2nd Amendment Discussion

[bigrebnc1775]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

As with any God given right the government cannot take it away

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not natural rights. it says so in the first clause.

Free state meaning country

 

[emilynghiem]

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

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.

"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."

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

for the same irrational reasons that rightists automatically assume "liberals want all of our guns" when they say "no machine guns".....is my guess.....

Dear anynameyouwish
It's a similar preemptive tactic that liberal prochoice use
when lobbying against prolife restrictions on abortion as
wanting to control women's bodies as a war on women.

What both sides DON'T want is to open the gate for
MORE and MORE controls when they didn't agree to any
interference from govt in the first place.

The solution is policies by CONSENSUS of the people
directly under those policies. Let all districts decide democratically
for themselves, and quit trying to dictate one policy for the whole
nation. that scares both sides to death when it comes to either
guns or abortion which invoke the fear of govt intruding on individual rights,
due process, and consent on policies and terms of regulations affecting us personally.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is federal

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

As with any God given right the government cannot take it away

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not natural rights. it says so in the first clause.

Free state meaning country

Our States are sovereign republics or commonwealths, joined in a more perfect Union.

 

[danielpalos]

...thanks, Emily, for "getting in between us and helping us argue, opposing points of view." xoxo

 

[M14 Shooter]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

Codified in a State supreme law of the State land.

Wrong. Cite your source. You need some new material.

lol.

Our California State Constitution.

the biggest liars are the right wing.

You must be as far right as they get.

you need valid arguments. simple bigotry with inferior arguments, doesn't work with me.

WTF are you talking about? Off your meds?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

thanks for the practice.

Practice? You need practice to be an idiot and a troll???

lol. why is that? you are the one with Nothing but fallacy.

You need some new material. You are the greatest fallacy on USM

lol. coming from You?

You need some new material.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

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.

"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."

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

for the same irrational reasons that rightists automatically assume "liberals want all of our guns" when they say "no machine guns".....is my guess.....

To a liberal every gun is a machine gun, sniper weapon, assault weapon or Saturday Night Special.

All free men have UNALIENABLE Rights

 

[emilynghiem]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is federal

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

Dear danielpalos

1. the Second Amendment right to bear arms that Conservatives and Constitutionalists invoke and enforce are an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights that also includes
due process
right to assemble peaceably
right to security in persons houses and effects
right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws
The later 14th Amendment added equal protection of the laws
extending to STATES. (and the Civil Rights act attempted to extend
equal protections from discrimination to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
especially those receiving federal funding)

Are you okay with other people exercising and defending their
beliefs on these concepts in that Constitutional context?

2. if we don't agree on using these two parallel contexts,
then even by the First Amendment individuals should be
able to defend their own beliefs under their own system
without imposition by people under a different belief or creed.

If we can agree to respect both, we can likely resolve
the issues by agreeing on principles in common even
though both sides cite different systems to get to the same points and conclusions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I wonder if she wrote her post in 18th writing implements? According to her, that is the only form of protected free speech.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I wonder if she wrote her post in 18th writing implements? According to her, that is the only form of protected free speech.

Funny thing is, they think "but...muskets!" is a new and novel argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is federal

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

Dear danielpalos

1. the Second Amendment right to bear arms that Conservatives and Constitutionalists invoke and enforce are an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights that also includes
due process
right to assemble peaceably
right to security in persons houses and effects
right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws
The later 14th Amendment added equal protection of the laws
extending to STATES. (and the Civil Rights act attempted to extend
equal protections from discrimination to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
especially those receiving federal funding)

Are you okay with other people exercising and defending their
beliefs on these concepts in that Constitutional context?

2. if we don't agree on using these two parallel contexts,
then even by the First Amendment individuals should be
able to defend their own beliefs under their own system
without imposition by people under a different belief or creed.

If we can agree to respect both, we can likely resolve
the issues by agreeing on principles in common even
though both sides cite different systems to get to the same points and conclusions.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is federal

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

Dear danielpalos

1. the Second Amendment right to bear arms that Conservatives and Constitutionalists invoke and enforce are an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights that also includes
due process
right to assemble peaceably
right to security in persons houses and effects
right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws
The later 14th Amendment added equal protection of the laws
extending to STATES. (and the Civil Rights act attempted to extend
equal protections from discrimination to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
especially those receiving federal funding)

Are you okay with other people exercising and defending their
beliefs on these concepts in that Constitutional context?

2. if we don't agree on using these two parallel contexts,
then even by the First Amendment individuals should be
able to defend their own beliefs under their own system
without imposition by people under a different belief or creed.

