The Constitution means exactly what it says

[Guns Guns Guns]

Are we back to the 2nd amendment?


I thought Heller, or an invisible being, or common sense, or the Declaration of Independence endowed all Americans with the inherent right to own guns?

Can someone please clarify?

 

[WinterBorn]

Are we back to the 2nd amendment?


I thought Heller, or an invisible being, or common sense, or the Declaration of Independence endowed all Americans with the inherent right to own guns?

Can someone please clarify?

Our individual rights, according to our Declaration of Independence, were given to us by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the government usurping that right.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Our individual rights, according to our Declaration of Independence, were given to us by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the government usurping that right.

An invisible being gave you your right to keep and bear arms?

 

[WinterBorn]

An invisible being gave you your right to keep and bear arms?

Were you created by an invisible being? This is not a theological discussion. If you do not believe in any supreme being, then the statement in the Declaration of Independence would still apply, as whatever force that created human beings endowed us with these rights. In other words, the rights come with being human.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Were you created by an invisible being? This is not a theological discussion. If you do not believe in any supreme being, then the statement in the Declaration of Independence would still apply, as whatever force that created human beings endowed us with these rights. In other words, the rights come with being human.

LOL. You don't suppose relying on a supreme being/Creator (with a capital C) makes this a theological discussion? Explain, please.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL. You don't suppose relying on a supreme being/Creator (with a capital C) makes this a theological discussion? Explain, please.

It depends on the reader's beliefs. The rights remain the same regardless of whether or not you believe in a supreme being.

Very often people neglect the opening of the original DoI.

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

 

[WinterBorn]

It depends on the reader's beliefs. The rights remain the same regardless of whether or not you believe in a supreme being.

Very often people neglect the opening of the original DoI.

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

So these rights can come from nature, nature's God, our Creator, ect ect.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Having trouble with your argument? Can't you just ask your invisible being to help?"

Nope, not having trouble at all.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

What other "rights" did the invisible being bestow upon you?



Just wondering.

 

[WinterBorn]

What other "rights" did the invisible being bestow upon you?



Just wondering.

You are insisting on the "invisible being" thing, aren't you. If you believe in God, then your statement would be accurate. If you believe solely in evolution, then that force is your "invisible being", despite the fact it is not a being.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was given to all humans.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You are insisting on the "invisible being" thing, aren't you. If you believe in God, then your statement would be accurate. If you believe solely in evolution, then that force is your "invisible being", despite the fact it is not a being. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was given to all humans.

If the invisible being is all-powerful, why aren't all humans alive, free, and pursuing happiness?


BTW, do you cite the invisible being when, say, you're pulled over for speeding?


Maybe the invisible being gave you the right to drive faster than the posted limit.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the invisible being is all-powerful, why aren't all humans alive, free, and pursuing happiness?


BTW, do you cite the invisible being when, say, you're pulled over for speeding?


Maybe the invisible being gave you the right to drive faster than the posted limit.

Kinda off the deep end here, aren't you?

The statement outlines the belief that all people have certain rights. The fact that someone uses force to no longer allow them those rights does not change that.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Kinda off the deep end here, aren't you? The statement outlines the belief that all people have certain rights. The fact that someone uses force to no longer allow them those rights does not change that.

Didn't the invisible being tell you that you have guns so you can overthrow the government if you don't like a law or two?

 

[WinterBorn]

Didn't the invisible being tell you that you have guns so you can overthrow the government if you don't like a law or two?

Let me know when you want to get back to a serious discussion.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Let me know when you want to get back to a serious discussion.

My bad. It's the second amendment that says you have guns so you can overthrow the government if you don't like a law or two, isn't it?

 

[WinterBorn]

My bad. It's the second amendment that says you have guns so you can overthrow the government if you don't like a law or two, isn't it?

No, that is not what it says at all, nor was it the intent. If you would like to remove the "if you don't like a law or two" sarcastic qualifier you would be much closer to accurate.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, that is not what it says at all, nor was it the intent. If you would like to remove the "if you don't like a law or two" sarcastic qualifier you would be much closer to accurate.

You mean the righties who base their gunlove on hoarding arms and ammo in preparation for overthrowing Obama are wrong?

 

[WinterBorn]

You mean the righties who base their gunlove on hoarding arms and ammo in preparation for overthrowing Obama are wrong?

You would have to ask them, I don't know anyone like that.

But when you do find someone like that, try and figure out if its over them not liking a law or two.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You would have to ask them, I don't know anyone like that. But when you do find someone like that, try and figure out if its over them not liking a law or two.

I'm asking you.




You said that allowing armed citizens to overthrow the government wasn't the intent of the 2nd amendment, didn't you?




I'd suggest you look at SmarterThanFew's posts, as well as some of the other gunlovers. I'm surprised you seem to have 'forgotten' them.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm asking you.




You said that allowing armed citizens to overthrow the government wasn't the intent of the 2nd amendment, didn't you?




I'd suggest you look at SmarterThanFew's posts, as well as some of the other gunlovers. I'm surprised you seem to have 'forgotten' them.

I remember what they said. And STY was talking that way about the gov't long before Obama took office. I also don't think he bases his fondness for guns on preparations for overthrowing Obama.

What I said was that the 2nd Amendment was not written or intended to "...have guns so you can overthrow the government if you don't like a law or two, isn't it?".

As long as you phrase your questions in such a ridiculous manner, you will not make a point.


The founding fathers did intend for the citizens to be able to remove the gov't if it became oppressive or became unconstitutional. But certainly not because someone "doesn't like a law or two".