CDZ The 2nd Amendment

Leo123

Diamond Member
Aug 26, 2017
29,684
22,557
2,415
Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?


Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
 
Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Do you know about the English Bill of Rights? It didn't apply to most English people. Just the rich.

"Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

Yes, Protestants, not anyone else, may have arms for their defence "as allowed by law", so, if the law said "you can't have arms", then the right meant nothing.
 
Picaro said:
otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat
The Courts Have Decided Along The Way
They Have Jurisdiction To Rule On Anything
The Precedent Becomes The Law Everywhere

The Courts Have Become Our Mullas
Declaring Law By Decree
Sam Alito Insinuated That In His Dissent With The ACA Ruling
 
Picaro said:
otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat
The Courts Have Decided Along The Way
They Have Jurisdiction To Rule On Anything
The Precedent Becomes The Law Everywhere

The Courts Have Become Our Mullas
Declaring Law By Decree
Sam Alito Insinuated That In His Dissent With The ACA Ruling

And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?


Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
You have a natural right to life, but you are saying you don't have a right to live
 
frigidweirdo said:
And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.
The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....
 
frigidweirdo said:
And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.
The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?


Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
You're all over the map. Most theist thinkers support the idea of natural or "god-given" rights because god made us in his own image, and therefore everyone deserves sovereignty over themselves. That's the argument anyway, although that hasn't and still hasn't stopped people who fear the almighty god from shitting all over other people, be it their differing faith, skin color or sexual orientation... all in the name of the almighty god.

So if rights aren't natural, which is basically an atheist way of saying "god-given", then where do rights come from? Or are people just there to be crushed under the boot of someone else who manages to amass the most power?
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?


Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
You have a natural right to life, but you are saying you don't have a right to live

Your point makes no sense. People die all the time, it's part of the life cycle. there is no 'natural law' that says you can't get sick, die in childbirth, have accidents, etc., and live forever. Rights are social constructs and don't derive from nature, that's a fictional premise.
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?


Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.


You're all over the map.


Not at all; rights evolve, just like laws, culture, and traditions do. If that bothers some people, that is their issue to deal with.

Most theist thinkers support the idea of natural or "god-given" rights because god made us in his own image, and therefore everyone deserves sovereignty over themselves. That's the argument anyway, although that hasn't and still hasn't stopped people who fear the almighty god from shitting all over other people, be it their differing faith, skin color or sexual orientation... all in the name of the almighty god.

Not interested in the deflections, just the premise there is some body of 'Rights' inherent in 'Nature' itself. I understand why anarchists and the proponents of mindless self-indulgence would want to promote such nonsense, I just don't have to parrot their propaganda, just because Locke and some other sophists don't want to credit Christian theology for being the primary sources for the idea of individual rights in modern law and society, that's all.

So if rights aren't natural, which is basically an atheist way of saying "god-given", then where do rights come from? Or are people just there to be crushed under the boot of someone else who manages to amass the most power?

lol what drama ... hate to break it to you but throughout most of human history, and around the world today, the latter is the way it is and has been. You live in a tiny historical bubble in a tiny bubble of a wealthy country, so you wouldn't have the first clue that your 'natural rights' are just social constructs derived from largely theological traditions and concepts.

You keep bringing up 'atheists' for some reason, don't know why; they could care less about 'natural rights', or any other morals based intellectual constructs, outside of a few intellectuals like Hayek and some others. They're mostly mindless, ignorant Dawkins' fans these days.
 
frigidweirdo said:
And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.
The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.
 
Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
 
frigidweirdo said:
And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.
The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Actually the 'Framers' intended for Congress to overshadow the Supreme Court, ans as we know from the historical record they let the states handle their own gun laws as the individual states saw fit .
 
A little off-topic, but has some relevance re 'Original Intent' claims:

Politicizing the Supreme Court | Stanford Law Review

"Still, the Framers believed Congress would overshadow the Supreme Court. The Framers were so concerned about helping the Court repel attacks by the legislature that they considered boosting its power and inserting it into political issues. James Madison’s draft of the Constitution included an
additional check against congressional power, the Council of Revision. 8 James Madison, Tuesday May 29 in Convention, in 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 21 (Max Farrand ed., 1937).

It is difficult to visualize the effects of the Council of Revision if it had been included in the Constitution. Imagine that when Congress approved the Affordable Care Act, it was never taken to the White House for presentment. Rather, if the Council included the two most senior Supreme Court Justices, then President Obama, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Scalia might have met in the Capitol at a regular Council meeting and announced in a postmeeting press conference that the Council had rejected it. Assume Chief Justice Roberts believed the law was bad policy. Justice Scalia might say the bill was unconstitutional and a bad bill, President Obama would say it was constitutional and a good bill, and Chief Justice Roberts might say it was constitutional but a bad bill. Had the Framers split the revisionary power between the Court and the President, perhaps the Court would have announced before President Obama’s signing ceremony that it had rejected the bill by a vote of five to four, with Chief Justice Roberts casting the decisive vote against the bill on policy grounds despite majority support for the bill’s constitutionality.

Justices would have the power to oppose legislation on nonlegal policy grounds. The Council is nowhere to be found in the Convention’s final product, but delegates’ arguments from the Council debates reveal a suspicion of Congress, fear for the Court’s ability to defend itself, and concern for the Court’s public reputation. Madison believed that even with the Council, Congress would be an “overmatch” for the Supreme Court and President and cited the experience of spurned state supreme courts.

Experience in all the States had evinced a powerful tendency in the Legislature to absorb all power into its vortex. This was the real source of danger to the American Constitutions; & suggested the necessity of giving every defensive authority to the other departments that was consistent with republican principles.

10 James Madison, Saturday July 21 in Convention, in 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 74 (Max Farrand ed., 1937). Delegates ultimately decided that politicizing the Court would undercut its legitimacy. Luther Martin, a delegate who later became Maryland’s longest-serving attorney general, offered the most prescient comment on the subject: “It is necessary that the Supreme Judiciary should have the confidence of the people. This will soon be lost, if they are employed in the task of remonstrating [against] popular measures of the Legislature.” 11 Id. at 77. “It was making the Expositors of the Laws, the Legislators which ought never to be done,” added Elbridge Gerry, a Massachusetts delegate. 12 Id. at 75."

Bold added by me.
 
Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?


Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
You have a natural right to life, but you are saying you don't have a right to live

Your point makes no sense. People die all the time, it's part of the life cycle. there is no 'natural law' that says you can't get sick, die in childbirth, have accidents, etc., and live forever. Rights are social constructs and don't derive from nature, that's a fictional premise.
Yes people die every day that still doesn't negate that you have the right to life and the government cannot take it away without due process. You have no right to murder anyone
 
frigidweirdo said:
And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.
The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.


No... it was the Framers intent that the Supreme Court would be the weakest part of the government, the left wing has turned the Supreme Court into an unelected Congress....making and passing laws....
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top