to be considered a part of "we the people" as a result, the rights were amended to include females.
Click to expand...

The only rights we have are the ones protected or enforced through rule of law. All this 'creator' horseshit is irrelevant. If it were 'creator' given, then it wouldn't matter what country you were in, you'd have those rights.
 
Rana said:
Winter, you know, as well as Damo that only white males were considered "we the people" when the document was drafted.

They believed the Creator gave them dominion over the Earth.

I like how you guys tip toe around the issues.

It shows that the document changes with the changes in society.

The Founding Fathers could not possibly see how advanced and destructive our wepons would become and how the arming of the population would have to be re-examined.

Do you think the general population should have the right to own weapons of mass destruction?

Women fought for the right to be considered a part of "we the people" as a result, the rights were amended to include females.
Click to expand...

I did not tiptoe around anything. I simply stated that the rights were expanded. There is a profound difference bwteen expanding rights and curtailing them. Moreso than just the numbers of people effected.

I don't see the guns as the problem. The people are the problem, and that is where the focus you be.
 
Bijou said:
The only rights we have are the ones protected or enforced through rule of law. All this 'creator' horseshit is irrelevant. If it were 'creator' given, then it wouldn't matter what country you were in, you'd have those rights.
Click to expand...

If you want it phrased in antheistic terms, these rights are innate and due every person. If you claim rights are only what the gov't gives you, then the gov't can also take them away. Rights take precedence over law, that is why we have SCOTUS.
 
WinterBorn said:
If you want it phrased in antheistic terms, these rights are innate and due every person. If you claim rights are only what the gov't gives you, then the gov't can also take them away. Rights take precedence over law, that is why we have SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. That's your interpretation and nothing more. They only exist insofar as the law provides. And guess what? Governments can and do most certainly take rights away, such as, for example, when laws are broken.
 
Bijou said:
No they aren't. That's your interpretation and nothing more. They only exist insofar as the law provides. And guess what? Governments can and do most certainly take rights away, such as, for example, when laws are broken.
Click to expand...

so without government, you have no rights?
 
Rana said:
Winter, you know, as well as Damo that only white males were considered "we the people" when the document was drafted.

They believed the Creator gave them dominion over the Earth.

I like how you guys tip toe around the issues.

It shows that the document changes with the changes in society.

The Founding Fathers could not possibly see how advanced and destructive our wepons would become and how the arming of the population would have to be re-examined.

Do you think the general population should have the right to own weapons of mass destruction?

Women fought for the right to be considered a part of "we the people" as a result, the rights were amended to include females.
Click to expand...

Actually, only property owners could vote, and no I am not kidding when I tell you that women were afforded those same rights enumerated.

Again, women went armed, they wrote articles, they protested (you even note that)...

The constitution changed with Amendments to include voting rights for everybody, however the "Creator" given rights as listed in the Bill of Rights was afforded to women, but not to black people. Voting was not one of the enumerated rights, and was not afforded to many people.
 
WinterBorn said:
I did not tiptoe around anything. I simply stated that the rights were expanded. There is a profound difference bwteen expanding rights and curtailing them. Moreso than just the numbers of people effected.

I don't see the guns as the problem. The people are the problem, and that is where the focus you be.
Click to expand...

Do you believe people have the right to own weapons of mass destruction? You keep avoiding this question.
 
Bijou said:
No they aren't. That's your interpretation and nothing more. They only exist insofar as the law provides. And guess what? Governments can and do most certainly take rights away, such as, for example, when laws are broken.
Click to expand...

So a person does not have the right to live?
 
Damocles said:
Actually, only property owners could vote, and no I am not kidding when I tell you that women were afforded those same rights enumerated.

Again, women went armed, they wrote articles, they protested (you even note that)...

The constitution changed with Amendments to include voting rights for everybody, however the "Creator" given rights as listed in the Bill of Rights was afforded to women, but not to black people. Voting was not one of the enumerated rights, and was not afforded to many people.
Click to expand...


It is clearly shown that women did not have the rights, the very reason for a later amendment. You crack me up at times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top