Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[White 6]

You didn't answer the question.
When did Remington,. et al, appeal the court's judgement against them to the USSC?

Beats me. What are you saying? They used sh#tty lawyers like trump election lawyers, and they had bad outcome in the wrong court? Why do you ask?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Beats me. What are you saying? They used sh#tty lawyers like trump election lawyers, and they had bad outcome in the wrong court? Why do you ask?

As I thought.
You aren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.

 

[White 6]

As I thought.
You aren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.

Remington requested a review by the Supreme Court of the lower court decision that allowed the Sandy Hook families to sue the gunmaker at all.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Remington Arms’ request for review of a decision that allows a lawsuit to continue that seeks to hold the manufacturer civilly liable for the actions of a mentally ill man who murdered children.
The high court did not make any comment on the decision to deny the request from Remington Arms. The case will now move forward in a lower Connecticut court.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Supreme Court Denies Remington’s Appeal in Sandy Hook Lawsuit

Lawsuit alleging gun manufacturer liability for murderer’s actions will move forward.

www.americas1stfreedom.org

 

[frigidweirdo]

It does. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

Having a gun to defend your home is one part of the right to keep and bear arms.



I'm not sure how this example relates to the Second Amendment.



Having a gun to defend your home is part of the right to keep and bear arms.

The entire right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment.



That is only because a potato is not much of a weapon. If it was an effective weapon it would be covered.

You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.

No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.


You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms".

So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.

A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.

If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.

 

[White 6]

You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.

No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.


You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms".

So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.

A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.

If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.

Word salad, BS.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Word salad, BS.

So, to sum up, you have nothing to say.

 

[Open Bolt]

You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.

That is what it means. "Entire" means all of it.

Think about free speech. The Founding Fathers were only worried about political speech. But all speech is protected, including pornography.

No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.

But it does protect the right to have guns for the purposes of self defense.

You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense

The right to have guns for the purpose of self defense, not self defense itself.

Self defense is a natural human right that transcends all law.

because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms".

Because it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.

That's not based on anything I've said. The Third Amendment is not about people having houses.

A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.

Some guns are appropriate for personal self defense. Other guns are appropriate for militia use.

A potato isn't an effective enough weapon to be appropriate for either.

Some nuclear bombs are appropriate for militia use. No nuclear bombs are appropriate for personal self defense.

If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.

Not all potential weapons are appropriate for all uses.

A militiaman will reasonably have a use for any battlefield infantry weapon.

Someone who is defending themselves from criminals will reasonably have a use for the same weapons that the police use to defend themselves from criminals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is what it means. "Entire" means all of it.

Think about free speech. The Founding Fathers were only worried about political speech. But all speech is protected, including pornography.



But it does protect the right to have guns for the purposes of self defense.



The right to have guns for the purpose of self defense, not self defense itself.

Self defense is a natural human right that transcends all law.



Because it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



That's not based on anything I've said. The Third Amendment is not about people having houses.



Some guns are appropriate for personal self defense. Other guns are appropriate for militia use.

A potato isn't an effective enough weapon to be appropriate for either.

Some nuclear bombs are appropriate for militia use. No nuclear bombs are appropriate for personal self defense.



Not all potential weapons are appropriate for all uses.

A militiaman will reasonably have a use for any battlefield infantry weapon.

Someone who is defending themselves from criminals will reasonably have a use for the same weapons that the police use to defend themselves from criminals.

Is pornography that includes minors included in "Entire"?

You need to understand what a right is, first.

A right isn't "God given" or "natural" or any of the nonsense. A right is merely a limit on power for a government. Individuals don't actually have rights, others are merely prevented from doing something.

The US federal government is prevented from stopping people owning arms. As I said before, if an individual is able to get arms at normal (ish) prices, then the government isn't preventing you from keeping arms if they ban nukes, SAMs, assault rifles, machine guns etc etc.


Look, if you are able to have a gun, AND you have the right to self defense then I would guess than in 99.99% of cases, yes, you'd be able to defend yourself with that gun.

You'd also have the ability to sit in front of the TV and eat popcorn.

Doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to sit in front of the TV and eat popcorn.

