Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[2aguy]

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 whole "Keep and Bear Arms..." is what...so you can bake cookies?

You leftists really must warm up a long time before you try the mental gymnastics you use to deny Rights to citizens.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

The Supreme Court usually let's the lower courts do their thing first......the actual case was never brought to the USSC.....

 

[White 6]

The Supreme Court usually let's the lower courts do their thing first......the actual case was never brought to the USSC.....

Are you saying Remington did not ask for the Judicial review by the Supreme Court of the lower court ruling to allow the lawsuit to go forward?

 

[2aguy]

Are you saying Remington did not ask for the Judicial review by the Supreme Court of the lower court ruling to allow the lawsuit to go forward?

Nope......they may have I didn't follow it, if they did, the S.C. usually doesn't step in at the state level till the case has gone through the lower courts......at the same time, Remington didn't settle anything......the insurance company settled on their own.....

 

[White 6]

Nope......they may have I didn't follow it, if they did, the S.C. usually doesn't step in at the state level till the case has gone through the lower courts......at the same time, Remington didn't settle anything......the insurance company settled on their own.....

Right. It was either another delaying tactic or a shot in the dark.

 

[White 6]

Right. It was either another delaying tactic or a shot in the dark.

You figure the insurance companies paid the whole thing? I doubt it. I would be surprised if they paid more than half. The Sandy Hook families lawyer did some good negotiating, getting it up another $40 Million dollars in 6 months.

 

[Open Bolt]

Is pornography that includes minors included in "Entire"?

The courts have a set of rules that they call Strict Scrutiny that they use when dealing with fundamental rights.

Basically what it boils down to is that a fundamental right can be restricted if the restriction serves a compelling government interest.

The government has a compelling interest in restricting child pornography, so such restrictions are allowed.

The same applies to the right to keep and bear arms (and all other fundamental rights). If a restriction can be justified as serving a compelling state interest, it is allowed. But if it cannot be so justified, then the restriction is unconstitutional.

It is likely that the courts will find that restrictions against machine guns serve a compelling state interest.

It is likely that the courts will find that laws against pistol grips do not serve a compelling state interest.

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.

That is incorrect. When it comes to private self defense, people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense. If the government limits someone's firepower to the degree that their defense is impaired, that is unconstitutional.

Militiamen have the right to have modern infantry weapons including full-autos, grenades, and bazookas. If the government limits the militia so that they cannot have modern infantry weapons, that also is unconstitutional.

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.

Criminals and the criminally insane have their rights removed through due process.

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.

The Second Amendment does not have to be about private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

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.

It was 100% the insurers in both cases.

The "Remington" that was being sued no longer existed at that point. Under their then-owners they had been making a poor product for awhile and had finally succumbed to bankruptcy.

The lawsuit was really against the insurers alone at that point.

As for why the insurers were foolish enough to settle, who knows.

You figure the insurance companies paid the whole thing? I doubt it. I would be surprised if they paid more than half.

The insurers paid the entire thing. They were the only ones left to pay.

"Remington" had already been sold off to new owners, and the new Remington had nothing to do with this lawsuit.

The Sandy Hook families lawyer did some good negotiating, getting it up another $40 Million dollars in 6 months.

The first offer was from two of the four insurance companies. The second offer was from all four insurance companies.

In both cases the insurance companies were paying the maximum that their policies allowed, so they were not actually saving themselves any money by offering this settlement.

 

[Open Bolt]

It's no surprise to anyone the USSC allowed the case to go forward as they almost always do

It was a surprise to me. The law required that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

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

I think his claim does have merit. As I said, the law actually required that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

You've literally come along, completely ignored the conversation that was going on and started a new conversation that is pointless. Waydago.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The Founders believed in God. They thought God did things to them and their world. Complete fantasy, but it had an impact on the founding of the country.

Same with rights, they thought rights came from God or some other nonsense, but anyone with any grounding in the Magna Carta and the beginnings of rights will see that it was merely a power grab from the elite over the monarch in England.

Anyone who followed that development of rights from the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights and beyond will see that all it is is a limit on power.

You don't have to agree. You don't have to agree because the US federal government has a LIMIT on its power put into the Constitution that says the government can't force you to agree to this.

Ironic, huh?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The courts have a set of rules that they call Strict Scrutiny that they use when dealing with fundamental rights.

Basically what it boils down to is that a fundamental right can be restricted if the restriction serves a compelling government interest.

