Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Right to self-defense, and the Second Amendment are not necessarily related. The Second Amendment refers to firearms, generally.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Assault Weapons Bill
- Thread starter cmontanojr
- Start date
Right to self-defense, and the Second Amendment are not necessarily related. The Second Amendment refers to firearms, generally.
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
The same could be said for the entirety of the bill of rights. You can have a freedom of speech, but you may not do so on the internet, or in the press, or in writing.
You have the freedom of due process, but due process could be at Gitmo, with a bag over your head, as they waterboard that confession out of you.
Yes, liberty does exist in degrees. Liberty exists in two degrees: liberty protected, and liberty infringed upon.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Unfortunately, you miss the point.
The Constitution is inherently interpretive. The Constitution is a general framework, that speaks nothing specifically to any definitive Thing. And don't go on some rant that it is Liberal dogma I'm spewing, most Liberals I know do not agree with my view regarding the Constitution.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I never stated that those two terms are related. Self defense, in my view, is achknowledged in the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness part. If I am not able to defend myself I can't very well enjoy life, liberty, or be able to pursue anything let alone happiness. A gun sure makes staying alive a whole lot easier to pursue anything I choose.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
You're correct, Due Process could involve a bag over your head, and waterboarding--it's not torture, just ask W. Bush. Freedom of speech is not unfettered.
Thank you for acknowledging that Liberty is a matter of degrees, and is not absolute.--the latter portion of your response doesn't make-up for your conceding that Liberty is a matter of degrees.
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
Exactly what constitution are you reading? The one that I'm reading speaks of many specific things. Most relevant is this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Tell me now, how exactly would you "interpret" that particular piece.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Nowhere does it state anything regarding Self-defense under "life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."--which is why it's likely stated to be your view.
A firearm may make it easier to survive in a hostile world, but it is hardly necessary. We can take that to it's logical end then, by arguing that since State A has a nuclear bomb, you ought to be able to have one as well so that you can sufficiently defend yourself in your pursuit of life, Liberty...and happiness.
BTW, no person here is arguing that you don't have a Right to self-defense.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
There is a lot to be reade in the quote you offered.
One could argue that all Power is delegated to the United States. The People have the Power to Authority, and the State has the Authority to Power.
Basically, the People have the Power to bestow the Authority to Power to whomever the majority chooses, but the People do not have the Authority to exercise that Power, that is left to the State.
Notice the hierarchy implied. Fist there is the Federal Government (United States), second, the States, third, the People. The writers stated a lot.
If the State decides to create a Law that is then signed by the President, and Found constitutional by SCOTUS, then it is Constitutional. Yes, the State could Constitutionally confiscate all of our firearms, line us up, and send us into the gas chamber for holding an OC gathering in Olympia.
We The People do not have the Power to exercise the Power. We only have the Power to delegate absolute Authority to Power. The State is the absolute Authority to that Power, only the State can exercise that absolute Power.
Last edited:
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
So basically, under your interpretation, The federal government has unilateral authority to do whatever it so chooses, and the constitution is nothing but a really old piece of paper that has no authority whatsoever...
Wow, I now fully understand why you voted for Obama....
Wow, I now fully understand why you voted for Obama....
eye95
Well-known member
If the Constitution is fuzzy, then there is no Constitution, only the rule of man and not the rule of law. My America is gone. What once was a Republic, a nation of laws, is now a nation of men. Sad.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
snipped...
if it is hardly necessary to need a firearm why do feel it necessary to carry one?
it is these contradictions that make your statements useless in your move for making a point...
if it is hardly necessary to need a firearm why do feel it necessary to carry one?
it is these contradictions that make your statements useless in your move for making a point...
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I am stating that Constitutional Authority is backed by the three branches. Yes, it can do whatever it chooses, collectively.
Yes, the Constitution is a really old piece of parchment.
No, you don't understand why I voted for Obama. It wasn't because of his views regarding the Constitution, that's for sure.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I'm stating that the two together are not necessarily equated to one another.
Contradictions are inherent in all things. All of these things, Liberty as an example, are inherently contradictory when applied to a social creature, such as a human.
