Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

Then stop going on about what your position does not say, and be specific about what the position of yourself actually is.

 

Wow!

Every time I see a liberal arguing that freedom and civil rights should not apply to modern times it makes my hair stand on end.

 

The repeal of our civil rights would be a Very Bad Thing.

 

Please understand that it makes no difference if you want to violate the civil rights of new gun owners or long-time gun owners.

It is still wrong to violate people's civil rights.

 

I realize that history is highly inconvenient for liberals. However, history has most certainly not been fabricated by "think tanks".

Dig deep to the 1680s? OK.

In 1689 the English Bill of Rights created a right for people to posses arms for self defense:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

Subsequent to that, a number of British court rulings confirmed that it was indeed now the right of individuals to have guns for self defense:

Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."

Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."

Legal scholars have always regarded this right from 1689 as the pre-existing right which the Second Amendment protects from infringement.

So it is not the Supreme Court in the Heller ruling which ignores history. Rather it is the liberals who are ignoring history in their mad scramble to justify abolishing our civil rights.

 

More of the same. It's only you who keeps going on about stuff I never said. I have, in fact, said a lot of things here. Things you've so far only pretended to understand and address. Be my guest. Go fetch.

 

You at least provide something to chew on. Appreciate that. Didn't say "history" has been fabricated by think tanks. Without question, much history related to the 2nd has though. Argument pointedly denying the clear linkage between "right to bear arms" and "militia" specified in the 2nd to be precise. Even if not all, would you agree that the vast, vast bulk of such yap was produced by U.S. think tanks in the 1980s?

"In 1689 the English Bill of Rights created a right for people to posses arms for self defense:"
So you refreshingly disagree with your buddy up there about Bills of Rights creating rights and "as allowed by law". Very good. However, you're clearly conflating British legal precedent with U.S. Constitutional meaning and intent. Not that there's no association, but, ya know, we did fight a war to separate ourselves from you rubes and your unrepresentative taxes.

"Legal scholars have always regarded this right from 1689 as the pre-existing right which the Second Amendment protects from infringement."
Lol, all of them? I'd love to see your proof.

 

lets test you for BS.
well...following that sentiment, the forefathers never thought that a person could use a computer to broadcast his speech around the world. They only envisioned you standing on a corner and speaking your mind not broadcasting your speech on something as powerful as a computer. We therefore need to remove your first Amendment. Do you agree? Or will I get a hypocritical gibberish response back. Im going to predict the latter because the forefathers put the second there to protect us from people exactly like you. Freedom takers.

 

That's not what I said. I said modern technology demands an altered interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I never insinuated anything whatsoever about restricting individual freedoms or civil rights. The NRA propaganda machine is behind these lies about liberals wanting to restrict our rights. Absolute BS.

 

I'm not advocating any violation of people's rights. I AM advocating caring more about your fellow Americans primary "right to life." Without that, none of those other rights have much value.

 

I'm not advocating removing the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. I'm simply saying I care about the "right to life" of all my fellow Americans, and people like the Las Vegas shooter are given the right under current INTERPRETATIONS of the 2nd Amendment to buy guns that have the capacity of allowing him and others like him to kill hundreds of innocent Americans before they can be stopped by authorities. I don't want the rights of Americans to own and use guns removed; nor do I want government to go in and confiscate guns from current owners. I want all of us to care about our fellow Americans and value the "right to life" cited in the Declaration of Independence at least equally to the 2nd Amendment, and I don't feel the NRA or its followers do that now. Without that "right to life" all the other rights cease to have value. I feel the "right to life" surpasses all other rights and the fact that the Founding Fathers cited it first in our nation's founding documents is the thing that set us apart from other nations then and since. To deny it, or ignore it, or circumvent it as the NRA is currently doing is not in harmony with what it is to be "American." If you feel this is "gibberish" then you and I have VERY DIFFERENT visions of what it means to be an American.

 

yes your vision is that you believe you should be able to tell others how they should defend themselves. The 2nd requires no interpretation. We have the right period. To chip away at it is as un American as it gets. And you never answered, is it ok if I chip away at your dangerous free speech?

 

Openly, obviously, and clearly, the SCotUS disagrees.
Where does this leave you?

And yet, every time there's a shooting, liberals call for exactly that.
Explain how yo can be right..

 

The 2nd grants rights to no one.

That's a nice appeal to emotion you have there. Why do you believe reasoned, thinking people will be swayed by such a fallacy?

 

Just bear in mind that whatever rights of mine that you "chip away at," will also affect you, your loved ones and everyone else you know or care about, for the U.S. Constitution applies to us all equally.

 

Liberals aren't trying to restrict your rights. They're trying to find some sensible way to help protect the lives of innocent Americans by restricting a few types of weapons that are currently for sale. Your right to buy and use guns will continue unabated.

 

Clearly, you won't. Hopefully there will be people out there who care more about protecting innocent Americans than they care about what style of gun they can legally buy.

 

Whoa there.....Im not going to chip away at anything. I asked you...a second amendment chipper, if it was ok to chip away at your first and now we see that it isnt ok. Given your comment above can you explain the hypocrisy?

 

You do realize that during the penning of the US constitution there were a few repeating semi automatic style rifles already developed right? There was also the precursor to the Gatling gun, a hand cranked machine gun.
To believe the framers could not conceive of technology is absurd.

 

I am a great admirer of our Founding Fathers. They had differences among themselves as diverse and deep as those we experience among ourselves today, but they always regarded the welfare of the nation above their individual differences. Only once before have our leaders failed to do that, and the Civil War was the result. The obstructionism and failure to find common ground as a policy among our present leaders places our nation and its people in jeopardy for the second time since our nation's founding. Less than two weeks ago, in the latest of a long and continuing series of mass murders, 58 innocent Americans had their lives ended by a single mental deviant with a carload of weapons that functioned on an automatic level. Almost 500 additional Americans enjoying an evening with their loved ones were wounded. All this horror took place in less than 15 minutes. The "right to life" for these fellow Americans was more important to me than the right to bear arms provided by the 2nd Amendment. We are all facing a choice. Find acceptable ways to set up necessary controls on the TYPES of guns available, or accept this ongoing horror show of providing the means for mental deviants to obtain the weapons they need to commit mass murder against our neighbors and our loved ones. Adding specific controls isn't the same thing as removing the rights of gun owners. The NRA arguments are extreme and beyond common sense, and ANY form of fanaticism is a vice. I continue supporting common sense gun controls, and am personally shocked and appalled at those on this forum who have responded to me saying we must accept the mass murders as an ongoing reality of this society so we can protect their rights to buy any form of gun or weapon they want without hindrance. Polls show the vast majority of Americans agree with me. Caring more about each other is far more important than protecting anyone's right to find new ways to inflict violence.

 

Listening to 2nd Amendment huggers defend mass murderers always makes me laugh.

 

Find a single person on the forum who has gone on record as stating that Stephen Paddock was justified in his actions. Demonstrate where any mass killer has been defended by anyone.

 

Actually, what I believe is that every human being on the planet SHOULD have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without ever feeling forced to "defend" themselves. I know that's impossible, but every step toward that reality is progress.

 

so when a woman was trapped in her closet with her children and an attacker entered their house with a crowbar and was actively coming after them in the closet, does she have a right to a firearm in your world?

 

It’s the ongoing reality of this society that creates the problem not the 2nd amendment.
It’s not technology that has created this problem, it’s society.
We should be attempting to create a better society not roll back technology