Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[GoBills808]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Yes, I assumed you were going somewhere else with it. 

 

Interestingly, Caetano vacated a conviction that was based on the ideas that the weapon wasn't covered by the 2nd because it wasn't commonly used when the 2nd was written and that the weapon wasn't covered by the 2nd because it was "thoroughly modern."

Indeed, and until they decide otherwise the whole 'it wasn't around in the 1700's' argument doesn't fly (which is an eminently debatable decision IMO but that's another tangent)...I was more referring to the idea that if you concede that 'well-regulated militia' is since 2010 (I think?), by SC opinion, held to 'the people' standard wrt firearm rights, an argument can be made that determining which types of weapons are allowed for public consumption does not infringe upon the 2nd. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, thebug said:

Who’s the creator? 

That was left intentionally vague, as our Founders believed the First to be as important as the Second.  For the purpose of our Constitution it simply means that your rights are intrinsic to your humanity, and you've had them from your first moment of existence.  That they are yours naturally, it is tyrannical to separate you from them, and as such a legitimate and just government cannot deprive you of them.

Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LeviF]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Indeed, and until they decide otherwise the whole 'it wasn't around in the 1700's' argument doesn't fly (which is an eminently debatable decision IMO but that's another tangent)...I was more referring to the idea that if you concede that 'well-regulated militia' is since 2010 (I think?), by SC opinion, held to 'the people' standard wrt firearm rights, an argument can be made that determining which types of weapons are allowed for public consumption does not infringe upon the 2nd. 

 

Interesting take.  I'm not sure that's actually what the Court did, though, when they said that the 2nd covers self-defense in the home.  Caetano is tough because it's a per curiam decision, but Heller only said that the 2nd covers the right to possess a firearm outside of service in a militia, not that the militia is the people. 

 

Edit to add: it's also noteworthy that the 2nd has both "militia" and "the people" in it as two entities.

Edited February 22, 2018 by LeviF91

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, thebug said:

Who’s the creator? 

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

[thebug]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That was left intentionally vague, as our Founders belied the First to be as important as the Second.  For the purpose of our Constitution it simply means that your rights are intrinsic to your humanity, and you've had them from your first moment of existence.  That they are yours naturally, it is tyrannical to separate you from them, and as such a legitimate and just government cannot deprive you of them.

Fair enough.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Indeed, and until they decide otherwise the whole 'it wasn't around in the 1700's' argument doesn't fly (which is an eminently debatable decision IMO but that's another tangent)...I was more referring to the idea that if you concede that 'well-regulated militia' is since 2010 (I think?), by SC opinion, held to 'the people' standard wrt firearm rights, an argument can be made that determining which types of weapons are allowed for public consumption does not infringe upon the 2nd. 

An argument that tortures language, modifies history to it's own ends, and disregards the purpose of the Amendment in question; but sure, and "argument" can be made.

 

Poor arguments can be made in favor of just about anything.  This place demonstrates that quite adequately by the hour.

Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Interesting position.  In relation to the Second Amendment this can only be an assertion that people are different than they were 300 years ago in their desires.

 

Today there must be:  No despots seeking to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from consequences at the expense of the People, no movement to squash political speech, no massive corruption and criminality in government, no government entities engaging in human trafficking, no war with other nations, no nations hostile towards America.

 

These were the reasons for the Second Amendment, so if the second is antiquated, all of those issues must have been solved?

 

You know, I think I'm beginning to see his point. Of course today, nearly 300 years later, our society has grown and evolved, and has different needs than way back when those dusty old amendments were crafted. In fact, with our current environment being one of such violence and discord, I think it's about time we shut down dangerous speech such as his, so somebody needs to shut down KW95's account, and if he persists in publishing his dangerous rhetoric, he should be arrested.

[thebug]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

Thank you. 

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

 

 

but your big discovery of "born into FREEDOM" held slaves as a huge part of the economy

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

but your big discovery of "born into FREEDOM" held slaves as a huge part of the economy

 

At the time it was a political necessity. 

 

And it wasn't my discovery, nor the founding fathers'. It was the end result of centuries of philosophy and history.

 

Slavery is called this nation's original sin for a reason. The founders could not wage two wars at once - against the most dominant empire in history up until that point AND one against their own people. If they tackled slavery in 1776 (or 1788) it would have split the country before it even got started.

 

They chose to tackle one at a time - for better or worse. It's fair to hold that against them in some respects, but they also left a way to fix their omission... it took another war to do so, but they trusted the future generations to finish the war they started. 

 

And they did.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Interesting take.  I'm not sure that's actually what the Court did, though, when they said that the 2nd covers self-defense in the home.  Caetano is tough because it's a per curiam decision, but Heller only said that the 2nd covers the right to possess a firearm outside of service in a militia, not that the militia is the people. 

 

Edit to add: it's also noteworthy that the 2nd has both "militia" and "the people" in it as two entities.

Yep! It's an admittedly roundabout interpretation, although I say the original text was sufficiently clear in allowing that 'the people' be conflated with 'well-regulated militia', and previous versions of the amendment as well as our nascent government's feelings on a standing army (from Federalists and anti-Federalists alike) imo support that interpretation. At least initially.

