• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

The 2nd Amendment and a Living Constitution.

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
+1
The indisputable natural right to defend oneself presupposes the use of weapons. When the earliest human picked up a stick to defend himself against a Saber Toothed Cat, he created that natural right. Nothing has changed it, despite civil corruption of natural rights.

Then your post (and the one to which you replied) demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of natural rights. Natural rights preexist everything. Long before man took up the first weapon (or began to use speech) he had a set of natural rights, which, since these rights preexisted weaponry, did not include keeping and bearing arms. The right that has existed since time immemorial is the right to defend oneself. Keeping, bearing, and using arms is a means to accomplishing the goal of defending oneself.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an enumerated right, one invented in law and set down in the Constitution (and English law before that), to help secure the underlying natural right of defense, particularly against a government gone rogue.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Shh, quiet, listen - you can hear the Constitution breathing. It's living. Interpretation my friend, the Constitution is interpretive. Welcome to the forum.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
A perfect example of CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS as it was designed to happen. It is only part of what makes our Constitution and our Country great.

And perfect example of how the Constitution is not set in stone; how the Constitution is interpretive; and how the Constitution was meant to be changed, if/when necessary.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I am not a Christian, so the example of the Bible does not offend me.


What you are missing in the attempt to subvert a foundational understanding, is that there is a core meaning that will forever be appropriately applied. It is the moral slab for all other arguments. The Constitution literally lists foundational truths, meant to be easily understood by all.

For instance, let's take one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not murder"

Humanity in general can understand the simplicity of this order, and it will forever be eternally applicable. There are no semantic games that can change the validity of the arguments base, nor its universal applicability. You can attempt to subvert the baseline meaning by adding stipulations, but any that violate the precept, are invalid on their face. If there were laws that contradicted this fundamental truth, then regardless of the applicability or perceived validity of the law, it would violate the truth directly. Therefore, the law itself isn't really valid. At least, in a country or locale with an enumerated right to life. Such is our country.

I know precisely what you are likely to say. That "killing another human being at any time is murder", but that is not the case whatsoever. Hence the term defense.


To understand the concept of individuality and the right to defend ones self and belongings, you must thoroughly understand the concept of self. Any individual who does not understand the concept of self, may violate their own sanctity without even knowing, and because of a true lack of knowledge, might find themselves voting for things that sound good on their face, but are really subversions of the right to individual freedom.

The Constitution of the United States is really amazing. Read it. Learn it. Study the Federal papers and the Anti-Federal papers. Also read the Virginia Ratification Convention documents. Study Jefferson, Adams, etc. Learn.

It is an old document that is likely to never "not apply", because the rights it enumerates are universal truths. Any alteration, subversion, tweaking, or modification results in nothing short of complete dismissal of the fundamental truth.

Yes, there were entries into the Constitution specifically dealing with slave value etc., but these were actually in direct confrontation with the passages in the Constitution, and if you recall, these were Constitutionally amended, and the foundation for a war that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

You are a human being. You have a right to life.
You are a human being. You have a right to equitable defense of said life.
You are a human being. Your belongings are the sum of your wasted days and hours. You have a right to protect them.

Every human being is born with equality. It is only once added or forced via physical or mental oppression that one loses their freedom. The battlefield in modern day America is the battle of the minds. Weak education yields pliable, placated minds.

Be strong, be individual, be equal.

What is this "morality" of which you speak Slow? Assuming you are deemed by the structure to be a human being, your right to life, and equitable defense are negotiable. the latter is also a structural issue. Slow seems to be of the ideological belief that we are the pavers of what we are destine to be, to become - that could not be further from the reality on the ground. There are far to many variables in the equation that would allow for such an assertion. Slow, remember your place my intellectual friend. Don't be distracted with generalizations, and distract the sheep with more tasty kool-aid. They get enough of that crap from politicians.

