Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 250

Thread: What is the future of the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    What is the future of the 2nd Amendment[/b]?[/b] The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately ‘incorporated’ into the Bill of Rights imposed on the States by the 14th Amendment. This means that until now the 2nd Amendment has not protected people from State actions that interfere with their right to bear arms.



    However, the Supreme Court now seems poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court is to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

    [/b]

    The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution:[/b] “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”



    Relevant Definitions:[/b]



    Infringe:[/b] To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing (example): an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.



    Encroach:[/b] verb intrude, invade, trespass, infringe, usurp, impinge, trench, overstep, make inroads, impose yourself (example): He doesn't like people to encroach on his territory.



    Arms:[/b] A weapon, especially a firearm (examples): troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.



    Regulated: - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law (examples): "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"



    Unregulated:[/b] - not regulated; not subject to rule or discipline (example): "unregulated off-shore fishing"



    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/an...ension-likely/



    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/



    The question I wish to discuss here is what limits, if any, the Supreme Court should place on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and why? I was a principle in three different threads that were among the most popular ones on this site that have now been ‘closed’ (and rightly so – they’d run their course).



    I believe that this site should permit real debate and discussion of these issues that are of paramount importance to every American. Y’all should not simply be ‘preaching to the converted’. One has the impression that most contributors to this site, including it’s leaders and founders are threatened by real discussion and debate.



    A great many American’s are appalled by the idea that it might some day be commonplace for their fellow citizens to openly carry firearms on their person, on the streets, on the public transportation, in the schools, movie theaters, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, and etc. A great many Americans, including myself find this prospect simply appalling. The fact that Starbucks allows people into their café’s with loaded firearms openly displayed on their persons, not just the police and Sheriffs deputies, but ordinary citizens, is a laughingstock to the segment of the population to which I refer (and represent).



    Herein I would hope to make the case against this new development in modern society. Herein I would also hope to hear a convincing case in favor of it. Thus far I have not heard said convincing casein the other threads that were closed down. If you can convince me, I can convince my friends and political cohorts, or try to.



    Here’s why I oppose it: A gun is an instrument designed and intended to kill people. I’ve heard it said that automobiles are more dangerous, and statistically speaking they are, but automobiles are not specifically designed to kill people, guns are. Guns are dangerous. Cigarette lighters are also dangerous. They can explode or burn fingers. But guns are more dangerous than cigarette lighters, much more. If you make a mistake with a gun you can kill yourself or someone you love (or someone you hate, or don't even know, for that matter). A person walking around in public with a loaded gun is a potentially very dangerous person. If he or she is in police uniform one feels that the danger is mitigated somewhat, but the power and charisma of such a person quells the average person just the same. I was recently frog marched out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance (allegedly with a 2 inch Swiss Army knife), by armed police officers and I nearly wet my pants from the excitement and danger of it all. I was impressed to say the least. I don’t want to feel like that around my ordinary fellow citizens and I don’t think most other people do either.



    The reason I included the various definitions above was to make the point that the 2nd Amendment, regardless of its history in the development of our nation and the intent of the founders and framers of the Constitution, is somewhat ambiguous in the context of the 21st century. The first 14 words in the Amendment (the first half) seem to suggest that you need to be a member of an organized militia to keep and bear arms. If not that, then the keeping and bearing of arms, should at least be ‘well regulated’, i.e. limited by law. Otherwise, the entire first half of the 2d Amendment is extraneous language that means nothing at all, and should be eliminated in order to eliminate the resulting confusion in its meaning and intent. The second 14 words should constitute the entire Amendment. But most people would object if we tried to amend the 2nd Amendment to eliminate the first 14 words just to make it clearer, because it would also ‘harden’ it too much. As it stands it is just soft enough with just enough wiggle room (i.e. ‘well regulated’, justified by the need for a people’s militia’s, etc.) that the right to keep and bear arms is sustained in our society (unlike in England, for example, where keeping and bearing arms is less acceptable).