The government has a compelling interest in restricting child pornography, so such restrictions are allowed.

The same applies to the right to keep and bear arms (and all other fundamental rights). If a restriction can be justified as serving a compelling state interest, it is allowed. But if it cannot be so justified, then the restriction is unconstitutional.

It is likely that the courts will find that restrictions against machine guns serve a compelling state interest.

It is likely that the courts will find that laws against pistol grips do not serve a compelling state interest.



That is incorrect. When it comes to private self defense, people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense. If the government limits someone's firepower to the degree that their defense is impaired, that is unconstitutional.

Militiamen have the right to have modern infantry weapons including full-autos, grenades, and bazookas. If the government limits the militia so that they cannot have modern infantry weapons, that also is unconstitutional.



Criminals and the criminally insane have their rights removed through due process.



The Second Amendment does not have to be about private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.

So you're saying rights can be infringed then? Right....

There is no right to "enough firepower for effective defense". You show me where this right has been enshrined.

So, if people have had their rights removed by "due process" (actually infringed upon), then the RKBA can be infringed.

The 2A was about the militia. We know it's about the militia because it starts with "A well regulated militia".

It does NOT start with "Dick, John and Dave want to defend their individual selves".

Go figure.

Find me one piece of evidence that shows the founding fathers made the 2A for individual self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

So you're saying rights can be infringed then? Right....

Perhaps it is an infringement. But the rules of strict scrutiny must be observed in doing so.

There is no right to "enough firepower for effective defense".

That is incorrect. The right to be armed for self defense means letting people have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Just as the right to be armed for collective defense requires letting people have enough firepower for collective defense.

You show me where this right has been enshrined.

In the latter half of the Second Amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, if people have had their rights removed by "due process" (actually infringed upon), then the RKBA can be infringed.

Perhaps that is an infringement, but the rules of due process must be followed in doing so.

The 2A was about the militia. We know it's about the militia because it starts with "A well regulated militia".
It does NOT start with "Dick, John and Dave want to defend their individual selves".
Go figure.

Being about the militia doesn't change the fact that it protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part that covers having guns for private self defense.

Find me one piece of evidence that shows the founding fathers made the 2A for individual self defense.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Perhaps it is an infringement. But the rules of strict scrutiny must be observed in doing so.



That is incorrect. The right to be armed for self defense means letting people have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Just as the right to be armed for collective defense requires letting people have enough firepower for collective defense.



In the latter half of the Second Amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



Perhaps that is an infringement, but the rules of due process must be followed in doing so.



Being about the militia doesn't change the fact that it protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part that covers having guns for private self defense.



The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, when "shall not be infringed" is written in the Constitution, it doesn't mean "shall not be infringed" then?

No, it is NOT incorrect. You're completely misunderstanding the 2A.

What you're saying is that if someone doesn't have enough firepower to defend themselves then somehow, they should be GIVEN more firepower. WTF?

The "right" isn't a "right" at all. It's a LIMIT on government power. That LIMIT as I've stated many times merely says that the US govt may not stop individuals from having "arms". It doesn't put any limit on that power they to actually take certain arms away from people, AS LONG AS people are able to buy arms and keep them at home.

You've provided NOTHING to show this isn't the case.

The reality is that there is no right to enough weaponry to be able to defend yourself against.... against WHAT? How can a law say "you can have enough weaponry to defend yourself", what is the line over which you can have TOO MUCH WEAPONRY?

In fact, this argument has NEVER, EVER been a part of the 2A. You're just WISHING it to be the case.

You think "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Enshrines a right to individual self defense?

We're just going around in circles here, aren't we? I've SHOWN YOU in BLACK AND WHITE that the Founding Fathers considered the right to bear arms the right to be in the militia, or COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. I've shown the different versions of state RBA clauses which are ALL COLLECTIVE. I've shown you that the 2A is about protecting THE MILITIA and you just keep coming back with NOTHING saying that the RKA is somehow the right to self defense. It's not.

Just because you CAN defend yourself with a gun, doesn't mean you have that right protected in the 2A. Your whole argument is "it says "arms" in the 2A so anything I do with those arms is protected".

Like you have the right to stick your gun up someone's ass, because the 2A sez so.


HOW ON EARTH do you think that a clause about THE MILITIA, somehow then protects things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA?

Please, explain this nonsense to me. Because it is NONSENSE>

 

[Open Bolt]

So, when "shall not be infringed" is written in the Constitution, it doesn't mean "shall not be infringed" then?

The biggest infringement here is your willingness to deny the militia the ability to have the level of weaponry that they need to do their job.

What you're saying is that if someone doesn't have enough firepower to defend themselves then somehow, they should be GIVEN more firepower. WTF?

I said nothing about giving people anything. The Second Amendment forbids preventing people from acquiring arms.

That LIMIT as I've stated many times merely says that the US govt may not stop individuals from having "arms". It doesn't put any limit on that power they to actually take certain arms away from people, AS LONG AS people are able to buy arms and keep them at home.

Your repeated statements are completely wrong.

The right to have arms for collective defense does not mean any sort of minor arm. It means people having the sorts or arms that are used for collective defense.

The right to have arms for private defense does not mean any sort of minor arm either. It means people having the sorts of arms that are appropriate for self defense.

You've provided NOTHING to show this isn't the case.

The logic is self evident. The militia's job includes repelling foreign invasions.

The Second Amendment is about arming the militia so they can do their job.

Denying the militia the kind of weapons that they need to do their job violates the Second Amendment.

Allowing them to have a minor arm that doesn't help them do their job will not change that.

The reality is that there is no right to enough weaponry to be able to defend yourself against.... against WHAT?

Against criminals. And your statement is incorrect. There is very much a right to have guns for the private defense of your home.

I gave you links to a statute and several court cases which clearly show the existence of this right.

How can a law say "you can have enough weaponry to defend yourself",

By saying that people can have guns for the private defense of their homes.

what is the line over which you can have TOO MUCH WEAPONRY?

If a weapon is more powerful than what the police use to defend themselves from criminals, then it is probably not appropriate for self defense.

In fact, this argument has NEVER, EVER been a part of the 2A. You're just WISHING it to be the case.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

You think "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Enshrines a right to individual self defense?

A right to have guns for the purpose of private home defense.

We're just going around in circles here, aren't we? I've SHOWN YOU in BLACK AND WHITE that the Founding Fathers considered the right to bear arms the right to be in the militia, or COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. I've shown the different versions of state RBA clauses which are ALL COLLECTIVE. I've shown you that the 2A is about protecting THE MILITIA

It is noteworthy that you then propose violating that very right by denying the militia the level of firepower that they need to carry our their job.

and you just keep coming back with NOTHING saying that the RKA is somehow the right to self defense.

I have provided you with a statute and several court cases that show clearly that people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

It's not.

Legal history shows otherwise.

Just because you CAN defend yourself with a gun, doesn't mean you have that right protected in the 2A.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. That includes the part of the right that covers having guns for private defense.

Your whole argument is "it says "arms" in the 2A so anything I do with those arms is protected".

No. That is not my argument.

HOW ON EARTH do you think that a clause about THE MILITIA, somehow then protects things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA?

It clearly protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

Please, explain this nonsense to me. Because it is NONSENSE

The fact that the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms is not nonsense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The biggest infringement here is your willingness to deny the militia the ability to have the level of weaponry that they need to do their job.



I said nothing about giving people anything. The Second Amendment forbids preventing people from acquiring arms.



Your repeated statements are completely wrong.

The right to have arms for collective defense does not mean any sort of minor arm. It means people having the sorts or arms that are used for collective defense.

The right to have arms for private defense does not mean any sort of minor arm either. It means people having the sorts of arms that are appropriate for self defense.



The logic is self evident. The militia's job includes repelling foreign invasions.

The Second Amendment is about arming the militia so they can do their job.

Denying the militia the kind of weapons that they need to do their job violates the Second Amendment.

Allowing them to have a minor arm that doesn't help them do their job will not change that.



Against criminals. And your statement is incorrect. There is very much a right to have guns for the private defense of your home.

I gave you links to a statute and several court cases which clearly show the existence of this right.



By saying that people can have guns for the private defense of their homes.



If a weapon is more powerful than what the police use to defend themselves from criminals, then it is probably not appropriate for self defense.



That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.



A right to have guns for the purpose of private home defense.



It is noteworthy that you then propose violating that very right by denying the militia the level of firepower that they need to carry our their job.



I have provided you with a statute and several court cases that show clearly that people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.



Legal history shows otherwise.



The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. That includes the part of the right that covers having guns for private defense.



No. That is not my argument.



It clearly protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.



The fact that the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms is not nonsense.

My biggest problem is my denial of something you can't prove, doesn't exist and is nonsense.

