Here's a fun thought about the 2nd amendment...

[leftofcenter]

Put me down for "never going to happen".

Got it

See Chicago v McDonald.

I did

Rights are inherent.

Rights like freedom and liberty are inherent, I get that, but the right to own a man-made object? But I see how having an inherent right to own guns works for your argument, since you can't very well challenge an inherent right after all. Well played...

 

[Rucker61]

Got it

I did

Rights like freedom and liberty are inherent, I get that, but the right to own a man-made object? But I see how having an inherent right to own guns works for your argument, since you can't very well challenge an inherent right after all. Well played...

Yeah, those Founders were pretty smart.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

 

[Neal]

Funny you should use cars as an analogy. I use the same analogy to support the right to own a gun. I do believe that access to expedient, timely transportation is a RIGHT, not a privilege, as almost every government holds ... a right, of course, provided one can demonstrate one is responsible and safe behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. After all, we no longer ride horse-and-buggies any more. And btw, who exactly is opposed to needing a gun license to acquire a gun? As for the right to own a man-made object, why not? Don’t I have the right to own a spoon, my own pair of underwear, a house, a car, a pair of shoes, a shovel, a lawn mower, etc.? Would you be OK with the government coming to your house and repo’ing all your shit, INCLUDING your house???!!!

 

[Rucker61]

Funny you should use cars as an analogy. I use the same analogy to support the right to own a gun. I do believe that access to expedient, timely transportation is a RIGHT, not a privilege, as almost every government holds ... a right, of course, provided one can demonstrate one is responsible and safe behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

You don't need to demonstrate any of those to own a car. You're conflating ownership vs use. The Constitution protects your right to own a car, and to travel unrestricted between the states, but actually driving it on public roadways is a privilege that requires licensing of both driver and car by the government.

The Constitution protects both ownership and lawful use of firearms at a right, not requiring government permission in other than a few, limited purposes.

After all, we no longer ride horse-and-buggies any more. And btw, who exactly is opposed to needing a gun license to acquire a gun?

Likely all of the gun rights posters here, a significant majority of gun rights advocates in the country and most gun owners. And the Constitution. See Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton. The right to keep and bear arms includes both ownership and lawful use, and a license requirement infringes that right.

As for the right to own a man-made object, why not? Don’t I have the right to own a spoon, my own pair of underwear, a house, a car, a pair of shoes, a shovel, a lawn mower, etc.? Would you be OK with the government coming to your house and repo’ing all your shit, INCLUDING your house???!!

That's a property rights discussion.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Fair enough... you mentioned that it's impossible to amend the 2nd amendment. Why is that? Are you saying that simply because there isn't enough support for it in the current political climate or is there another reason?

I wrote a post to you explaining some of the reasons why I believe it is impossible to alter (or remove) the 2nd Amendment, you could reply to that post and we could discuss those reasons.

I believe you also mentioned that you didn't feel like the 2nd amendment actually gave us any rights but was just the govt's acknowledgement of that right that already existed? Can you elaborate on that?

The federal Constitution is founded on certain fixed principles. Primary among them is all governmental power originates from the people, who granted to government, through the Constitution, strictly limited powers for government to perform express delegated duties.

The powers that were not conferred to government are retained by the people, with some conferred by the people to the state governments through state constitutions. What powers remain in the people's possession are at that point referred to as rights.

Our rights were our rights before the Constitution was written and before the Bill of Rights was attached. The 2nd Amendment and other provisions in the Bill of Rights grant nothing. There are many SCOTUS opinions that solidify this principle; the ideal has remained constant since the beginning of our government; here's a small sampling:

​

​

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​

​

__________________​

​

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)​

​

__________________​

​

"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)​

​

__________________​

​

​

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . . DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)​

And now to bring it back to the 2nd Amendment . . . Those enumerated rights stand as examples of an infinite number of liberties where the government -- established by the Constitution -- can not step. If the government does trespass, it is no longer, "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign, and is from then on, illegitimate.

Such a government, that ignores the limits of the Constitution, violates the principles of its establishment and has lost its legitimacy to govern, can no longer claim the protections of the Constitution (prosecuting treason and sedition, enjoying preemption and supremacy).

That government is then subject to the citizen's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers originally granted . . . With violence if necessary, using the means forever guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.

Since the 2nd Amendment recognizes and secures the right to say NO! to government, that government can not be allowed to exercise powers it was never granted to infringe on the right that was, and is, intended to be the people's ultimate check on government's power.

