Status
Not open for further replies.

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, 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.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
It BECOMES a liability when someone shoots up a movie theater, school, or uses it to try and overthrow a non-tyrannical government.

I encourage those with a death-grip on their guns to put them down FOR A MOMENT, and pick up a book and read about REAL tyranny in world history.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,944
Reaction score
9,980
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
A man gets killed by another man with a knife and everyone understands that the killer, the man is to blame. A man gets killed by a man with a firearm and suddenly the firearm is to blame. People kill people not inanimate objects.
 

Divine.Wind

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
20,475
Reaction score
5,469
Points
420
This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
 

Divine.Wind

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
20,475
Reaction score
5,469
Points
420
A man gets killed by another man with a knife and everyone understands that the killer, the man is to blame. A man gets killed by a man with a firearm and suddenly the firearm is to blame. People kill people not inanimate objects.
Agreed.

 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
A man gets killed by another man with a knife and everyone understands that the killer, the man is to blame. A man gets killed by a man with a firearm and suddenly the firearm is to blame. People kill people not inanimate objects.
Last time I checked, you can't be killed from 100 feet away by a bullet. Nor can you kill dozens of people in seconds while standing in one place with a knife.

Really, a knife? Seriously? If knives are equally as deadly then certainly guns are useless in self-defense situations.
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
A man gets killed by another man with a knife and everyone understands that the killer, the man is to blame. A man gets killed by a man with a firearm and suddenly the firearm is to blame. People kill people not inanimate objects.
Agreed.

Childish and dumb. You think gun control advocates don't agree with putting murderers in jail?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
Sure. Which is why one must be a peaceable law abiding citizen. The problem with your logic is when you remove rights of peaceable law abiding citizens due to the actions of violent law breaking citizens.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
 

GaryDog

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
530
Points
195
I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
Sure. Which is why one must be a peaceable law abiding citizen. The problem with your logic is when you remove rights of peaceable law abiding citizens due to the actions of violent law breaking citizens.
The problem with your logic is that you believe holding a gun makes your ideals the greatest. It doesn't. Freedom of speech allows the prevailing of the best ideas. Gun rights merely allows the prevalence of "might makes right" even if the "citizen" exercising the right is actually very, very wrong.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,237
Reaction score
11,516
Points
2,040
By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
It BECOMES a liability when someone shoots up a movie theater, school, or uses it to try and overthrow a non-tyrannical government.

I encourage those with a death-grip on their guns to put them down FOR A MOMENT, and pick up a book and read about REAL tyranny in world history.
All freedoms have some liability to them. The work of Police would be easier without the 4th amendment, the work of prosecutors easier without having to depend on juries, or having only one "bite at the apple" due to double jeopardy. Yet we accept these liabilities because they protect individuals from the tyranny of government (and each other).

I have a right to keep and bear arms. That right should not be infringed, but in NYC it is. Right now I have to pay $1000 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,237
Reaction score
11,516
Points
2,040
I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
Sure. Which is why one must be a peaceable law abiding citizen. The problem with your logic is when you remove rights of peaceable law abiding citizens due to the actions of violent law breaking citizens.
The problem with your logic is that you believe holding a gun makes your ideals the greatest. It doesn't. Freedom of speech allows the prevailing of the best ideas. Gun rights merely allows the prevalence of "might makes right" even if the "citizen" exercising the right is actually very, very wrong.
Guns actually prevent "might makes right" from being the law of the land. Remove guns and you are back to the biggest and strongest among us being able to boss others around.

Bad situation for women most of all.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
No. The 2nd amendment is still in force. Would you remove my 2nd amendment right because of something someone else did? Do you want to ban all guns? Would you like all guns to be confiscated?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,476
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
It BECOMES a liability when someone shoots up a movie theater, school, or uses it to try and overthrow a non-tyrannical government.

I encourage those with a death-grip on their guns to put them down FOR A MOMENT, and pick up a book and read about REAL tyranny in world history.
All freedoms have some liability to them. The work of Police would be easier without the 4th amendment, the work of prosecutors easier without having to depend on juries, or having only one "bite at the apple" due to double jeopardy. Yet we accept these liabilities because they protect individuals from the tyranny of government (and each other).

I have a right to keep and bear arms. That right should not be infringed, but in NYC it is. Right now I have to pay $1000 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Sure. That doesn't make it right or legal. But it is what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top