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

An argument that tortures language, modifies history to it's own ends, and disregards the purpose of the Amendment in question; but sure, and "argument" can be made.

 

Poor arguments can be made in favor of just about anything.  This place demonstrates that quite adequately by the hour.

You can do better than this

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

but your big discovery of "born into FREEDOM" held slaves as a huge part of the economy

 

 

Correct.  The Founders, men of their own time, were not perfect.  They failed to live up to our 21st century understanding of their actions.  That's how history works.  The modern concept of freedom, self-determination, and natural rights protected by government is only 250 years old on the entire timeline of human history.

 

Think about that: 200,000 years of human history, and until only 250 years ago all but a handful of individuals owned nothing (they had no right to property as we understand it), and lived in serfdom and servitude to those handful of individuals who were free, largely, to do as they pleased to the masses with impunity.  So yes, our Founders were late to the party in regards to other races; but in the timeline of our history, that party only started about 3 minutes ago, and now that the minorities have arrived, we're thrilled to have them here, and are sorry they weren't able to get here earlier because we gave them bad directions.  But you know what?  They're here now with the rest of us, and we're all better off for it... and by the way, did I mention the party only started 3 minutes ago?  Stop bitching and grab a !@#$ing beer.

 

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

You can do better than this

I thought it was a pretty good joke.

 

But to the meat:  I really don't need to do better.  I have historical evidence outlining the Founders' intentions in regard to the Second, have a reading level higher than a 5th grade understanding, and I know how to diagram a sentence.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Yep! It's an admittedly roundabout interpretation, although I say the original text was sufficiently clear in allowing that 'the people' be conflated with 'well-regulated militia', and previous versions of the amendment as well as our nascent government's feelings on a standing army (from Federalists and anti-Federalists alike) imo support that interpretation. At least initially.

 

I can't agree that we can conflate the two.  The debates in the Massachusetts commonwealth as well as the various pamphlets published at the time showed that the Constitution was never to be construed to prevent the people, who are "peaceable citizens," from keeping their own arms.  Militias are mentioned separately.

[Tiberius]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

At the time it was a political necessity. 

 

And it wasn't my discovery, nor the founding fathers'. It was the end result of centuries of philosophy and history.

 

Slavery is called this nation's original sin for a reason. The founders could not wage two wars at once - against the most dominant empire in history up until that point AND one against their own people. If they tackled slavery in 1776 (or 1788) it would have split the country before it even got started.

 

They chose to tackle one at a time - for better or worse. It's fair to hold that against them in some respects, but they also left a way to fix their omission... it took another war to do so, but they trusted the future generations to finish the war they started. 

 

And they did.

You are really bad at history, also. The war against Great Britain had been over for years before the Constitution was written. And many (most?) of the founders had no problem with slavery, especially the southerners. Hamilton was a shining example to the contray, but ironically, he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are really bad at history, also. The war against Great Britain had been over for years before the Constitution was written. And many (most?) of the founders had no problem with slavery, especially the southerners. Hamilton was a shining example to the contray, but ironically, he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[thebug]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Trump? 

[Koko78]

45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

 

This is exactly right. The Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are not granting anyone rights; the document (and amendments) were written specifically and intentionally to limit governmental power, and prevent those 'inalienable rights' from being taken away. The whole !@#$ing point of the document is to prevent a totalitarian/tyrannical/oppressive state.

 

To assume that the government has the power to grant rights necessarily assumes that the government has the power to take them away (which renders said rights meaningless). The Bill of Rights is not meaningless.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, KW95 said:

The Constitution.  Laws created 300 years ago when the Model T was still 200 years away!  Great Stuff

 

Dear KW95,

 

Thank you for your thoughts. We hope you continue to share these thoughts with as many people as you can. Yell them loudly from the rooftops, and we'll be there to provide the amplification you need to ensure everyone can hear your message.

 

Sincerely,

Trump/Pence 2020 Re-Election Campaign

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

This is exactly right. The Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are not granting anyone rights; the document (and amendments) were written specifically and intentionally to limit governmental power, and prevent those 'inalienable rights' from being taken away. The whole !@#$ing point of the document is to prevent a totalitarian/tyrannical/oppressive state.

 

To assume that the government has the power to grant rights necessarily assumes that the government has the power to take them away (which renders said rights meaningless). The Bill of Rights is not meaningless.

In part yes, but it also included a totalitarian/tyranical/oppressive aspects like the fugitive slave section. And the Constitution was also written to strengthen government power, as the Articles of Confederation were seen as a "rope of sand"

 

The first step of freedom  is forcefully fighting an anarchy, chaos and criminality. Stronger gun laws do not limit freedom, they give it to people that would be victims of gun violence 

[LeviF]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hamilton was a shining example to the contray, but ironically, he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

 

Interestingly enough, Hamilton was essentially a monarchist.  He later praised the four-year term for the greater good, but was desirous of a lifetime term.

Just now, Tiberius said:

And the Constitution was also written to strengthen government power, as the Articles of Confederation were seen as a "rope of sand"

 

And the Bill of Rights was put in to put hard limits on the strengths given to the central government, a fact that seems entirely lost on your selective history.