    But it is also obvious that there must be some limitations. The definition of ‘Arms’ includes ICBM’s, bombs, rocket launchers, and nuclear arms. Individuals are not, and should not, be allowed to keep and bear those. So where do we draw the line? The founders and framers could not conceive of the advances in modern weaponry that have occurred since their day. What would they have put in the Constitution regarding keeping and bearing arms if they could have forseen what the technology has since produced?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately ‘incorporated’ into the Bill of Rights
    You are wrong there, the actual "Bill of rights," was the first 10 amendments. One of the arguments made by those in favor of the Articles of Confederation and against the proposed constitution as we know it today was that the proposed US Constitution did not specifically enumerate the rights of citizens. The answer was the original first 10 amendments, knows to this day as the original Bill of Rights. The fist 10 amendments where enacted almost simultaneous as the constitution was ratified. The first ten amendments ARE Bill of rights.

    A common mistake made by many is to say the the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of rights are all part of the same document. The Declaration of Independence served to announce to the world that the United States would from that day forth be separate from England and stated a list of grievances against the king, as well as proclaiming that liberty was anointed by God not by any ruler or government.

    The constitution followed after a short lived and failed Articles of Confederation and served to outline how the government would function, define it's three branches and their powers, and in what manner states representatives would be elected based on the population of both free and "other people."

    The Bill of rights was created as a separate document to appease those who objected to the Constitution because it did not specifically enumerate the rights of the People.

    Heres my interpretation of the second amendment, and yes it has two seprate and very important parts, the first part is;


    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
    The people should have a right to take up arms as their own or in conjunction with a well armed militia to defend the constitution from any enemy.

    ...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    Should the militia be the force that is destructive to the cause of liberty, it is necessary for the People to be as well armed as the militia.

    The reason we have the Second Amendment is this;

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    swine wrote;
    I was recently frog marched out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance (allegedly with a 2 inch Swiss Army knife), by armed police officers and I nearly wet my pants from the excitement and danger of it all. I was impressed to say the least. I don’t want to feel like that around my ordinary fellow citizens and I don’t think most other people do either.

    you dont want to be alarmed by law abiding citizens responsibly openly carrying firearms,, but
    this is the second instance that you have admitted getting yourself in trouble for
    menacing innocent people with a pocket knife!!!

    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I took a stab at this. There are WAY too many points to be made in response. If you want to guide the conversation in a particular direction I will follow but here is my basic thoughts without writing a novel.
    swine wrote:
    What is the future of the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately ‘incorporated’ into the Bill of Rights imposed on the States by the 14th Amendment. This means that until now the 2nd Amendment has not protected people from State actions that interfere with their right to bear arms.
    Aside from our national constitution, we also have state constitutions that establish separate republics that make up 'These United States". Many of these constitutions go further and a clearer about protecting my right to bear arms. Assuming we could ever agree on what limits the constitution places on firearms, would it even change things in most states?
    However, the Supreme Court now seems poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court is to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.



    The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”



    Relevant Definitions:



    Infringe: To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing (example): an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.



    Encroach: verb intrude, invade, trespass, infringe, usurp, impinge, trench, overstep, make inroads, impose yourself (example): He doesn't like people to encroach on his territory.



    Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm (examples): troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.



    Regulated: - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law (examples): "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"



    Unregulated: - not regulated; not subject to rule or discipline (example): "unregulated off-shore fishing"



    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/an...ension-likely/



    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

    While it is useful for us to establish definitions to agree on, it would also be helpful to have a decent understanding sentence structure in the English language. The second amendment speaks of a right that already exists, "the right of the people".
    It doesn't establish a right, it simply speaks of a right that the authors already knew they had. The first sentence doesn't need to be edited out of the constitution. It speaks of one of the many reasons to protect our right to bear arms; A free society that didn't want to be ruled by tyranny or royalty would need some check on the government they established. A means would also be needed to repel invasion by outside sources. An armed populace is the method they relied on.

    The question I wish to discuss here is what limits, if any, the Supreme Court should place on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and why? I was a principle in three different threads that were among the most popular ones on this site that have now been ‘closed’ (and rightly so – they’d run their course).
    Easy answer: when it comes to firearms (including full automatics) I would say no limits. No age restrictions, no tests, license, tax, or background checks. Why? Honestly, I wish we could ban all guns and make them all disappear. The fact is no law can ever succeed at this. Gun restrictions historically have served only to disarm the honest citizen and have done nothing to keep criminals from owning and using guns. The basic rule is "you keep yours in your holster, I'll keep mine in mine."