.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Obviously cars weren't around at the time of our constitution's creation, but what if they were? "A mobile society, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and operate cars shall not be infringed"

Would there be a group of people fanatically defending people's right to own them? Fiercely trying to defeat any attempt at government regulation of making them safer? Would they protest needing a license to operate one? Would they be opposed to the states request that every transaction be recorded and registered used or new?

Just curious...

What a silly attempt at a strawman argument.

 

[Glitch]

Got it

I did

Rights like freedom and liberty are inherent, I get that, but the right to own a man-made object? But I see how having an inherent right to own guns works for your argument, since you can't very well challenge an inherent right after all. Well played...

The definition of "arms" includes more than just man-made objects. If you pick up a stick or rock to protect yourself, you have just "armed" yourself.

The individual "right to keep and bear arms" includes much more than just firearms. Firearms just get all the attention, because leftists are not trying to ban any other arms, just firearms.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Yet the second is abridged to deny the privilege (can't be a right if you can lose it) to felons. As the constitution specifically forbids.

I believe that using firearms in crimes that infringe on the Constitutional rights of others ( seizing property, murder ) is permissible to withhold that right.

 

[What if...?]

I believe that using firearms in crimes that infringe on the Constitutional rights of others ( seizing property, murder ) is permissible to withhold that right.

Then it isn't a right. I can see it if a gun was used in a crime.

But not pulling a wheelie on one's motorcycle. Or other crimes without a victim.

 

[natman]

Shocking... all in the same post you point out that the Constitution has been amended 27 times but basically state that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be touched. Amend all the other ones but keep your hands off the 2nd, right?

That has pretty much been my point in this entire thread... too many people treat the 2nd Amendment as if it is untouchable.

You've misunderstood. The Second Amendment, like all other parts of the Constitution, can be changed. There is a procedure to do so. However, that's the ONLY legal way it can be changed. So keep your hands off the Second Amendment, unless you've successfully passed another Constitutional amendment to do so.

 

[Big Steve]

Just drawing some parallels, that's all and wondering why the outrage when these beliefs are challenged. There are so many things in our lives that are recorded, registered, licensed, documented, etc. etc. by local, state and federal agencies and we have no second thoughts about protesting. Yet... anyone mentions registering gun owners and it brings out the fanatics, lobbyists and everyone else who thinks this will lead to "someone" taking their guns away.

Yes, I was poking the bear a bit but I seriously believe it's short sighted to look at the second amendment like it's written in stone and untouchable. The concept of a firearm was radically different then compared to firearms available today, yet this amendment has not evolved with the changing times and available technology.

To your points though, we may not license and register cars specifically to prevent crime but we do license and regulate them for public safety. And I am not suggesting banning firearms, in fact, I'm not against reasonable firearm ownership at all.

You didn't answer his question. What's the purpose of gun registration?

The anti-gun crowd always uses the premise of safety when calling for more gun control. How does registering a firearm make anyone safe?

 

[Big Steve]

but it's true, witty or otherwise

No, it strongly suggests that you're not capable of holding an intelligent discussion on the topic...

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

No, it strongly suggests that you're not capable of holding an intelligent discussion on the topic...

To have an intelligent discussion I would need to find someone from the Right that is intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

To have an intelligent discussion I would need to find someone from the Right that is intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

View attachment 67352757

Everything you have written in the gun control sub-forum proves you are incapable or unwilling to discuss this topic in the philosophical framework of the US Constitution's recognition and protection of the right to arms.

That purposeful ignorance eliminates you from being considered competent and/or qualified to tell gun rights supporters what an intelligent discussion even entails.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Everything you have written in the gun control sub-forum proves you are incapable or unwilling to discuss this topic in the philosophical framework of the US Constitution's recognition and protection of the right to arms.

That purposeful ignorance eliminates you from being considered competent and/or qualified to tell gun rights supporters what an intelligent discussion even entails.

to quote my previous comment:
To have an intelligent discussion I would need to find someone from the Right that is intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

And this by Willie was his rebuttal, need I say more?

 

[Big Steve]

to quote my previous comment:
To have an intelligent discussion I would need to find someone from the Right that is intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

And this by Willie was his rebuttal, need I say more?

Well, comments like this are stupid: "no problem letting thoughts out, the trouble is, gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts".