Yes, it says "shall not be infringed", and YET, criminals in prisons, the insane, children etc are infringed upon this all the time and the NRA supports this infringement, most Americans support this infringement etc etc.

No, the third amendment is NOT about people having houses and the second amendment is NOT about personal self defense. Maybe now you see where I'm going with this.

 

[Blues Man]

You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.

No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.


You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms".

So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.

A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.

If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.

It doesn't have to specifically name the right to self defense

That right exists period and the Founders knew that and the 9th Amendment confirms it

 

[Abatis]

You need to understand what a right is, first.

A right isn't "God given" or "natural" or any of the nonsense. A right is merely a limit on power for a government. Individuals don't actually have rights, others are merely prevented from doing something.

Your "understanding" of "what a right is", is not represented in the USA's foundational philosophical principles by which the "limit on power for a government" was conceptualized. Nor are your beliefs represented in the formal legal mechanism (the Constitution) that sets-out the structural limitations on government power and the legal process (SCOTUS) enforcing those limitations, which "merely prevents" government from "doing something".

Your personal affection for collectivist political ideology which informs and animates your hostility for the principle of inherent and unalienable rights, does not speak to any governmental model that the USA is founded upon or operates under.

 

[Blues Man]

So people are swinging lead pipes at you? Let's carry on this daft hypothetical crap. You grabbed the pipe, thus disarming him. He panicked and ran off.

Or

The 4 year girl walking along, ran over and saved you from this pipe weilding maniac by using a karate kick she learnt off YouTube.

I've already told you that I was the victim of a violent crime.

3 assholes jumped me from behind. One asshole had a bike chain wrapped around his fist and he repeatedly hit me about the head while the other 2 assholes took to kicking and stomping me in the ribs and abdomen.

The injuries

Fractured eye orbital
3 broken ribs
Grade 4 concussion
ruptured spleen
Permanent vision impairment in my left eye

If you choose to be so fucking naive that you think there isn't real violence in this world that's your problem.

So if you think you don;t have a right to defend yourself that's your choice.

So I'll make the same deal with you that I do with other like minded morons.

If I see you getting mugged and beat by some thug assholes I will not draw my weapon or come to your aid because you have chosen to trust your safety to the police and I respect that choice. So I'll call the cops and be on my way with the hope that they get there before you get dead and all I ask in return is for you to mind your own fucking business

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't have to specifically name the right to self defense

That right exists period and the Founders knew that and the 9th Amendment confirms it

The POINT being made is that the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't include the right to self defense, rather than there not being a right to self defense in the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your "understanding" of "what a right is", is not represented in the USA's foundational philosophical principles by which the "limit on power for a government" was conceptualized. Nor are your beliefs represented in the formal legal mechanism (the Constitution) that sets-out the structural limitations on government power and the legal process (SCOTUS) enforcing those limitations, which "merely prevents" government from "doing something".

Your personal affection for collectivist political ideology which informs and animates your hostility for the principle of inherent and unalienable rights, does not speak to any governmental model that the USA is founded upon or operates under.

Yeah, my view of what a right is, is based on REALITY rather than the fantasy created.

 

[Blues Man]

The POINT being made is that the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't include the right to self defense, rather than there not being a right to self defense in the Constitution.

And THE POINT is that there doesn't have to be a right to self defense enumerated in the Constitution

 

[Abatis]

Yeah, my view of what a right is, is based on REALITY rather than the fantasy created.

The founders / framers were informed by two possible realities on the legitimacy of government power which informs what rights are, even today.

Number 1 was what they were experiencing in the American colony, the King's decrees and the treatises of Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer, doctrines which were rejected as informative to govern legitimately. . .

Number 2 was that of John Locke and Algernon Sidney (and others) which the founders / framers embraced and used to form the US government.

1), the right of the King to rule with unquestioned / unquestionable power, and only through his benevolence are people allowed to exercise "rights" and then only to the extent the King deems them worthy of exercising (in service to him).

2), the doctrine of a government established on the popular consent of the people, with all power first residing in the people and the people conferring to government certain expressly enumerated (and thus limited) powers.

By number 2's specific enumeration, those limited powers are delegated to government to perform certain operations and duties assigned to it.

Under the COTUSA it is understood and contractually enforced that the people retained all powers they did not confer through the Constitution, to either be conferred to the state governments in state constitutions to perform duties assigned to states, or for this discussion, retaining those powers more commonly called called rights, exceptions of powers not granted to any government (refer to the 9th and 10th Amendments for the codification of these principles).

Since government was not granted any power to even compose a thought about our retained rights, under no possible construction could it be thought that government possess a power to condition or qualify rights held out from their consideration.

Since no aspect of the right to keep and bear arms was ever placed in the care and control of the federal government in the Constitution on June 21, 1788, it is a fantasy to think the government then 'gave back' to the people, on September 25, 1789, through the 2nd Amendment.

How is it the government, having never been given any power over the right then gives the people a qualified and conditioned hollowed-out shell of the "right" they exercised before the 2nd Amendment was ratified?

Do you really believe the people were given a limited "right" framed within the benevolence of government, allowing citizens to exercise this one "right" only to the extent the ruler deems necessary to perform tasks in service to government?

Your view of what a right is, is not based on REALITY . . . Your benchmark of reality is completely divorced from the structure the founders / framers established and actually aligns perfectly, in principle and action, the conditioned, qualified and degraded existence suffered by a subject ruled by a King.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Remington requested a review by the Supreme Court of the lower court decision that allowed the Sandy Hook families to sue the gunmaker at all.

This does not change the fact you weren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.
It's no surprise to anyone the USSC allowed the case to go forward as they almost always do - and so you cllain that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.

 

[White 6]

This does not change the fact you weren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.
It's no surprise to anyone the USSC allowed the case to go forward as they almost always do - and so you cllain that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.

Remington was trying to avoid having the lawsuit come to trial and that was their appeal. The supreme court of Connecticut had ruled the lawsuit by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre could go forward. That is the ruling, Remington was appealing. Remington's position was based on the supreme Court ruling that said gun manufacturers could not be held liable for the use of their guns after the sale, or something to that effect. Unfortunately, they can be held liable (at least at the present time) for the effects of their marketing method creating a hazard to the public, not the weapon, but how they went about attracting customers to the lethality of the weapons. I knew exactly what it was about the whole time and why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the whole time. Not hearing it, saved revisiting the ruling that made them not liable for the weapons themselves. That is what they were protecting by refusing Remington's appeal for review. Upon the refusal to grant review, it went back to Connecticut state court for the lawsuit to continue. Remington decided the evidence amassed against them was more than they could take a chance on, so they offered $32 Million in July, which was rejected by the families and then offered the $73 Million in Februrary to just make it go away, without a court decision.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Remington was trying to avoid having the lawsuit come to trial and that was their appeal. The supreme court of Connecticut had ruled the lawsuit by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre could go forward. That is the ruling, Remington was appealing. Remington's position was based on the supreme Court ruling that said gun manufacturers could not be held liable for the use of their guns after the sale, or something to that effect. Unfortunately, they can be held liable (at least at the present time) for the effects of their marketing method creating a hazard to the public, not the weapon, but how they went about attracting customers to the lethality of the weapons. I knew exactly what it was about the whole time and why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the whole time. Not hearing it, saved revisiting the ruling that made them not liable for the weapons themselves. That is what they were protecting by refusing Remington's appeal for review. Upon the refusal to grant review, it went back to Connecticut state court for the lawsuit to continue. Remington decided the evidence amassed against them was more than they could take a chance on, so they offered $32 Million in July, which was rejected by the families and then offered the $73 Million in Februrary to just make it go away, without a court decision.

And so you claim that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.

 

[White 6]

Where did I claim that? Nowhere? That is correct. I never claimed that. They protected the previous Supreme Court ruling, gun manufactures thought made the free of any type of lawsuit due to mass shootings with weapons they manufactured.
So, what is your beef? Shouldn't you be complaining to Remington? They are the ones that paid off the victims families for fear of losing even bigger if they went through the court trial to it's end.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where did I claim that? Nowhere? That is correct. I never claimed that.