You might think I come on here to troll around, and piss individuals off. I come on here because I like to chat with individuals, and because individuals ought to own whatever firearm(s) their little heart desires.
I don't make the rules in society, I am likely further detached from having any impact on the creation of Law than you are. The Federal Government is necessary, because the alternative would be worse. The Constitution is a wonderful general framework, but that's it. It's our job to either work together sorting out the details, or not.--it appears both sides of the equation have chosen not to work things out.
The System that keeps some degree of social order is being undermined, and de-legitimized and we will all pay the price. One of the worse political rhetoric nonsense uttered from a the mouth of a President was Reagan's, "[Government is the problem]." Whether you want to admit it or not, if there was no Government that's mere presence is coercive--that's not to say that all individuals will obey the Laws--we would be living in a volatile, dangerous, violent society.
Man's Nature of self-interest ought to be controlled...if not for the sake of other, but for the sake of himself. Why do you think we have so many coercive systems of control?--do you believe that it's some big coincidence, that there is some vast conspiracy over hundreds of generations of humans...I don't think so.
This sh*t ain't rocket science, but it is complex, and it can't be summed-up in, or reduced to some notion of Liberty as an Absolute, in any sense.
Last edited:
you expect me to read all this stupidity? im still sticking with your contradiction lady...
you still managed to NOT answer my question, why do you carry a firearm when you think it isnt necessary???
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Because it is available to me.
Let's play the imaginary game: There are no firearms...I will carry a knife, pepper-spray, baton...
BTW, I said they don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. One doesn't necessarily need a firearm to defend themselves. Believe it or not, we could use other items as well.
The thing is, President Obama has stated that he believes there is a constitutional right to own firearms; that's not what's at issue with him--it's the types of firearms...not the same two things.
A little bone for you:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/17/obama-finally-acknowledges-a-constitutio
Same link:
I see, Mr. President, so, you think that criminals, and the mentally ill ought not be able to get hold of automatic firearms?--I agree.
I'll tell you what, I think individuals ought to continue, if they like, running from the NRA, who is going to have talks with Biden. Right-wing firearms owners will continue to isolate themselves from the middle-ground firearm owner. I don't agree with a number of NRA policies, but am not quick to cast them aside because they are for some reasonable restrictions, or whatever.
When someone comes out, and asks me to leave because I don't support the Second Amendment "enough," all it does is undermines firearm ownership. I guarantee you, if you kick all Democrat, and Liberal firearm owners then you are going to be a damn small group of individuals.--there are a lot of Democrats, and Liberals who own firearms.
Yes, most Americans support firearm ownership, but that doesn't mean all those Americans support high capacity magazines, or AR style rifles.
Last edited:
cb5300
Regular Member
You are kidding right???? If you think for one minute that your "buddy" Obama won't make a grab for you guns (if given the chance) then I've got a bridge that's for sale...
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
*edit*
I didn't state he wouldn't make a grab for my guns. I'm stating he can't. *edit*
I'm sure the restrictions he prefers go pretty far, but it ain't happening. There is not enough political capital for him to take on a fight like that, that he will lose in the end, anyhow.
Sorry about that...you are new, we are supposed to be nice to new folks.
Plus, you need to keep in mind, Laws are made by Congress, and signed by the President. Obama may make a grab, but only Congress can facilitate that grab, and they won't facilitate it.--They may make a grab for our 15 round, and 30 round magazines, though.
Last edited:
cant and wont are two different thing young lady, and nothing is stopping him from pencil whipping an executive order circumventing the constitution and you losing your pistol that isnt necessary...
March Hare
Regular Member
If you'd like to see how the gun grabbers game plan is laid out, take a look at California.
One little bit at a time.
Just my opinion, of course.
-MH
One little bit at a time.
Just my opinion, of course.
-MH
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Good grief. Then I suppose there is nothing stopping him from signing an EO, and becoming a Dictator. Take a few deep breaths, settle down.
EO's have their own long-term political ramifications...there will be no EO banning firearms, nor certain types of firearms.
I don't only own a Beretta 92FS. I own other firearms as well.
I will tell you though, he will do some sort of EO, not with firearms, but the debt ceiling, he won't allow us to hit the wall, he will EO it...guaranteed. Watch.
Last edited: