I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
Original poster still hasn't shown up since his join date.
I guess he wasn't interested in the results...
I want you to cite the specific language that actually mentions a federal gun control power. We know that Liberals pretend and divine such a power but I want to see the plain language
and again this is disingenuous given how you construe the 2A and then start engaging in a completely different set of standards for Sec 8. SORRY, there is no such power given and you know that
No they didn't, they merely said a well regulated militia was necessary, they never said arms could only be kept in that context. In fact, they said just the opposite.
Why do you keep tap dancing around my other question? Afraid it may bolster my point?
Can you support the quote you posted and why you posted it or are you in the habit of posting things you do not understand?
except MIlitary service is not a natural right that would be part of the Bill of rights
major fail
What other question is it that you want to ask of me?
You really have no point to bolster.
Go back and look, you skipped over it three times. Purely by accident, I'm sure. :roll:
the Constitution has NOT CHANGED since the previous dozens of times I gave you the language in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
An you know that.
Nor is anything else because natural right do not exist.
Worse than a major fail.
More evasive nonsense. We have asked you constantly to show the actual language (and since it MENTIONS NOTHING about federal gun control) show us how language devoid of any mention of gun control actually means federal gun control.
What I know is that your posts constantly avoid answering straight questions and demand others adopt extreme and untenable definitions
More silliness. YOu know damn well that matters not. what counts is that the FOUNDERS believed in said rights and INTENDED to use the BILL OF RIGHTS to recognize and Guarantee such rights. SO tell us Haymarket, why do you constantly engage in evasion by arguing over the existence of a belief? Its dilatory, evasive and a disingenuous argument
you cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality. Why do I say so? As a life long educator I try to inform and illuminate into the ignorance and darkness.
What other question is that you want to ask of me?
Article I Section 8. that is a direct answer and there is nothing evasive about it.
YOur posts are akin to squid ink on this board-a diversion used to escape being destroyed.
the founders WHO BELIEVED IN NATURAL RIGHTS, would not issue a Bill of Rights that did not recognize said Natural Rights
and that is something you cannot refute which is why your posts continue to divert with this nonsense over whether NRs exist
More evasive crap. cite the specific language that mentions the power to regulate privately owned firearms
it DOES NOT EXIST so we are left with your misguided and dishonest interpretations of the language
you have constantly failed to explain what language actually is code for federal gun control
I am not going to play games, if you want to answer the question, go back and look it up. I asked it three times, you could not have missed it.
thats fine with me. have a nice evening.
In other words, you refuse to answer it because it damages your case. I don't blame you. Goodnight.
YOur posts are akin to squid ink on this board-
Originally Posted by TurtleDude
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.
Being destroyed?!?!?!?!? What ever do you mean?
You cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality.
Simple REALITY refutes you Turtle... simple everyday reality proves you are wrong.
more silliness
lets suppose the College of Cardinals are tasked with writing a new constitution for the Vatican and they say in that constitution that the papal state recognizes God's law. and 200 years later, some marxists claim that since God does not exist, the cardinals' law make no sense. Same thing.
Our founders believed in natural law. Men who believed in natural law would not do certain things and they would do other things
which apparently is why so much diversion is spent claiming natural rights do not exist
that has no relevance
what is relevant is that men who believed in NATURAL RIGHTS would issue amendments designed to recognize those rights
and that explains why so much time is spent trying to divert from that fact
No self adopted belief because you want to believe it can make something that does not exist suddenly exist in reality. That is a fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?