    I believe that this site should permit real debate and discussion of these issues that are of paramount importance to every American. Y’all should not simply be ‘preaching to the converted’. One has the impression that most contributors to this site, including it’s leaders and founders are threatened by real discussion and debate.
    I don't think anyone's scared of debate or your ideas. Last time I checked, we are winning the battle of ideas across the states. Gun laws are being repealed and rights further protected. It's hard NOT to preach to the converted when so many people out there have converted. We do, however, get tired of rehashing the same arguments over and over only to be met with replies that are based in ignorance and emotion instead of law and logic.
    A great many American’s are appalled by the idea that it might some day be commonplace for their fellow citizens to openly carry firearms on their person, on the streets, on the public transportation, in the schools, movie theaters, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, and etc. A great many Americans, including myself find this prospect simply appalling. The fact that Starbucks allows people into their café’s with loaded firearms openly displayed on their persons, not just the police and Sheriffs deputies, but ordinary citizens, is a laughingstock to the segment of the population to which I refer (and represent).
    I hate to shatter reality for you again, but it is already commonplace for citizens to openly carry their firearms. Why shouldn't Starbucks allow anyone they want in their store? You may be fearful of guns, some are fearful of black people. Should we ban them too? Thankfully the segment you represent isn't large enough at this time to affect any change.

    Herein I would hope to make the case against this new development in modern society. Herein I would also hope to hear a convincing case in favor of it. Thus far I have not heard said convincing casein the other threads that were closed down. If you can convince me, I can convince my friends and political cohorts, or try to.
    I've read through some of those posts you've made recently. If the truth that is staring you in the face cannot convince you, I don't know what argument could. To recap others you've debated:
    "Crime deterrent"
    "Gun laws don't work"
    "Natural right"
    "Safer society"
    "Less police needed"
    "A personally responsible citizenry"

    Here’s why I oppose it: A gun is an instrument designed and intended to kill people. I’ve heard it said that automobiles are more dangerous, and statistically speaking they are, but automobiles are not specifically designed to kill people, guns are. Guns are dangerous.
    I'm confused. Are you suggesting we look at the purpose of a gun to determine it's usefulness? Or are you suggesting we look at the end result? I agree, guns ARE dangerous. So are cars. Cars kill many more people every year here in the U.S. In fact law mandates certain safety features so cars are less dangerous but the end result is the same; cars kill more people. We should ban cars before we ban guns.
    Cigarette lighters are also dangerous. They can explode or burn fingers. But guns are more dangerous than cigarette lighters, much more. If you make a mistake with a gun you can kill yourself or someone you love (or someone you hate, or don't even know, for that matter). A person walking around in public with a loaded gun is a potentially very dangerous person.
    I might also kill you with a knife, a baseball bat, or a CAR. A person driving around could easily start running pedestrians into the ground. My father hammered into my head when I learned to drive; "you are wielding a DANGEROUS WEAPON." By the way, I am a very dangerous person when I walk around with a gun...that's the point of the thing.

    If he or she is in police uniform one feels that the danger is mitigated somewhat, but the power and charisma of such a person quells the average person just the same. I was recently frog marched out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance (allegedly with a 2 inch Swiss Army knife), by armed police officers and I nearly wet my pants from the excitement and danger of it all. I was impressed to say the least. I don’t want to feel like that around my ordinary fellow citizens and I don’t think most other people do either.

    Here we go with the feelings again. You don't have a right to curtail other peoples actions based on your "feelings." This isn't the 3rd grade. Can you honestly tell me you are any safer when I conceal my weapon than when I open carry it? Would you rather be like an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand?

