The Second Amendment's right to self defense

[bigrebnc1775]

what has our legal system accomplished by trying to prosecute people who defend themselves?

The right to self defense, as with all other rights, is not absolute, and it is subject to appropriate and reasonable restrictions.

What are inalienable rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know quite a few liberals that have been against weapons most of their lives, and taught lots of them basic hungun gun, and advanced hundgun classes last year. Some of them are asking for rifle safety classes. I think that is a really good thing, and I like teaching new students.

Liberals who are truly liberal, find it very difficult to support bans on guns. Handgun controls in urban areas, are an area where we can all cordially agree to disagree with each other, but where outright bans on weapons with no overwhelming cause is presented except 'guns kill people' or 'guns are bad' should make liberals shiver with fear. There are often competing interests in legal cases concerning the Bill of Rights, but the arguments in favor of curbs on rights have to be weighted heavily on harm caused to the society as a whole.

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.

 

[Dante]

The right 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 imprtance of, the others.

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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment.
Everything I said in that regard is sound.

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.

 

[Dante]

What are inalienable rights?

some made up philosophical argument?

 

[jillian]

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

Shhhhhh.... you can't tell them that.

I find it amusing the GUn Nuts are still going on, even though the Democrats gave up on Gun control about 12 years ago.

i wouldn't go back that far. but it certainly isn't at the top of the issues that are going to be addressed any time soon.

but they figure if they say it often enough, stupid people will believe it.

 

[Dante]

I know quite a few liberals that have been against weapons most of their lives, and taught lots of them basic hungun gun, and advanced hundgun classes last year. Some of them are asking for rifle safety classes. I think that is a really good thing, and I like teaching new students.

Liberals who are truly liberal, find it very difficult to support bans on guns. Handgun controls in urban areas, are an area where we can all cordially agree to disagree with each other, but where outright bans on weapons with no overwhelming cause is presented except 'guns kill people' or 'guns are bad' should make liberals shiver with fear. There are often competing interests in legal cases concerning the Bill of Rights, but the arguments in favor of curbs on rights have to be weighted heavily on harm caused to the society as a whole.

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Liberals who are truly liberal, find it very difficult to support bans on guns. Handgun controls in urban areas, are an area where we can all cordially agree to disagree with each other, but where outright bans on weapons with no overwhelming cause is presented except 'guns kill people' or 'guns are bad' should make liberals shiver with fear. There are often competing interests in legal cases concerning the Bill of Rights, but the arguments in favor of curbs on rights have to be weighted heavily on harm caused to the society as a whole.

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment.
Everything I said in that regard is sound.

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 disagree, then please address what I said and show how it is not so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Shhhhhh.... you can't tell them that.

I find it amusing the GUn Nuts are still going on, even though the Democrats gave up on Gun control about 12 years ago.

i wouldn't go back that far . but it certainly isn't at the top of the issues that are going to be addressed any time soon.
but they figure if they say it often enough, stupid people will believe it.

Taking -another- break from cleaning toilets?
Must be a union shop.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Liberals who are truly liberal, find it very difficult to support bans on guns. Handgun controls in urban areas, are an area where we can all cordially agree to disagree with each other, but where outright bans on weapons with no overwhelming cause is presented except 'guns kill people' or 'guns are bad' should make liberals shiver with fear. There are often competing interests in legal cases concerning the Bill of Rights, but the arguments in favor of curbs on rights have to be weighted heavily on harm caused to the society as a whole.

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Nothing you posted here negates -anything- I said.

 

[Dante]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment.
Everything I said in that regard is sound.

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

States are granted powers by the people that create them; as such, states cannot grant rights to their people.

 

[Dante]

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights? Prove it. Prove it without some philosophical clap trap or religious argument. If these things exist and you see them so clearly, show them. Prove they exist

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Again:
"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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights? Prove it. Prove it without some philosophical clap trap or religious argument. If these things exist and you see them so clearly, show them. Prove they exist

Do you believe in the founding documents of this country?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

States are granted powers by the people that create them; as such, states cannot grant rights to their people.

Government was created by man to protect rights not issue them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

States are granted powers by the people that create them; as such, states cannot grant rights to their people.

Government was created by man to protect rights not issue them.

Nor to provide the means necessary to exercise those rights.

 

[Dante]

Nothing you posted here negates -anything- I said.

okay let's do this over

------------

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

No doubt the SCOTUS did not confer with you


SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."​

2010 McDonald v. Chicago

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.​

To be clear, you are arguing for an interpretation of words not contained in the 2nd amendment, not arguing that the actual words are contained in the USC?

The right 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 imprtance of, the others.

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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the 2nd amendment.
Everything I said in that regard is sound.

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 disagree, 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

Again:
"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.

-----------------------------

------------------------------

I know quite a few liberals that have been against weapons most of their lives, and taught lots of them basic hungun gun, and advanced hundgun classes last year. Some of them are asking for rifle safety classes. I think that is a really good thing, and I like teaching new students.

Liberals who are truly liberal, find it very difficult to support bans on guns. Handgun controls in urban areas, are an area where we can all cordially agree to disagree with each other, but where outright bans on weapons with no overwhelming cause is presented except 'guns kill people' or 'guns are bad' should make liberals shiver with fear. There are often competing interests in legal cases concerning the Bill of Rights, but the arguments in favor of curbs on rights have to be weighted heavily on harm caused to the society as a whole.

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Nothing you posted here negates -anything- I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

 

[Dante]

I know quite a few liberals that have been against weapons most of their lives, and taught lots of them basic hungun gun, and advanced hundgun classes last year. Some of them are asking for rifle safety classes. I think that is a really good thing, and I like teaching new students.

Liberals who are truly liberal, find it very difficult to support bans on guns. Handgun controls in urban areas, are an area where we can all cordially agree to disagree with each other, but where outright bans on weapons with no overwhelming cause is presented except 'guns kill people' or 'guns are bad' should make liberals shiver with fear. There are often competing interests in legal cases concerning the Bill of Rights, but the arguments in favor of curbs on rights have to be weighted heavily on harm caused to the society as a whole.

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.

The right to bear arms... is only part of a sentence. Like I posted before, I could add most anything after those words. Those words are part of a sentence. That sentence addresses the right granted. I know people like to imagine we have rights by god or some other nonsense...but rights are granted by society, or at the least sanctioned and recognized by societies.

rights are a concept. nothing more, nothing less. and I am a strong defender of the 2nd. I just do it without the hocus pocus of philosophy as sacred script, and other nonsense about natural rights and natural laws.

law is a concept

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

States are granted powers by the people that create them; as such, states cannot grant rights to their people.

Government was created by man to protect rights not issue them.

Nor to provide the means necessary to exercise those rights.

-------------

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights? Prove it. Prove it without some philosophical clap trap or religious argument. If these things exist and you see them so clearly, show them. Prove they exist

Do you believe in the founding documents of this country?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

-------------