The Second Amendment's right to self defense

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing you posted here negates -anything- I said.

okay let's do this over

I last posted:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the importance of, the others.

Nothing you have posted negates this.
If you disagree, then please address what I said and show how it is not so.

As you have done nothing to address, much less negate, what I said, the only sound conslusion here is that you agree with me.
Thank you very much.

I posted the full back and forth...so you can see.


you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the importance of, the others.

Still waiting for you to address this and show how it is unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

okay let's do this over

I last posted:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the importance of, the others.

Nothing you have posted negates this.
If you disagree, then please address what I said and show how it is not so.

As you have done nothing to address, much less negate, what I said, the only sound conslusion here is that you agree with me.
Thank you very much.

I posted the full back and forth...so you can see.

You posted a bunch of stuff that does nothing to negate the soundness of what I said, a fact I pointed out the first time you posted it.


Now, stop being an intellectual lightweight and at least TRY to counter my positon, or admit you cannot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

M14 Shooter of Blanks: I posted the back and forth. In it I raise the question which you never answer.

you were specifically asked if you were "arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?"

you posted "Everything I said in that regard is sound."


I told you "I guess it sucks to take things out of context"

you replied "and now show how I have done so."

You are arguing for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that uses words NOT contained in the actual document.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...nts-right-to-self-defense-11.html#post5239679

taken out of context: ""The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment."

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter of Blanks: I posted the back and forth. In it I raise the question which you never answer.

you were specifically asked if you were "arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?"

you posted "Everything I said in that regard is sound."


I told you "I guess it sucks to take things out of context"

you replied "and now show how I have done so."

You are arguing for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that uses words NOT contained in the actual document.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...nts-right-to-self-defense-11.html#post5239679

I apologize for taking you seriously and thinking you were actually interested in an honest discussion. I certainly won't make that mistake again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's official: M14 Shooter is firing blanks.

M14 Shooter of Blanks: I posted the back and forth. In it I raise the question which you never answer.

you were specifically asked if you were "arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?"

you posted "Everything I said in that regard is sound."


I told you "I guess it sucks to take things out of context"

you replied "and now show how I have done so."

You are arguing for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that uses words NOT contained in the actual document.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...nts-right-to-self-defense-11.html#post5239679

taken out of context: ""The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment."

It's official: M14 Shooter is firing blanks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The right to keep and bear arms covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them.

from a legal and constitutional standpoint its is arguable and always has been.



that is why strict constructionists, texualists, and others still argue over it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

the 2nd never mentions the words self defense.

We can and do argue over interpretations of the actual words contained in the 2nd.

so people like M14 Shooter-of-Blanks are going to have to be consistent in principle when arguing over other amendments.


thank you rightwinger. thank you


dD

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...so having a look at this old dusty document, found crumbled up in the back of a storage room, called the "United States Constitution", we find some arguments.

The Second Amendment is not just about guns, it outlines your right of self defense.
of course the Second Amendment doesn't actually SAY "self defense", so that's an open door for the modern legal vultures to change everything to mean, 'what ever the rich say, that's what you have to do'
the founders of the nation were hoping the country would never become to stupit....

to stupit for words

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That said, I think that law abiding citizens who want guns should have them if they want them, as long as they are licensed and trained and can pass a basic competency test.

That may not pass Constitutional muster. The majority of states and jurisdictions don’t have licensing and training requirements, except for concealed carry, which is reasonable given it’s otherwise a crime.

Requiring a citizen be licensed and ‘trained’ before taking ownership of a firearm could be construed as an undue burden. Moreover, there is no evidence in support of such requirements, that licensing and training will prevent gun owners from committing crimes.

I don't think I'm any freer and safer because Jared Loughner or Seung-Hui Cho can walk into a gun store and buy a bunch of firearms when they are obviously out of their minds and are going to do great damage.

The problem with various gun restrictions and bans is that they’re predicated on the doctrine of presumption of guilt, that there must be something ‘wrong’ with someone who wishes to own a gun, and barriers and hurtles must be placed between the potential gun owner and the gun in question.

The doctrine, however, is likely un-Constitutional.

That one may abuse a given right is not justification for its restriction or preemption. One is arrested after he yells ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, not before.

Incorrect.
The right to arms is a fuundamental right protected specifically by the Constitution.
Thus, strict scrutiny, which assumes the restriction violates the Constitution until the state shows compelling interest and least restrictive means, applies.

No, this is incorrect. The Second Amendment is not considered a fundamental right, and strict scrutiny is not a mandatory level of judicial review accordingly. Indeed, there are cases that do concern fundamental rights where the justices have elected to not apply strict scrutiny.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yep

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have.

so you want to ban cars? what an idiot, Kennedy's car?



whoop-dee-doo-da-day!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be limited to government approval. - that phrase contains the phrase 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms ' too.

I guess it sucks to take things out of context.

Yes... and now show how I have done so.

Everything I said in that regard is sound; if you dusagree, then please address what I said and show how it is not so.

again: To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have.

so you want to ban cars? what an idiot, Kennedy's car?



whoop-dee-doo-da-day!

Cars kill more people everyday than guns do.

It's even more stupid to want to ban guns.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have.

so you want to ban cars? what an idiot, Kennedy's car?



whoop-dee-doo-da-day!

Cars kill more people everyday than guns do.

It's even more stupid to want to ban guns.

stfu,I don't want to ban guns. you need to take your meds. pay attention to your real life...get off the computer and stop looking to start fights with people who agree with you on principle, but not idiocies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so you want to ban cars? what an idiot, Kennedy's car?



whoop-dee-doo-da-day!

Cars kill more people everyday than guns do.

It's even more stupid to want to ban guns.

stfu,I don't want to ban guns. you need to take your meds. pay attention to your real life...get off the computer and stop looking to start fights with people who agree with you on principle, but not idiocies.

OK let's restrict all car within the city limits and no cars are to be allowed no closer than 1000 feet to any place that sells alcohol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Cars kill more people everyday than guns do.

It's even more stupid to want to ban guns.

stfu,I don't want to ban guns. you need to take your meds. pay attention to your real life...get off the computer and stop looking to start fights with people who agree with you on principle, but not idiocies.

OK let's restrict all car within the city limits and no cars are to be allowed no closer than 1000 feet to any place that sells alcohol

just say no

 

[bigrebnc1775]

stfu,I don't want to ban guns. you need to take your meds. pay attention to your real life...get off the computer and stop looking to start fights with people who agree with you on principle, but not idiocies.

OK let's restrict all car within the city limits and no cars are to be allowed no closer than 1000 feet to any place that sells alcohol

just say no

Cars kill more people than guns do.

 

[rightwinger]

OK let's restrict all car within the city limits and no cars are to be allowed no closer than 1000 feet to any place that sells alcohol

just say no

Cars kill more people than guns do.

How many people do guns drive to work?