    The reason I included the various definitions above was to make the point that the 2nd Amendment, regardless of its history in the development of our nation and the intent of the founders and framers of the Constitution, is somewhat ambiguous in the context of the 21st century. The first 14 words in the Amendment (the first half) seem to suggest that you need to be a member of an organized militia to keep and bear arms. If not that, then the keeping and bearing of arms, should at least be ‘well regulated’, i.e. limited by law. Otherwise, the entire first half of the 2d Amendment is extraneous language that means nothing at all, and should be eliminated in order to eliminate the resulting confusion in its meaning and intent. The second 14 words should constitute the entire Amendment. But most people would object if we tried to amend the 2nd Amendment to eliminate the first 14 words just to make it clearer, because it would also ‘harden’ it too much. As it stands it is just soft enough with just enough wiggle room (i.e. ‘well regulated’, justified by the need for a people’s militia’s, etc.) that the right to keep and bear arms is sustained in our society (unlike in England, for example, where keeping and bearing arms is less acceptable).
    The idea that ANY of our rights somehow change over time or because technology has changed is ludicrous. The right to bear arms stems from my natural born right to life. I have a right to defend myself with equal force when danger comes looking for me. 500 years ago that might have been a stick. Today we carry much larger "sticks" because the threat (weather it be criminal, foreign, or government) will be carrying that same kind of weapon. Your argument is akin to limiting free speech because the modern internet makes it too dangerous for society.

    But it is also obvious that there must be some limitations. The definition of ‘Arms’ includes ICBM’s, bombs, rocket launchers, and nuclear arms. Individuals are not, and should not, be allowed to keep and bear those. So where do we draw the line? The founders and framers could not conceive of the advances in modern weaponry that have occurred since their day. What would they have put in the Constitution regarding keeping and bearing arms if they could have forseen what the technology has since produced?

    For the first time we agree. I believe "arms" refers to the weapons a normal soldier or citizen would carry into battle or use at home. Someday we may see laser guns. The founders may not have foreseen their invention but I believe they would want the citizens to have the same technology in their hands as the government that works FOR them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    I tend to be an "originalist" with regards to legal documents, meaning I tend to try to interpret them with regards to the meanings of those words commonly held by the people who wrote, discussed and ratified these documents.

    With that in mind, using a modern dictionary is essentially useless for interpreting the 2A. The meanings of many of the important words have changed dramatically in the intervening 230-odd years. We need to return to the lexicons of that time, or study the writings of the founding fathers to find the meanings of these words through context.

    This is easy enough to do. There are a LOT of good resources online, and even the online archives of the Library of Congress have a lot of primary source documents that are very useful (but if you're not adept at academic research, the LOC can be REALLY difficult to search).

    "Regulated", as in "well regulated militia", in the context of an 18th century English speaker has nothing to do with governmental control, legal restriction, or statutory rules. It means "well trained". It's really that simple.

    A "well regulated militia" in the minds of people like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et.al., meant the pseudo-military body made up of volunteer citizens when called to duty, who were well-trained and proficient in the use of firearms, basic tactics, and at least the basic fundamentals of military discipline.

    These weren't professional soldiers. Heck, most of the militia members of that day probably wouldn't pass muster as National Guard members these days. The only drilled occasionally, were VERY busy with their professions (printers, smiths, merchants, farmers, etc) and were NOT military-minded people. They could follow basic field commands, knew how to spot an officer, and could handle a firearm with a "yeoman's skill", but they generally weren't advanced marksmen, and had little formal training in hand-to-hand combat. Most of them didn't know the first thing about fighting with swords, and most were virtually clueless when it came to things like artillery or mounted cavalry combat. They were just regular guys with a sharp eye, a steady hand, and a fire in their hearts...

    It has nothing to do with government direction, laws, or strictures.

    Check out this very well-written essay on "guncite". It's one of the most straightforward essays on this topic I've found:

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

    Other than that one word, you seem to be on-target with most of the rest of our assessment though. Good post!

    A little footnote:
    Justice Scalia claims to be an "originalist" in his opinion issued with Heller, but the VAST majority of his opinion discussing "original meaning" is actually spent on discussing post 19th century definitions of words like "militia" and "regulated". Scalia can be a slippery character sometimes, and although he made many good points in Heller, his assessment of originalist meanings is fundamentally flawed in several critical areas. Scalia often goes off on irrelevant tangents like he did in his Heller opinion, but he usually has an ultimate point to his rambling philosophical journeys.

    Heller, however, seems to be more of a round-about attempt to please both sides, throwing the NRA a bone while not completely ******* in the Wheaties of the DC government. Heller was a MUCH more diplomatic decision than most folks understand, and it's toothlessness is being borne out in the DC government's continued procedural infringement and apparent disregard for the Court's ruling.

    The fact that the SCOTUS hasn't held DC in contempt for their continued infractions of the 2A rights of their citizens is proof that the Heller decision was never meant to be the earth-shaking coup-de-gras that the NRA touted it to be...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Dreamer did a good job defining the phrases properly. Specifically; Regulated.

    Please read this:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

    That's the Heller opinion and important as it defines pretty much every word in the 2A.

    And this:

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

    This is Nordyke v. King and is not relevant legally as it's being reheard en blanc; however, it has a great synopisis of why the 2A is important in this country.



    I'd like to further add that I believe the only thing that can void ones rights are the equal rights of others. Therefore; your perceived right to not be offended or scaredby my bearing of arms is trumped by my actual right to do so for whatever legal reason I choose to do so.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Here we go again. At least you made some progress now that you seem to have figured outhow to link sources intoyour posts. With that technolog in hand, provide some evidence for the following quote:

    "A great many American’s are appalled by the idea that it might some day be commonplace for their fellow citizens to openly carry firearms on their person"

    How many is "a great many?" Other than the emotional rantings of the people you represent, which is a small number, I haven't heard anyone complain to me about it at all. No one has run away from me screaming in fear. No one has wet their pants in fear of the inanimate object on my belt. It gets very little attention, despite the misleading spin given by the media, and your group.



    You are incorrect with your definition of regulate. According to Websters English Dictionary, 11th edition, 1833,

    regulate: to methodize

    regulating: reducing to order

    and according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989,

    regulate: to put in good order.

    The founding fathers did not use the term regulate to refer to a government bureaucracy that stripped citizens of the rights they intended to protect. In their parlance, a well regulated militia is a properly functioning militia, not a federal government controlled militia.

    For your argument to be accurate, the preamble to the second amendment would have said something like: "A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security ofthe State." However, the entire second amendment would not have been necessary becauseCongress already had the power to raise and support an army in the constitution.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I would also add that I would argue there's a very very good reason that our foundersput "shall not be infringed" to our 2A

    English bill of rights:

    Freedom for Protestants to have arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

    So what happened? The English tried to take away the colonists arms.

    Our founding fathers were well aware of the English bill of rights and modeled many things after it but a significant change was our 2A

    I believe that they knew darn well what they were doing when they worded the amendment and it means what it says. After all, after throwing off the chains of a tyranical goverment keeping your arms and not giving the government the power to take them away would be forefront in your mind.

    It's clear that they didn't want goverment to be able to take away the arms of the people EVER.

    If you can come up with one good reason that this can be viewed any other way; I'd love to hear it.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the reply. I have to go to work now. I'll address your reply in detail when I get home from work.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    You know, buster, it would be more interesting and productive to discuss this with you if you weren't so provocatively hostile in your verbage. You sound like you're picking a fight and being the hot tempered old fart that I am, Itend to succomb to your provocations. Let me see if I can do this once without starting a fire on this site:

    Here we go again (who the f k d'you think you are, Ronald Reagan?). At least you made some progress now that you seem to have figured outhow to link sources intoyour posts (I was linking sources into my posts before you figured out the difference between you dick and your nose!). With that technolog in hand, provide some evidence for the following quote:

    "A great many American’s are appalled by the idea that it might some day be commonplace for their fellow citizens to openly carry firearms on their person"

    How many is "a great many?" (at least 100 million Americans, probably a lot more). Other than the emotional rantings of the people you represent, which is a small number, I haven't heard anyone complain to me about it at all (because you don't listen). No one has run away from me screaming in fear (because they're standing there frozen in terror instead). No one has wet their pants in fear of the inanimate object on my belt (your belt might be inanimate, but your trigger finger isn't). It gets very little attention (why don't you try unzipping your pants and pulling THAT out. You might get the attention you crave then), despite the misleading spin given by the media, and your group.



    You are incorrect with your definition of regulate. According to Websters English Dictionary, 11th edition, 1833, (I useda current dictionary on line. I didn't have to go back 20or 150 years)
    regulate: to methodize

    regulating: reducing to order

    and according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989,

    regulate: to put in good order.

    The founding fathers did not use the term regulate to refer to a government bureaucracy that stripped citizens of the rights they intended to protect. In their parlance, a well regulated militia is a properly functioning militia, not a federal government controlled militia.
    At the risk of unleashing another torrent of your references to colonial era writings, I don't think you know what the founding fathers meant by the term 'regulate', and anyway, its current meaning is torestrict people's activities through the use of laws and 'regulations'.
    For your argument to be accurate, the preamble to the second amendment would have said something like: "A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security ofthe State." However, the entire second amendment would not have been necessary becauseCongress already had the power to raise and support an army in the constitution.
    So why doesn't it just say, "A militia being necessary.....(etc.)?



  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    swine wrote:
    You are incorrect with your definition of regulate. According to Websters English Dictionary, 11th edition, 1833, (I useda current dictionary on line. I didn't have to go back 20or 150 years)
    No; you DO have to go back. It must be viewed in the time it was written otherwise the verbage will be misinterpreted, like you just did.


    On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Thomas Jefferson

    It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

    Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    Wow, I gave you a well thought out and respectful response but you choose to respond instead to someone you think is provoking you? While I personally have nothing against anything Buster said, I would think if you're that offended you would take the "higher road" and be more respectful yourself. After reading your previous conversations I can see why people have the attitude they do, but I figured I would give you the chance to prove me wrong. Do you have a reply for anything I said? Can you narrow the argument to something more specific so I'm not trying to cover 200 years of English language, supreme court cases, federal and state constitutional law, etc?

  13. #13
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    I love reading the rantings of amelodramaticmartyr. Your emotional outbursts keep identifying you as the real person you are. You can't hide behind your lack of control. I can hear a violine playing just for poor, poor swine.

    Since you provided no evidence that "a great many American's areappalled"as you suggest, they we can only conclude that you don't have any evidence. It makes it awfully tough to convince people of a concept that goes against their beliefs without any evidence that your contradictory opinion is correct.

    Fourthings for you to ponder.

    1. If you don't consider the words used in their proper context, then you will never know what they meant. You have made it clear that you don't want to learn anything, as much as troll for an argument.

    2. It is obvious what you are.Any chance that you might have in convincing anyone here that you are right, is lost by your lack of accurate facts. You argue on emotion and feelings.

    3. If you actually wanted a real debate, based on facts and not emotion and fear, you would eliminate your little anecdotes and personal stories. Since you keep expanding and deviating from your original theory, again, it is clear what you are doing.

    4. If what you say is accurate, why didn't the federal government collect all of the privately owned firearms several hundred years ago, and lock them up in the state armory for use by the militia?

    As IB79 pointed out, he provided a well thought out reply to your OP. Debate him with some facts, if you can.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Post imported post

    swine wrote:
    (I was linking sources into my posts before you figured out the difference between you dick and your nose!).
    I have a hard time believing this. Our entire conversation, located here...:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/43312-3.html

    ...you could not, and did not cite any references whatsoever.

    I believe this whole forum thing is new to you. Let me see:

    swine wrote:
    Sorry, what's ROTFLOL mean? I guess the LOL part meants 'laugh out lout' but what's the ROTF part? Is it 'dirty'
    Yeah.

    You are definitely new at this.


    swine wrote:
    (at least 100 million Americans, probably a lot more).
    Cite your source of 100 million Americans.

    The Brady Center could only muster 28,000 signatures for a petition to ban Starbucks until such time that they denied Open Carriers their rights.

    So now it is time to put up, or shut up:

    Cite your 100 million Americans you claim to speak for. (Which we all know is an obvious, fabricated lie.)

    Cite your organization.


    swine wrote:
    (because you don't listen).
    We all listen very, VERY well.

    Sir, I have provided you with evidence supporting my argument, repeatedly.
    Evidence which you simply deny the existence of in the fabrication of your false reality.


    We're only tiring of your conversation because you are incapable of following it!


    For example:

    You do not understand that the English language has changed substantially since 1788.

    To this point, and to make it clear, Thomas Jefferson said the following, which has already been quoted:

    "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson


    We see precisely what you are attempting very hard to do, swine.

    We are not blind to it.


    You are attempting to undermine the very meaningful purpose of the Constitution by altering its meaning.

    You assert that todays world is "different". That somehow, the need for self defense does not apply.

    You assert wrong.


    swine wrote:
    (because they're standing there frozen in terror instead)
    Do not project, swine.

    None of us have to suppose what a person may or may not do based on our own emotive shortcomings.

    swine, you live in a little pocket of the universe that you think represent the world outside your door. You are wrong.

    I have been across this country, and in other states, open carry is completely, totally, and wholly normal.

    Irregardless of your pants wetting, which you base your entire argument off of, not everybody wets their pants.

    Not everybody has an irrational fear of inanimate objects.

    It's good you live in Frisco for the moment, swine. If you went to any other state, you would probably "wet your pants" daily at the shocking truth in the face of your discomfort.


    swine wrote:
    (your belt might be inanimate, but your trigger finger isn't).
    Not only is the belt inanimate.
    So is the firearm.

    So once the firearm is placed in a position wherein the finger can use it, this is where you may start to wet your pants.

    The problem with you swine, is that you wet your pants way before.

    In fact, you assert that anybody who carries a firearm must by way of proxy, be mentally deficient.

    You fabricate your entire world around your irrational fear of an inanimate object.

    Until you realize this, it's going to be impossible to have a rational conversation.

    Fear is not 'proof'.

    It is a response from something which may, or may not, warrant fear.


    swine wrote:
    (why don't you try unzipping your pants and pulling THAT out. You might get the attention you crave then)
    You have a problem with equating firearms to genitalia.

    I would suppose you would make that reference as well, if buster was a girl?

    Where is your confused rationality on that one?

    You are aware there is a TON of open carrying women right?


    In your confused state do you believe them to be flaunting in lieu of sexual deficiency?

    Your mind sure is on male genitalia.

    This is normal given the male sexual appetite, and your confirmed choice in sexuality.

    However, here is a mind-blowing fact that may ruin your day.

    Not everything revolves around the male genitalia.


    swine wrote:
    (I useda current dictionary on line. I didn't have to go back 20or 150 years)
    That is the point you are incapable of getting.

    Your references are not accurate because they do not represent the english in use during the time period.

    What we speak today is highly modified (evolved) English that contains verbiage and slang that the founders would not understand.

    A conversation would on occasion, need translation.

    This is merely the point where we (I, and others) have already shown you to be deficient as to the nuances of this conversation.

    There is great reason we have Constitutional scholars.

    Ever thought about that?


    swine wrote:
    At the risk of unleashing another torrent of your references to colonial era writings, I don't think you know what the founding fathers meant by the term 'regulate', and anyway, its current meaning is torestrict people's activities through the use of laws and 'regulations'.
    There are two ways we can derive the founders commentary and intent, swine:

    Our way:

    --Looking at the English language at the time, and finding dictionaries of that period to define words of the day.

    --Studying the commentary and positioning of the founding fathers in great detail.

    --Using the model of law and liberty in our land as a framework with which to lattice together constitutional rights.

    --Accept that the constitution, by support of the preceding research, has specific meaning in any time period.

    Your way:

    --Ignore the differences in language between the time periods.

    --Use a modern dictionary to interpret terms.

    --Believe on no factual basis whatsoever, that the constitution is "flexible", and should be interpreted willy-nilly based on the changes in society.

    --Ignore the commentary and documentation of our founding fathers as implied purpose for the passing of law or Constitutional amendments.



    One party is being studious.

    The other is being ignorant.

    Pick your side of the line.


    swine wrote:
    So why doesn't it just say, "A militia being necessary.....(etc.)?
    Simply because the founding fathers believe the carrying and owning of arms would increase the adeptness with said arms, thereby leading to a pretty functional militia.

    Here is a good read for you:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm



    By the way, try to stay away from the Ad Hominem.

    It does nothing for your cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Regular Member bom1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Chesterfield County , USA
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Wow. It's apparent that someone is a long winded provocateur.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    swine wrote:
    Thanks for the reply.* I have to go to work now.* I'll address your reply in detail when I get home from work.
    Thanks for the reply.* I have to go to work now.* I'll address your reply in detail when I get home from work.
    Thanks for the reply.* I have to go to work now.* I'll address your reply in detail when I get home from work.
    Thanks for the reply.* I have to go to work now.* I'll address your reply in detail when I get home from work.
    Thanks for the reply.* I have to go to work now.* I'll address your reply in detail when I get home from work.
    Quintuple tap? Wow.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Post imported post

    I would like to also point out the following:

    swine wrote:
    The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”



    Relevant Definitions:



    Infringe: To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing (example): an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
    This is actually an entry showing the verb being used intransitively. Meaning this is not the primary, nor the secondary definition of the term "infringe".

    Here is the complete, uncut entry, citing his own exact source

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe


    in·fringe play_w2("I0136400") (n-frnj)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr.

    1.
    To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

    2.
    Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

    v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

    He had to go straight to the intransitive, and ignore the actual definitions.



    Just pointing out the kind of game being played here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Folks he is not here for reasonable debate or exchange of ideas. This is continually showing by his ignoring everything pointed out to him and his refusal to act civil. Time tostop feeding the TROLL!!!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Folks he is not here for reasonable debate or exchange of ideas. This is continually showing by his ignoring everything pointed out to him and his refusal to act civil. Time tostop feeding the TROLL!!!
    I have to agree, unfortunately.

    I was hoping for a good natured, reasonable, and rational debate.


    I was hoping for far too much. :?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Please go away already! This is getting very old.This is not productive.
    You keep coming with the same old misinformation and loony left,
    hoplophobic rants

    He didn't come here to learn. Came here to stir sh#%.

    To have honest debate you must have 2 honest opposing
    parties and I don't believe that's the case.

    The knife stories, the ****. army story, the wife and panic button
    story, this guy has more stuff happen to him than O.J. Just
    not believable.

    Move on ,please!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Sorry I thought you got my note saying I was going to work and respond when I got home. I'm home now so I will respond. Buster81 is itching for a fight so I gave him one.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    BE careful, "swine". IF there is one thing I've learned as a competitive fencer with over 20 years experience, it's that it's NEVER a good idea to jump into a fight when you are unarmed.

    That goes for brains JUST as much as it does for weapons.

    You need to be aware that you've wandered into rather well-armed (grammatically) territory here.

    Have a care... Allez!
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately ‘incorporated’ into the Bill of Rights
    You are wrong there, the actual "Bill of rights," was the first 10 amendments. One of the arguments made by those in favor of the Articles of Confederation and against the proposed constitution as we know it today was that the proposed US Constitution did not specifically enumerate the rights of citizens. The answer was the original first 10 amendments, knows to this day as the original Bill of Rights. The fist 10 amendments where enacted almost simultaneous as the constitution was ratified. The first ten amendments ARE Bill of rights.
    You are right I am wrong. I should have said, "The 2nd Amendment is among the articles and amendments to the Constitution that were not immediately 'incorporated' into the PART OF the Bill of Rights imposed on the States by the 14th Amendment.
    A common mistake made by many is to say the the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of rights are all part of the same document. The Declaration of Independence served to announce to the world that the United States would from that day forth be separate from England and stated a list of grievances against the king, as well as proclaiming that liberty was anointed by God not by any ruler or government.

    The constitution followed after a short lived and failed Articles of Confederation and served to outline how the government would function, define it's three branches and their powers, and in what manner states representatives would be elected based on the population of both free and "other people."

    The Bill of rights was created as a separate document to appease those who objected to the Constitution because it did not specifically enumerate the rights of the People.

    Heres my interpretation of the second amendment, and yes it has two seprate and very important parts, the first part is;


    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
    The people should have a right to take up arms as their own or in conjunction with a well armed militia to defend the constitution from any enemy. But why do you change 'well regulated' to 'well armed'?

    ...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    Should the militia be the force that is destructive to the cause of liberty, it is necessary for the People to be as well armed as the militia. Where does this idea come from?
    The reason we have the Second Amendment is this;

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Then howare we todistinguish betwee treasonous overthrow of the govm't by force vs revolution?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I will once again remind y'all that I found this site from an article in my local newspaper about an 'open carry' advocate who invited everybody to come here to this site and exchange views. My very first posting, which was just a very reasonable question about how children can be protected if they can't 'open carry' was met with plangent hostility and Troll accusations like this one. You people don't want to hear anything from anyone who hasn't already drunk your cool aid.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    No believable huh? Look up S.F. police dept. case number 100371969. It's public record.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •