"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Phoebe Bump, Dec 21, 2015.

  1. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,349
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He wrong and he knows it, he only wants to argue. He gets a kick out of getting people riled up. We have proved our points. I'm not arguing anymore with a person that refuses to admit he's wrong when he has been shown a 100 times.
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male

    I don't appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction, either.

    The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause.
     
  3. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Fine. The intent and purpose of the 2A is to secure the individual's right to keep and bear Arms so that the individual would be armed for militia service if and when necessary. But the founders who formulated the bill of rights did NOT say that private Arms should be regulated in any way. Beyond that, what can be said?
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are arguing two different Causes or concepts. Commerce can be regulated. Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Commerce.
     
  5. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Word salad anyone? The facts are we Americans now have the right to keep and bear arms. This fact is buttressed with SCOTUS ruling in my (our) favor. Still that is not good enough, I want a concealed carry without paying a fee and other unconstitutional stuff.

    Oh ...I be off to visit the wizard, the wonderful dude of OZ....Hey loookie over there...poppy plants! Toto run boy run! Hey cowardly lion wanna go check out those weird flowers, or the witches crib to get a ride on the flying monkeys?

    reva
     
  6. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    don't worry, i have word salad dressing.

    No one is claiming you don't have a natural and civil right to acquire and possess Arms for defense of self and property. It just doesn't come from our Second Amendment since the first clause clearly states the Intent and Purpose for the second clause.

    All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

    This is a States' right: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The fundamental right of a government to make all necessary laws. In the United States, state police power comes from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives states the rights and powers "not delegated to the United States." States are thus granted the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public.
     
  7. phil white

    phil white Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That's what the constitution is for. To hide behind from a hive minded majority.
    Leftist are hive minded insects.:salute:
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That is usually the Right; nothing but lemmings without a clue or a Cause.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,548
    Likes Received:
    34,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment" Submit, submit I say. You will respect my authoritah! Tyranny for one and all!
     
  10. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't 'know' that and that's your opinion.

    You don't 'know' that, either. (And what? Would you be suggesting that complacency and accepting the status quo, is the way to go?!)

    You have expressed your views; the discussion is NOT anywhere near over. 25-100 years, is barely enough time for this one.

    I'm sure someone said that about slavery and 3/5 of a human. (So be it.)
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    dude; tyranny is already here with our draconian drug laws, especially in Alabama; and, gun lovers are nowhere to be found.
     
  12. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only can that guy NOT tell you, at this stage, who wrote the 2A (though he can quickly Google it), but this guy has been trying to sell horse manure on some theory that only he understands.

    While the Second Amendment did not create a Right, it certainly does guarantee to protect it with the government's primary objective to provide a well regulated militia. The "militia" spoken of in that context is all citizens that are armed. We insure the security of a free State by making sure that all who want to carry their own personal arms are able to do so.
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it doesn't. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated (10USC311). Well regulated Militia of the United States are necessary to the security of a free State.

    It really is that simple, except to gun lovers and the Right, who prefer fallacy to bearing True Witness to our own laws.
     
  14. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For doing exactly what you're doing, I was given an infraction today. It's acceptable to beat around the bush and call people liars, but it is what it is. Still, the ONLY person in this debate living in a fantasy world built around fallacy is yourself.

    In literally thousands of posts you have not made your point nor shown in any way, shape, fashion or form that you have any clue as to what you're talking about.

    Again, let us review a standing precedent of a court answering this very issue. This is the first time a gun control law was overturned on Second Amendment grounds:

    "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

    It appears that the judicial branch of government did not agree with you then and even today some of that sentiment from Nunn v. State is upheld in the Heller decision. You lost this argument thousands of posts ago. You should give it a rest. You're only embarrassing yourself and what you are peddling IS the ultimate fallacy.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't reported anyone. And, claiming you are full of fallacy is not the same as calling you a liar. Let us see if you can do more than merely be part of the nine hundred and ninety-nine:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

    There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
     
  16. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Greater minds than yours or mine have examined those words. NOBODY agrees with your interpretation of them. The common end to the Second Amendment seems simple enough. There is no such thing as infringing on the militia as you suggest.
     
  17. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    13,370
    Likes Received:
    7,968
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't respond to him anymore because over the years I notice you get the same silly butchering of the English Language but one thing that destroys all this idiotic claims that the Second is not about an individual right is to ask them this

    WHAT PRE-EXISTING Natural right did the founders SEEK TO Guarantee with the second amendment?

    hint-a pre-existing right is one that exists before or without GOVERNMENT and thus any reference to that right being dependent on a government entity such as a militia is without any merit
     
  18. HailVictory

    HailVictory Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the Second Amendment. Ok. Period. You can't site half or 3/4 and say its all of it. It specifically states a purpose, and reason, and then goes on to say why. It was passed in 1791. If we are still using anything from 1791 that has caused the amount of problems guns have, then we have a serious problem. In 1791, the Founders intended for there to be no army or navy, so that the government couldn't form a military state. Of course, conservatives want *trump voice* huge militaries so it kinda makes me chuckle inside. Anyways, they legalised guns for people to own for the sake of hunting (which was necessary for survival) and forming a militia in the event of a war. Nowadays, we have a *huge* military and we dont need to hunt. So why do we need guns? I know that this is now going to get me a bunch of right-wingers to scream till their blue in the face that having guns is something the American people need and freedom this and my rights that, so it is with great reluctance that I ask this question.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Non-sequiturs and appeals to the masses; nothing but fallacy for your Cause? Only the nine hundred and ninety-nine, do that.

    "My" interpretation is what was true until relatively recently. And, it is true in practice and in legal fact, now. Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller is the "controlling" paragraph that safely ignores, paragraph (1).

    When was the last time the unorganized militia was called forth to defend, anything? The organized militia was called forth to defend public places such as airports after 9/11: The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings....
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You only believe that by appealing to ignorance of the first clause. All y'all have is the same fallacies; and I usually respond regardless, simply because I don't need to appeal to ignorance of the law.
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. Our Second Amendment cannot secure rights in private property because Due Process is what is secured in our federal Constitution. Gun lovers and the Right, simply fail to distinguish the difference.
     
  22. Simmias

    Simmias New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is politicians such as these who tend to forget that, before any formal military was created, America was fought over and protected by individuals who volunteered to protect the nation, and who often only had their personal firearms as weapons. I find it very difficult to believe that the original courts in America didn't see, and didn't understand this. It's more probable that they did, in fact, understand that the people were defending the nation with their own firearms, and wanted to protect the individual right of those people to forever own those firearms.
     
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    60,940
    Likes Received:
    41,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Off the top of my head, the militias that formed to defend our armed forces recruiting stations, when the armed forces and government failed to protect them.
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Posse comitatus is more like it; the sheriff simply didn't ask for it.

     
  25. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    36,938
    Likes Received:
    11,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [video=youtube;M-oqfPojhec]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec[/video]​


    Given that the President's executive orders (modest steps calculated to impede the easy access that homicidal maniacs, violent criminals, and terrorists have to firearms in the US) are in compliance with the Constitution, and have the strong support of the People ...

    [​IMG]

    ... the tantrums of the malcontents who yowl for guns on demand are not about to be indulged by Americans, even if they threaten to hold their breath - but, hey, it's still worth a try.
     

Share This Page