Also, the vast majority of individuals are freaking idiots, it has always been the case. Most of them are idiots by choice. So much for believing in some human condition where individuals actually want to know what the hell is going on, no, they would rather be led, even if it is off a cliff. I am such a pessimist. I think it is living in the hell-hole country, California. This place is a gun-toters worse nightmare...ok, there is always Chicago, right!
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
+1
The indisputable natural right to defend oneself presupposes the use of weapons. When the earliest human picked up a stick to defend himself against a Saber Toothed Cat, he created that natural right. Nothing has changed it, despite civil corruption of natural rights.

I don't recall Locke saying quite that. I don't recall him saying much directly on that point, really. I just skimmed the first several paragraphs of Second Treatise looking for it, also. Locke seems more focused on government and justifications for power transfer and so forth. He does touch briefly on self-preservation, but focuses more on punishment and reparation.

I would say the actual underlying natural right is self-preservation. The most powerful impulse in nature as one put it, I think.

Self-defense immediately arises from self-preservation in my mind.

I would argue more in the direction that self-defense arises from existence, rather than creating the right by using a weapon. Grizzly bears don't use implements as weapons, but just try talking one out of his right to self-preservation. :D
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I don't recall Locke saying quite that. I don't recall him saying much directly on that point, really. I just skimmed the first several paragraphs of Second Treatise looking for it, also. Locke seems more focused on government and justifications for power transfer and so forth. He does touch briefly on self-preservation, but focuses more on punishment and reparation.

I would say the actual underlying natural right is self-preservation. The most powerful impulse in nature as one put it, I think.

Self-defense immediately arises from self-preservation in my mind.

I would argue more in the direction that self-defense arises from existence, rather than creating the right by using a weapon. Grizzly bears don't use implements as weapons, but just try talking one out of his right to self-preservation. :D

Gunslinger is a Schopenhauer type. That the fundamental human trait is to preserve life - for the purposes of? Procreation I suppose. I tend to lean towards a more selfish reason that our will is to preserve life by any means necessary. Will To Power, anyone?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
And perfect example of how the Constitution is not set in stone; how the Constitution is interpretive; and how the Constitution was meant to be changed, if/when necessary.

The Constitution is NOT interpretive, but it CAN be modified by amendment. This modification IS NOT INTERPRETATION!

Again, the words the Constitution are written in DON'T CHANGE, their meanings don't change. The ONLY way to CONSTITUTIONALLY change what the supreme law of the land is IS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Congress does not GIVE us rights. Our Government does not give us rights. We all have Natural rights, or for those of a religious bent, GOD given rights.... among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

Back to the sales contract analogy--- it is as agreement between two or more persons involving an exchange of something of perceived value for something else of perceived value. To be valid it must be done without duress or coercion. Our Federal Constitution was originally UNANIMOUSLY approved by all the States that we then in existence. After it was approved THEN the amendment process included in the Constitution came to force, that of ratification by 2/3rds of the various states. Many amendments have been proposed. Some have been ratified by 2/3rds of the States.

To modify the Constitution you do NOT change the definition of the terms used. YOU AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. We got prohibition by amendment. We got repeal of prohibition by amendment. Women got the vote BY amendment. 18yr olds got the right to vote by amendment of the constitution.


We don't allow the sellor of a product to change the terms of the agreement UNILATERALLY of their own accord anytime they see fit. To suggest that the Constitutions meaning and effect can be UNILATERALLY changed without ratification of the States is to foment ANARCHY and MOB RULE---- or a Democracy. The United States of America IS NOT and has NEVER been a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic!
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Then your post (and the one to which you replied) demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of natural rights. Natural rights preexist everything. Long before man took up the first weapon (or began to use speech) he had a set of natural rights, which, since these rights preexisted weaponry, did not include keeping and bearing arms. The right that has existed since time immemorial is the right to defend oneself. Keeping, bearing, and using arms is a means to accomplishing the goal of defending oneself.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an enumerated right, one invented in law and set down in the Constitution (and English law before that), to help secure the underlying natural right of defense, particularly against a government gone rogue.

Sorry my friend, and this is why I view many of your thoughts as statist.

It wasn't invented in law it was recognized by law. Something the government doesn't give us a right to have by law. Just like freedom of speech. Humans by nature being weak in comparison to other animals, naturally use weapons, we don't have razor sharp teeth and claws, we don't have the strength of an ape (who by the way interestingly enough will use a weapon too if available).

Our rights our not numbered, here is the 9th amendment that supports my viewpoint on that.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because we have a 1,2,3,4, 5, etc, does not mean these rights are numbered and given to us by the government. This was simply laying out what the Government can't touch and we already retain naturally.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
What is this "morality" of which you speak Slow? Assuming you are deemed by the structure to be a human being, your right to life, and equitable defense are negotiable. the latter is also a structural issue. Slow seems to be of the ideological belief that we are the pavers of what we are destine to be, to become - that could not be further from the reality on the ground.


There are far to many variables in the equation that would allow for such an assertion. Slow, remember your place my intellectual friend. Don't be distracted with generalizations, and distract the sheep with more tasty kool-aid. They get enough of that crap from politicians.

Also, the vast majority of individuals are freaking idiots, it has always been the case. Most of them are idiots by choice. So much for believing in some human condition where individuals actually want to know what the hell is going on, no, they would rather be led, even if it is off a cliff. I am such a pessimist. I think it is living in the hell-hole country, California. This place is a gun-toters worse nightmare...ok, there is always Chicago, right!

You are for all intensive terms, a "complete waste of conversation".

The neo-marxist moron of the board, to be blunt with you.


A pre-existing right is present to any social structure. Being born into a society that does not recognize said rights has no bearing on their fundamental existence, even if they state that it is not so.



Beretta. You lack any formal understanding or education on this subject. You keep making allusions to social science that you are incompetent on. Please take some college courses on anthropology, sociology and psychology before barfing up the same stupidity as fact ad nauseum.

Study Calvinism and Armenianism and you might learn how truly stupid you sound right now. That others guide our life is certainly not a "reality on the ground", as your royal incompetence deems it to be. (inb4 you dont understand the scientific application of the studies of both structures and simply state that they apply only to religion)

Nobody can take your comments seriously because they are completely devoid of any and all substantiation.

Your opinion does not qualify as scientific substantiation. No matter how many times you barf it up, this is the truth.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Then your post (and the one to which you replied) demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of natural rights. Natural rights preexist everything. Long before man took up the first weapon (or began to use speech) he had a set of natural rights, which, since these rights preexisted weaponry, did not include keeping and bearing arms. The right that has existed since time immemorial is the right to defend oneself. Keeping, bearing, and using arms is a means to accomplishing the goal of defending oneself.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an enumerated right, one invented in law and set down in the Constitution (and English law before that), to help secure the underlying natural right of defense, particularly against a government gone rogue.

Eye, you are rearranging deck chairs again. We are not in disagreement, it is semantics. Nothing exists until it is put into effect. This is Rosseau's premise, not mine. And Barkley's. "If a tree falls in the forrest..."
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I don't recall Locke saying quite that. I don't recall him saying much directly on that point, really. I just skimmed the first several paragraphs of Second Treatise looking for it, also. Locke seems more focused on government and justifications for power transfer and so forth. He does touch briefly on self-preservation, but focuses more on punishment and reparation.

I would say the actual underlying natural right is self-preservation. The most powerful impulse in nature as one put it, I think.

Self-defense immediately arises from self-preservation in my mind.

I would argue more in the direction that self-defense arises from existence, rather than creating the right by using a weapon. Grizzly bears don't use implements as weapons, but just try talking one out of his right to self-preservation. :D

More Rousseau, than Locke, in all likelyhood. "Discourse on Inequality" comes to mind.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Gunslinger is a Schopenhauer type. That the fundamental human trait is to preserve life - for the purposes of? Procreation I suppose. I tend to lean towards a more selfish reason that our will is to preserve life by any means necessary. Will To Power, anyone?

As much as I do agree with him, I think of Marcus Aurelius as being closer to my philosophy.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Just a quick clarification: 2/3 is the vote necessary to propose an amendment to the States or for the States to call a convention. Once either of those happen, the margin to make a change is 3/4.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
You are for all intensive terms, a "complete waste of conversation".