If we can agree to respect both, we can likely resolve
the issues by agreeing on principles in common even
though both sides cite different systems to get to the same points and conclusions.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

Sure danielpalos and for states to be free and secure still includes citizens with rights and responsibilities for "the people being the government"

Again, not just free speech and the right to petition, bear arms, etc. But enforcing the whole Context of the Bill of Rights TOGETHER, where citizens have free exercise of religion and all these other rights WITHIN the context of respecting due process so NOBODYS rights freedoms or security is violated.

Where people democratically participate in govt, that includes bearing arms and right to defense to ENFORCE laws equally as govt does.

danielpalos even if you don't believe in taking it that far, other Constitutionalists who do exercise equal rights and responsibilities as govt are entitled to equal protections of the laws for these Constitutional beliefs by which people are the govt and the consent of the governed is the basis of law, civil contracts, and public authority.

Even as a voluntary choice of belief, people have equal rights to this without having to justify their beliefs to govt first before having rights to free exercise. As long as the exercise is in keeping with following and defending laws and rights, not any kind of abuse either civil or criminal.

Just because you don't share these beliefs doesn't mean you or anyone has the right to abuse govt to exclude or prevent others from exercising and practicing, funding and following their own Constitutional beliefs like any other Creed that can't be excluded punished penalized regulated or forced by govt. Only if you commit a crime and go thru due process could you lose rights by violating these same laws.

 

[Gracie]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I wonder if she wrote her post in 18th writing implements? According to her, that is the only form of protected free speech.

Gaur'son! Do fetch me my smelling salts. I feel faint.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is federal

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

Dear danielpalos

1. the Second Amendment right to bear arms that Conservatives and Constitutionalists invoke and enforce are an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights that also includes
due process
right to assemble peaceably
right to security in persons houses and effects
right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws
The later 14th Amendment added equal protection of the laws
extending to STATES. (and the Civil Rights act attempted to extend
equal protections from discrimination to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
especially those receiving federal funding)

Are you okay with other people exercising and defending their
beliefs on these concepts in that Constitutional context?

2. if we don't agree on using these two parallel contexts,
then even by the First Amendment individuals should be
able to defend their own beliefs under their own system
without imposition by people under a different belief or creed.

If we can agree to respect both, we can likely resolve
the issues by agreeing on principles in common even
though both sides cite different systems to get to the same points and conclusions.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

Sure danielpalos and for states to be free and secure still includes citizens with rights and responsibilities for "the people being the government"

Again, not just free speech and the right to petition, bear arms, etc. But enforcing the whole Context of the Bill of Rights TOGETHER, where citizens have free exercise of religion and all these other rights WITHIN the context of respecting due process so NOBODYS rights freedoms or security is violated.

Where people democratically participate in govt, that includes bearing arms and right to defense to ENFORCE laws equally as govt does.

danielpalos even if you don't believe in taking it that far, other Constitutionalists who do exercise equal rights and responsibilities as govt are entitled to equal protections of the laws for these Constitutional beliefs by which people are the govt and the consent of the governed is the basis of law, civil contracts, and public authority.

Even as a voluntary choice of belief, people have equal rights to this without having to justify their beliefs to govt first before having rights to free exercise. As long as the exercise is in keeping with following and defending laws and rights, not any kind of abuse either civil or criminal.

Just because you don't share these beliefs doesn't mean you or anyone has the right to abuse govt to exclude or prevent others from exercising and practicing, funding and following their own Constitutional beliefs like any other Creed that can't be excluded punished penalized regulated or forced by govt. Only if you commit a crime and go thru due process could you lose rights by violating these same laws.

you miss the point, dear. our Second Amendment is Express not Implied in Any way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

so one really thinks they can stand against the armed forces of the government?

True.

In fact, there’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that recognizes ‘insurrectionist dogma’ – the wrongheaded notion that private citizens have the ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First; it doesn’t abridge the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

The Framers would have never amended the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[emilynghiem]

The second amendment is federal

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

Dear danielpalos

1. the Second Amendment right to bear arms that Conservatives and Constitutionalists invoke and enforce are an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights that also includes
due process
right to assemble peaceably
right to security in persons houses and effects
right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws
The later 14th Amendment added equal protection of the laws
extending to STATES. (and the Civil Rights act attempted to extend
equal protections from discrimination to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
especially those receiving federal funding)

Are you okay with other people exercising and defending their
beliefs on these concepts in that Constitutional context?

2. if we don't agree on using these two parallel contexts,
then even by the First Amendment individuals should be
able to defend their own beliefs under their own system
without imposition by people under a different belief or creed.

If we can agree to respect both, we can likely resolve
the issues by agreeing on principles in common even
though both sides cite different systems to get to the same points and conclusions.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

Sure danielpalos and for states to be free and secure still includes citizens with rights and responsibilities for "the people being the government"

Again, not just free speech and the right to petition, bear arms, etc. But enforcing the whole Context of the Bill of Rights TOGETHER, where citizens have free exercise of religion and all these other rights WITHIN the context of respecting due process so NOBODYS rights freedoms or security is violated.

Where people democratically participate in govt, that includes bearing arms and right to defense to ENFORCE laws equally as govt does.

danielpalos even if you don't believe in taking it that far, other Constitutionalists who do exercise equal rights and responsibilities as govt are entitled to equal protections of the laws for these Constitutional beliefs by which people are the govt and the consent of the governed is the basis of law, civil contracts, and public authority.

Even as a voluntary choice of belief, people have equal rights to this without having to justify their beliefs to govt first before having rights to free exercise. As long as the exercise is in keeping with following and defending laws and rights, not any kind of abuse either civil or criminal.

Just because you don't share these beliefs doesn't mean you or anyone has the right to abuse govt to exclude or prevent others from exercising and practicing, funding and following their own Constitutional beliefs like any other Creed that can't be excluded punished penalized regulated or forced by govt. Only if you commit a crime and go thru due process could you lose rights by violating these same laws.

you miss the point, dear. our Second Amendment is Express not Implied in Any way.

???
What are you arguing about then?
If the law as stated can be interpreted both ways,
what's wrong with including BOTH ways.

Some people like you want to focus on govt regulations to police and screen out criminal or mental cases.

Some people focus on rights of LAWABIDING citizens to bear arms to defend and enforce laws NOT to violate them but PROTECT security and rights of people to life liberty and due process from intrusion or violation.

Why not have BOTH interpretations?

Why argue then? danielpalos

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses it is about the security of a free State not natural rights. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

Dear danielpalos

1. the Second Amendment right to bear arms that Conservatives and Constitutionalists invoke and enforce are an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights that also includes
due process
right to assemble peaceably
right to security in persons houses and effects
right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws
The later 14th Amendment added equal protection of the laws
extending to STATES. (and the Civil Rights act attempted to extend
equal protections from discrimination to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
especially those receiving federal funding)

Are you okay with other people exercising and defending their
beliefs on these concepts in that Constitutional context?

2. if we don't agree on using these two parallel contexts,
then even by the First Amendment individuals should be
able to defend their own beliefs under their own system
without imposition by people under a different belief or creed.

If we can agree to respect both, we can likely resolve
the issues by agreeing on principles in common even
though both sides cite different systems to get to the same points and conclusions.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

Sure danielpalos and for states to be free and secure still includes citizens with rights and responsibilities for "the people being the government"

Again, not just free speech and the right to petition, bear arms, etc. But enforcing the whole Context of the Bill of Rights TOGETHER, where citizens have free exercise of religion and all these other rights WITHIN the context of respecting due process so NOBODYS rights freedoms or security is violated.

Where people democratically participate in govt, that includes bearing arms and right to defense to ENFORCE laws equally as govt does.

danielpalos even if you don't believe in taking it that far, other Constitutionalists who do exercise equal rights and responsibilities as govt are entitled to equal protections of the laws for these Constitutional beliefs by which people are the govt and the consent of the governed is the basis of law, civil contracts, and public authority.

Even as a voluntary choice of belief, people have equal rights to this without having to justify their beliefs to govt first before having rights to free exercise. As long as the exercise is in keeping with following and defending laws and rights, not any kind of abuse either civil or criminal.

Just because you don't share these beliefs doesn't mean you or anyone has the right to abuse govt to exclude or prevent others from exercising and practicing, funding and following their own Constitutional beliefs like any other Creed that can't be excluded punished penalized regulated or forced by govt. Only if you commit a crime and go thru due process could you lose rights by violating these same laws.

you miss the point, dear. our Second Amendment is Express not Implied in Any way.

???
What are you arguing about then?
If the law as stated can be interpreted both ways,
what's wrong with including BOTH ways.

Some people like you want to focus on govt regulations to police and screen out criminal or mental cases.

Some people focus on rights of LAWABIDING citizens to bear arms to defend and enforce laws NOT to violate them but PROTECT security and rights of people to life liberty and due process from intrusion or violation.

Why not have BOTH interpretations?

Why argue then? danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not natural rights. It expressly says it, in the first clause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

.....

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.

^ Here Porter Rockwell and cc danielpalos
Let's start from here which is new material for me.
This is the first I've seen DP post any beliefs in inalienable rights.
This sounds like DP equivalent of beliefs in natural rights under the US Constitution.
Except citing CA state laws instead of federal level or natural laws by God.

Can we start here and just allow both to use their own language
for laws on inalienable rights?

Also we may have differences in political beliefs.
So if religious freedom and creeds are equally individual rights
under either US or State laws, can we get around our differences
by chalking them up as individually protected as religious beliefs or creeds.

Is that the same under CA and US laws?
That people have equal religious freedom of beliefs
and can't be forced by govt to impose on these?

I have no idea what you're trying to convey, but I have unalienable Rights. In law there is a difference: