 | |
The Right To Bear Arms
This is a discussion on The Right To Bear Arms within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before ...
| |||||||
| Politics Discuss government policies and candidates... |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-27-2012, 10:33 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis 
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again. SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court: So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
__________________ "The fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." ~~Hillary Clinton  |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
|
12-27-2012, 11:36 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| CONFUSION: The Wording of the Second Amendment Quote:  There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
__________________ "The fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." ~~Hillary Clinton |
|
12-27-2012, 11:41 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Not confusing at all if you know how to read.
__________________ “When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” - Joseph Smith Jr. “Study the Bible, and as many of our books as you can get; pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, have faith in the promises made to the fathers, and your mind will be guided to the truth.” - Joseph Smith Jr. Imagine what good we can do if we all joined together, united as followers of Christ - M. Russell Ballard |
| The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Avatar4321 For This Useful Post: | ||
007  (01-16-2013), Bigfoot (02-24-2013), boedicca (12-29-2012), CrotchetyGeezer (01-09-2013), DiamondDave (12-29-2012), Doc91678 (01-16-2013), Dont Taz Me Bro (12-31-2012), Dreamy (01-16-2013), Ernie S. (12-30-2012), hjmick (02-24-2013), LadyGunSlinger (12-29-2012), Missourian (12-29-2012), Newby (03-12-2013), paravani (01-11-2013), slackjawed (02-24-2013), Soggy in NOLA (12-29-2012), SuMar (12-29-2012), tjvh (12-31-2012), WillowTree (12-30-2012) | ||
|
12-27-2012, 11:59 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| It is confusing to intelligent people.
__________________ "The fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." ~~Hillary Clinton |
|
12-28-2012, 12:02 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota It is confusing to intelligent people.
__________________ “When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” - Joseph Smith Jr. “Study the Bible, and as many of our books as you can get; pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, have faith in the promises made to the fathers, and your mind will be guided to the truth.” - Joseph Smith Jr. Imagine what good we can do if we all joined together, united as followers of Christ - M. Russell Ballard |
|
12-28-2012, 01:22 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again. SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court: So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
__________________ I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. |
|
12-28-2012, 01:34 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again. SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court: So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo? Words penned in ink don't change though. They still mean what they have always meant.
__________________ “When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” - Joseph Smith Jr. “Study the Bible, and as many of our books as you can get; pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, have faith in the promises made to the fathers, and your mind will be guided to the truth.” - Joseph Smith Jr. Imagine what good we can do if we all joined together, united as followers of Christ - M. Russell Ballard |
|
12-28-2012, 02:03 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Harry Dresden
Quote: Originally Posted by Rinata
Quote: Originally Posted by Avatar4321 The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation? “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 does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
__________________ “People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson |
|
12-28-2012, 02:31 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Ernie S.
Quote: Originally Posted by Rinata
Quote: Originally Posted by Avatar4321 The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation? “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 does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today?? When, in the future, a citizen militia may be needed again, it will need arms. A oppressive government isn't about to arm its opposition. In any case, militias do not need guns. I've never seen anything like it!!! The right wing bat crap crazies will say and do anything just to be contrary and fight about keeping their damn guns. Now you are throwing militias into the mix. Read about the militia movement. I was not the least bit surprised to see who is behind it and why. The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America According to the ADL, the militia movement has embroiled themselves since 1994 in a variety of other bombing plots, conspiracies and serious violations of law. Their extreme anti-government ideology, along with their elaborate conspiracy theories and fascination with weaponry and paramilitary organization, lead many members of militia groups to act out in ways that justify the concerns expressed about them by public officials, law enforcement and the general public. Just great.
__________________ “People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson Last edited by Rinata; 12-28-2012 at 02:35 AM. |
|
12-28-2012, 02:47 AM
| |||
| |||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota |
|
12-28-2012, 04:12 AM
| |||
| |||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again. SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court: So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
__________________ GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CRIMINALS Last edited by Abatis; 12-28-2012 at 04:18 AM. |
|
12-28-2012, 04:18 AM
| |||
| |||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Rinata I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent. Madison said: We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen."[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government." All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
__________________ GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CRIMINALS Last edited by Abatis; 12-28-2012 at 04:19 AM. |
|
12-28-2012, 06:51 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again. SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court: So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo? |
|
12-28-2012, 06:53 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Quantum Windbag
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
Quote: Originally Posted by Abatis SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things). SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court: So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo? |
|
12-28-2012, 08:31 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| I'm going to call this thread for those who voted yea. The 2nd Amendment is officially obsolete. Someone tell Scalia.
__________________ The following statement is TRUE. The previous statement is FALSE...... Question: What do I have two of? |
|
« The Man Who Cost Americans 2.9 Trillion
|
Why is Obama trying to sell immigration reform IN OTHER COUNTRIES? »
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
| Search tags for this page |
content,correct wording of 2nd amendment,2nd amendment quotes,the opponents of gun control declaring the second amendment is obsolete today,2nd amendment redefined in 2008,second amendment dated and obsolete,examples of current policial issues of bearing arms of laws and policies
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.
|
Loading links...
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22 PM.