The neo-marxist moron of the board, to be blunt with you.


A pre-existing right is present to any social structure. Being born into a society that does not recognize said rights has no bearing on their fundamental existence, even if they state that it is not so.



Beretta. You lack any formal understanding or education on this subject. You keep making allusions to social science that you are incompetent on. Please take some college courses on anthropology, sociology and psychology before barfing up the same stupidity as fact ad nauseum.

Study Calvinism and Armenianism and you might learn how truly stupid you sound right now. That others guide our life is certainly not a "reality on the ground", as your royal incompetence deems it to be. (inb4 you dont understand the scientific application of the studies of both structures and simply state that they apply only to religion)

Nobody can take your comments seriously because they are completely devoid of any and all substantiation.

Your opinion does not qualify as scientific substantiation. No matter how many times you barf it up, this is the truth.

Thanks.

*Yawn*, and yet you continue to respond. That act speaks volumes to the nerve I strike with you, that you can't help but respond with such thoughtful, and eloquent words as "stupid," and "neo-Marxist moron."
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
As much as I do agree with him, I think of Marcus Aurelius as being closer to my philosophy.

Stoicism is a futile human exercise, but it keeps the mind occupied, distracted. I realize the reason individuals cling to distractions is for the sake of making sense of reality, via generalizations. For the vast majority of humans it is necessary; the last thing we would all want is a bunch of Nihilistic individuals who are incapable of handling reality in its purest form, in all of its probabilities. Basically, individuals construct in order to feel in control. I don't fault individuals for grasping for some 'moral' 'duty' that is merely self-imposed, not from some Divine source. The stoic is merely an exerciser of will to power. The Stoic attempts to tame their nature as they attempt to tame the beast. What the Stoic doesn't realize is that they are no less a beast than the the monkeys that we cage at the zoo, who crap in their hand, and toss their feces at observers passing by. Stoic philosophy is wrought with things such as 'virtue', 'morality', 'determinism' - merely constructs.

Don't mistaken my response as arguing for the eradication of the constructs I have used as examples. I am of the view that a human species who's majority lack the capacity to deal with a Nihilistic reality. The so-called philosopher who wastes his time with such nonsense as pontificating 'virtue', and 'morality' is merely an intellectual coward, too afraid to cross over that cusp where pure intellectual contemplation exposes the futility of seeking so-called 'truths'. Or "fundamental truths" as Slow calls them.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
*Yawn*, and yet you continue to respond. That act speaks volumes to the nerve I strike with you, that you can't help but respond with such thoughtful, and eloquent words as "stupid," and "neo-Marxist moron."

Yes, Beretta. You strike a nerve with me. I take issue with all obvious socialist individuals, but particularly those that attempt to subvert and alter history to try and pervert others.

Practice your right to free speech child. Even as you present flatulent, opinionated diatribe repeatedly, thinking someone will eventually listen to you.



How is your study of Saul Alinsky going? Everything you have ever said on this forum is straight out of his Rules for Radicals.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yes, Beretta. You strike a nerve with me. I take issue with all obvious socialist individuals, but particularly those that attempt to subvert and alter history to try and pervert others.

Practice your right to free speech child. Even as you present flatulent, opinionated diatribe repeatedly, thinking someone will eventually listen to you.



How is your study of Saul Alinsky going? Everything you have ever said on this forum is straight out of his Rules for Radicals.

I have purposely not reade any thing related to Saul Alinsky, because you seem to be so well versed in him, and I figure you will, at you convenience, let me know what Alinsky has to say.

I should mention that I am not looking for anyone to listen to me, nor change any minds. Just post what I am inclined to post. I suppose that's the case for most individuals on here.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
First, a "living" constitution is as desirable as a "living" sales contract. Think about it.

Second, the Second Amendment does not address firearms, it addresses arms, which may or may not be firearms.

What is a firearm? It is a device which propels an object by means of expanding gas formed by an explosion, usually gunpowder or its modern day variants.

