CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[Picaro]

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.

A right to life does not mean that you will live, it means that you have a right to use whatever means is necessary and available to protect your life. That is a God given or natural right that every living creature has. You can call it survival instinct, or anything else you desire, but it exists in all of us, and does not depend on the opinion of others.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inherent in all humans, and is therefore God given, or natural law. The Declaration of Independence just recognizes the obvious.

And, that is not a right, that's a reaction to threats. The First Amendment and freedom of religion clause comes directly from the founding platforms of the Baptist sect, for instance; that is an example of the origin of a right, it's laid out in the Bill Of Rights, and has nothing to do with 'natural law'. Legal constructs do not exist in 'nature', they exist in culture, theology, legal philosophy, and evolution and complexities of Societies.

 

[Picaro]

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

No, what they were saying is the government doesn't give rights the government is supposed to protect those God-given rights.

no, what they are saying is they didn't trust each other as far as they could throw each other, and were trying to limit what they could get away with re the Federal powers. Had nothing to do with 'natural rights' and everything to do with letting the top dogs in their particular states to continue to be top dogs without fear of the other states taking them over. They were more interested in setting up a trade system while maintaining as much independence for themselves as possible. That's why many of the state govts. did exactly what they forbade the Federal govt from doing, such having favored state religious sect, complete with taxing powers.

they also believed owning slaves was a 'natural right' too, so let's not pretend their 'natural law' nonsense actually meant anything other than avoiding giving Christian theology its due as the primary source of humanism and 'natural rights' and the basis of the legal codes.

John Locke was a heavy investor in the slaver trade as well as Jefferson, in case anybody doesn't know that Fun Fact yet. Obviously their ideas of what is 'natural' doesn't match modern ones at all, so take what any of the 'Founders' say for public consumption and political agendas with a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism.

And by the way, Locke was a slave trader as well. 'Natural Law' is just another junk meme 'libertarians' use to make up whatever point they feel like making up. Here is an 'Anarchist' even pointing out how the 'Libertarians' have no clothes and just pull crap out of their asses:

F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?

 

[ding]

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

 

[danielpalos]

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

 

[ding]

Natural rights are not granted by man.

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

Natural rights and natural law go hand in hand. They believed in natural law too. I don't believe that natural rights is wrong at all.

 

[ding]

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

And your understanding of it is flawed.

 

[Picaro]

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

Natural rights and natural law go hand in hand.

True enough; they're both mythical inventions.

They believed in natural law too.

Obviously not; it was just a gimmick and a fad, is all. They didn't practice it in real life; that would mean they would have had to work for a living, and none of the 'Founders', except maybe Franklin, liked that idea at all.

I don't believe that natural rights is wrong at all.

Well, good luck with your fusion of that with Christianity, since they don't mix even little bit.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

And your understanding of it is flawed.

You have nothing but fallacy; how can My understanding be flawed?

 

[ding]

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

Natural rights and natural law go hand in hand.

True enough; they're both mythical inventions.

They believed in natural law too.

Obviously not; it was just a gimmick and a fad, is all. They didn't practice it in real life; that would mean they would have had to work for a living, and none of the 'Founders', except maybe Franklin, liked that idea at all.

I don't believe that natural rights is wrong at all.

Well, good luck with your fusion of that with Christianity, since they don't mix even little bit.

Moral laws say otherwise. Or don't you believe in those either?

 

[ding]

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

And your understanding of it is flawed.

You have nothing but fallacy; how can My understanding be flawed?

Because you believe militia means the states instead of the people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

No, what they were saying is the government doesn't give rights the government is supposed to protect those God-given rights.

no, what they are saying is they didn't trust each other as far as they could throw each other, and were trying to limit what they could get away with re the Federal powers. Had nothing to do with 'natural rights' and everything to do with letting the top dogs in their particular states to continue to be top dogs without fear of the other states taking them over. They were more interested in setting up a trade system while maintaining as much independence for themselves as possible. That's why many of the state govts. did exactly what they forbade the Federal govt from doing, such having favored state religious sect, complete with taxing powers.

they also believed owning slaves was a 'natural right' too, so let's not pretend their 'natural law' nonsense actually meant anything other than avoiding giving Christian theology its due as the primary source of humanism and 'natural rights' and the basis of the legal codes.

John Locke was a heavy investor in the slaver trade as well as Jefferson, in case anybody doesn't know that Fun Fact yet. Obviously their ideas of what is 'natural' doesn't match modern ones at all, so take what any of the 'Founders' say for public consumption and political agendas with a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism.

And by the way, Locke was a slave trader as well. 'Natural Law' is just another junk meme 'libertarians' use to make up whatever point they feel like making up. Here is an 'Anarchist' even pointing out how the 'Libertarians' have no clothes and just pull crap out of their asses:

F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?

You need to do some research
I have natural rights you can be subversive and allow the federal government to pick and choose what rights you have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

Shall not be infringed is not an implication nor does it imply anything. It means what it means

 

[danielpalos]

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

And your understanding of it is flawed.

You have nothing but fallacy; how can My understanding be flawed?

Because you believe militia means the states instead of the people.

Dear, all terms have the same, plural context. Well regulated militia, the People, and the security needs of a free State all require pluralism and Collective Action.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

Shall not be infringed is not an implication nor does it imply anything. It means what it means

lol. for the People who Are, well regulated militia.

 

[ding]

It's good to see that daniel has finally come around to our way of thinking. I'm glad that is settled. My work here is done.

 

[ding]

Russians will never be able to understand the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

Shall not be infringed is not an implication nor does it imply anything. It means what it means

lol. for the People who Are, well regulated militia.

As to be expected in working order.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[danielpalos]

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

Shall not be infringed is not an implication nor does it imply anything. It means what it means

lol. for the People who Are, well regulated militia.

As to be expected in working order.

Only in the ignorance of right wing fantasy.

For the True militia of the United States, wellness of regulation Must be prescribed by our federal Congress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All you can do is quibble. The 2nd Amendment is clear and explicit.

That is all I need to do. Our Second Amendment is clear and Express, not Implied.

Shall not be infringed is not an implication nor does it imply anything. It means what it means

lol. for the People who Are, well regulated militia.

As to be expected in working order.

Only in the ignorance of right wing fantasy.

For the True militia of the United States, wellness of regulation Must be prescribed by our federal Congress.

If that were true the second amendment would have been written this way
A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall be prescribed by the Congress