2nd Amendment Discussion

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

You're talking yourself into a trap that I am about to spring on you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

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

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

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

You have done NO such thing, Link to the document and prove me wrong.

 

[strollingbones]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Emotion is a terrible thing to base laws on

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you were honest, you'd blame the people who insist that the only people with guns in schools are those who are there to shoot kids and teachers.
If you were honest.

 

[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.

You're talking yourself into a trap that I am about to spring on you.

there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

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

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

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

You have done NO such thing, Link to the document and prove me wrong.

i knew you were wrong the first time. thanks for the practice, in Knowing you were wrong, like usual.

Article I, California Constitution - Ballotpedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

You're talking yourself into a trap that I am about to spring on you.

there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

We have laws never heard of federal doctrines

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

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

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

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

You have done NO such thing, Link to the document and prove me wrong.

i knew you were wrong the first time. thanks for the practice, in Knowing you were wrong, like usual.

Article I, California Constitution - Ballotpedia

Commiefornia

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You're talking yourself into a trap that I am about to spring on you.

there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

We have laws never heard of federal doctrines

all you have is excuses, not results.

 

[danielpalos]

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

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

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

You have done NO such thing, Link to the document and prove me wrong.

i knew you were wrong the first time. thanks for the practice, in Knowing you were wrong, like usual.

Article I, California Constitution - Ballotpedia

Commiefornia

Natural rights. Only the right is that clueless and that Causeless.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

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

You have done NO such thing, Link to the document and prove me wrong.

i knew you were wrong the first time. thanks for the practice, in Knowing you were wrong, like usual.

Article I, California Constitution - Ballotpedia

Commiefornia

Natural rights. Only the right is that clueless and that Causeless.

FYI Commiefornia doesn't respect the rights of citizens

 

[danielpalos]

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

You have done NO such thing, Link to the document and prove me wrong.

i knew you were wrong the first time. thanks for the practice, in Knowing you were wrong, like usual.

Article I, California Constitution - Ballotpedia

Commiefornia

Natural rights. Only the right is that clueless and that Causeless.

FYI Commiefornia doesn't respect the rights of citizens

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[MikeK]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

The answer to that question is the very real possibility that an aggressor might be armed with an AK-47 or its equivalent. What is the purpose to learn and practice a martial art?

 

[Blues Man]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

The answer to that question is the very real possibility that an aggressor might be armed with an AK-47 or its equivalent. What is the purpose to learn and practice a martial art?

The wisdom of Mr Miyagi

Daniel: So, karate’s fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won’t have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

 

[danielpalos]

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

This is a Due Process issue that must be addressed by the citizenry of that State.

 

[MikeK]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

The answer to that question is the very real possibility that an aggressor might be armed with an AK-47 or its equivalent. What is the purpose to learn and practice a martial art?

The wisdom of Mr Miyagi

Daniel: So, karate’s fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won’t have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

It fits.

 

[SavannahMann]

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...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.

BTW, I did not say the government lacks the power. They don't have the AUTHORITY to enforce anti-gun laws.