There is no cut-off. My wants, desires and needs are not for you to restrict.

Good grief, I am sorry but the Second Amendment does address firearms. The Second Amendment addresses "arms" which at the time was not in reference to an individuals so-called 'right' to bear, not bare, arms, as in the two appendages that extend from your shoulders, that is, if you have two appendages.

"Arms" does not refer to no thing more than an object for which individuals use. You know, the first "arm" was not a rock, but the arms themselves that even before the human was capable of understanding that a rock lying on the ground could be used as an object for inflicting injury on another individual, the individual used their arms to inflict injury on another individual.

As for the latter, let's say your desire is to be able to walk up to whomever you like, and remove money from their wallet, you believe that such act should not be restricted? Actually, the act itself is not restricted, the act itself is imposed a consequence, such as, imprisonment for theft.

The "arms" referenced is merely an object which an individual uses to inflict injury upon another individual, well, with the idea that such injury would only be inflicted through the object in the case of self-defense.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I have purposely not reade any thing related to Saul Alinsky, because you seem to be so well versed in him, and I figure you will, at you convenience, let me know what Alinsky has to say.

I should mention that I am not looking for anyone to listen to me, nor change any minds. Just post what I am inclined to post. I suppose that's the case for most individuals on here.


It is a sad effort to state ones indifference in an attempt to gain favor. It is also pitiful to attempt incrimination via association of read text. Such is the totality of the above quoted post.

If you do not study the alternate opinion (In this case, your noted, and already well known lack of ANY formal study or education on the framers and the ratification of the 2nd Amendment), then you are opinionated hot air. Which would be acceptable if presented as such, but the majority of what you type and say is a blatant attempt to convince others of how they are "not sure what they know", specifically, after studying it for years, and years themselves.


Why don't you give us a formal paper, backed by psychological study and anthropological citation, qualifying your claims that, and I do surely quote you, "Most people need to be controlled...".

Pessimism has little to nothing to do with fact and scientific discovery. I am pessimistic, no doubt, but I refuse to cloud my education, experiences, and studies with an emotional condition or state of being.

You are an emotional extrovert who derives their sense of satisfaction from emotional sources. It is painfully obvious in your typing, your sentence structure, and most importantly, your focal points.


Live in "touchy feely" land all you like Beretta, but it is YOU that lives in a factually substantiated irrational non-reality.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Good grief, I am sorry but the Second Amendment does address firearms. The Second Amendment addresses "arms" which at the time was not in reference to an individuals so-called 'right' to bear, not bare, arms, as in the two appendages that extend from your shoulders, that is, if you have two appendages.

"Arms" does not refer to no thing more than an object for which individuals use. You know, the first "arm" was not a rock, but the arms themselves that even before the human was capable of understanding that a rock lying on the ground could be used as an object for inflicting injury on another individual, the individual used their arms to inflict injury on another individual.

As for the latter, let's say your desire is to be able to walk up to whomever you like, and remove money from their wallet, you believe that such act should not be restricted? Actually, the act itself is not restricted, the act itself is imposed a consequence, such as, imprisonment for theft.

The "arms" referenced is merely an object which an individual uses to inflict injury upon another individual, well, with the idea that such injury would only be inflicted through the object in the case of self-defense.
NO, it does not. It addresses "arms", as you went on to actually say.

It did not mean that "to disarm" would mean "to cut the actual appendages off the body." But, "to disarm" WOULD be likely to mean the taking of firearms, as well as bladed instruments, or battlehammers or maces.

The 2nd Amendment does NOT speak OF firearms. But, firearms ARE reasonably included in "arms." The main point is this. As for the 2nd Amendment, it speaks of "arms" which historically, presents a picture of firearms, though that is not restricive to ONLY firearms, as some would desire.



As to "living document?" To a point. But, not to "interpretation and/or reinterpretation." If it were open to such "interpretation" as you allege, the Dred Scott decision would not have presented the need for the 14th amendment, would it.
 
Last edited:
Top