Well..... I'm debating REALITY. You can debate whatever you like, doesn't mean I have to care.

 

[Abatis]

The Founders believed in God. They thought God did things to them and their world. Complete fantasy, but it had an impact on the founding of the country.

The more influential founders / framers responsible for the rights philosophy and actual codification of rights protection, Jefferson and Madison, were Diests. While they believed in a divine being, after creation this god was essentially absent from the world. At their core they believed reason was superior to dogma which led to the Constitution establishing that religion and government must be separate.

Same with rights, they thought rights came from God or some other nonsense,

It is foolish to believe the Declaration of Independence's "endowed by their creator" is making a theological statement that rights are granted from God. At best it is just an oppositional argument to the King's right to rule and the vestiges of the divine right to rule . . .

but anyone with any grounding in the Magna Carta and the beginnings of rights will see that it was merely a power grab from the elite over the monarch in England.

I don't think Algernon Sidney, John Locke and Francis Hutcheson were ever considered elite even though they certainly did challenge the authority of the King and argued for the concept of unalienable rights . . . Sidney lost his head for his opposition!

Anyone who followed that development of rights from the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights and beyond will see that all it is is a limit on power.

The attempt to limit power via bills of rights was destined to failure because the governmental system had no inherent limitations. Even after the reforms of William and Mary the English bill of rights was hollow and ineffective. Only the novel US Constitution changed the dynamic and made the social compact itself the chains on government, the people were sovereign and all power emanated from their authority and no aspect of this new system refers to or relies on any god's providence. As further evidence of the uniqueness, the US Bill of Rights was argued to be an absurd redundancy because no actual binding of government flowed from the Bill of Rights.

You don't have to agree. You don't have to agree because the US federal government has a LIMIT on its power put into the Constitution that says the government can't force you to agree to this.

Ironic, huh?

Ironic only because every American has the unfettered right to be wrong and not be beheaded for it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The more influential founders / framers responsible for the rights philosophy and actual codification of rights protection, Jefferson and Madison, were Diests. While they believed in a divine being, after creation this god was essentially absent from the world. At their core they believed reason was superior to dogma which led to the Constitution establishing that religion and government must be separate.



It is foolish to believe the Declaration of Independence's "endowed by their creator" is making a theological statement that rights are granted from God. At best it is just an oppositional argument to the King's right to rule and the vestiges of the divine right to rule . . . Sidney lost his head, literally!





I don't think Algernon Sidney, John Locke and Francis Hutcheson were ever considered elite even though they certainly did challenge the authority of the King . . .



The attempt to limit power via bills of rights was destined to failure because the governmental system had no inherent limitations. Even after the reforms of William and Mary the English bill of rights was hollow and ineffective. Only the novel US Constitution changed the dynamic and made the social compact itself the chains on government, the people were sovereign and all power emanated from their authority and no aspect of this new system refers to or relies on any god's providence. As further evidence of the uniqueness, the US Bill of Rights was argued to be an absurd redundancy because no actual binding of government flowed from the Bill of Rights.




Ironic only because every American has the unfettered right to be wrong and not be beheaded for it.

I know what they BELIEVED. We're not debating what they believed.

I'm telling you how rights ACTUALLY function. Same as religion. Religion doesn't come from God, it comes from HUMANS and it has certain functions.

You can post all this irrelevant stuff, it doesn't change anything.

 

[Abatis]

I know what they BELIEVED. We're not debating what they believed.

Well, you were posting all kinds of irrelevant stuff about religious beliefs and how religion informed the founders / framers consideration of rights. It needed to be rebutted / corrected.

I'm telling you how rights ACTUALLY function.

Rights function in all different ways under the myriad of political systems . . . This particular discussion is how they function under the US Constitution; that is not a question of great mystery or uncertainty. You are free to adopt a personal belief that aligns with a modern collectivist political model that forces you to reject the founder's / framer's conception and codification of their inherent, individual rights theory . . . That doesn't make them "wrong" or you "right" it just makes you an ignorant, insular, ideologue.

Same as religion. Religion doesn't come from God, it comes from HUMANS and it has certain functions.

Have I ever argued that rights are not a product of the human mind and reason?
It's philosophy for fucks sake . . .

You can post all this irrelevant stuff, it doesn't change anything.

It's interesting the stuff that proves you wrong you call irrelevant.

.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Raw number is misleading…what’s that expenditure as a percentage of gdp?

Its less than what we spend on Medicare and Social Security.