Such comments add noting to a conversation. They're stupid, and all they do is shine a light on the fact that you're woefully ill-prepared to enter into a discussion about guns and gun safety. There's nothing wrong with that, but at least be mature enough to admit it. Be mature enough to admit that you're not armed with enough relevant knowledge of the topic. I can assure you that I am, as I've been a gun owner for the last 40 years.

You're the type of person who believes someone is ignorant or stupid if they don't agree with you. That's the very definition of "myopic", and it ensures that you'll never learn anything, simply because you don't allow yourself to be in that position. Instead of proving that you can't intelligently engage on the subject, why not surprise us and challenge us? You clearly have strong opinions, as do we.

We're willing and prepared to have that intelligent, reasoned, mature conversation. Can you say the same?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Well, comments like this are stupid: "no problem letting thoughts out, the trouble is, gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts".

Such comments add noting to a conversation. They're stupid, and all they do is shine a light on the fact that you're woefully ill-prepared to enter into a discussion about guns and gun safety. There's nothing wrong with that, but at least be mature enough to admit it. Be mature enough to admit that you're not armed with enough relevant knowledge of the topic. I can assure you that I am, as I've been a gun owner for the last 40 years.

You're the type of person who believes someone is ignorant or stupid if they don't agree with you. That's the very definition of "myopic", and it ensures that you'll never learn anything, simply because you don't allow yourself to be in that position. Instead of proving that you can't intelligently engage on the subject, why not surprise us and challenge us? You clearly have strong opinions, as do we.

We're willing and prepared to have that intelligent, reasoned, mature conversation. Can you say the same?

Here is my reply:
I have discussed guns on DP.
I also have other debate forums I attend.
I also participate on forums that are run on a different platform.
And on ALL of them, without fail, this is what happened:

I tried to give MY views on Guns, especially from a Canadian perspective, and the results were ALWAYS and I DO MEAN ALWAYS the same:
I don't know shit, I am an anti-2nd amendment person, I am a Fascist, I want to take your guns away (in ANY debate I had, I never once said that), and those were on forums that were somewhat regulated.

Now being the bright person you are, can you guess what I was called on forums where there is no moderation or regulations? Yup, you guessed it.

SO the simple truth is, there is ONE issue I rather avoid, it's guns. I can talk about abortion, partisan politics, whatever you like, but ANY and I DO MEAN ANY discussion about guns devolves into name-calling and personal attacks.
So, while you might not like my comment, it stands: gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts. They go full commando on anyone who even suggests gun legislation or regulations.

And to prove my point, you will now engage in name-calling and mocking. Waiting for it.

 

[Big Steve]

Here is my reply:
I have discussed guns on DP.
I also have other debate forums I attend.
I also participate on forums that are run on a different platform.
And on ALL of them, without fail, this is what happened:

I tried to give MY views on Guns, especially from a Canadian perspective, and the results were ALWAYS and I DO MEAN ALWAYS the same:
I don't know shit, I am an anti-2nd amendment person, I am a Fascist, I want to take your guns away (in ANY debate I had, I never once said that), and those were on forums that were somewhat regulated.

Now being the bright person you are, can you guess what I was called on forums where there is no moderation or regulations? Yup, you guessed it.

SO the simple truth is, there is ONE issue I rather avoid, it's guns. I can talk about abortion, partisan politics, whatever you like, but ANY and I DO MEAN ANY discussion about guns devolves into name-calling and personal attacks.
So, while you might not like my comment, it stands: gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts. They go full commando on anyone who even suggests gun legislation or regulations.

And to prove my point, you will now engage in name-calling and mocking. Waiting for it.

The closest I'll come to mocking you is pointing out that you're wrong.

I can't speak for anyone else, and certainly not for anyone else on some other forum. What I will say is that the response you received may well be due to how you chose to interact with those you were conversing with. After all, my first interaction with you on the subject was you saying "gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts", so I don't have anything else to go on. Reacting to me in a manner caused by how someone on another forum reacted to you makes no sense, but if you treated them similarly I can certainly understand why someone might react as you say they do.

Do I have strong opinions? Yes, I certainly do. Am I passionate about the subject? Yes, I absolutely am. Have I ever told someone they don't know shit about guns, or that they're a fascist because they disagree with me? No, I haven't.

You would likely be very surprised to hear what I think should be done regarding our gun laws. I promise you it's probably not similar to what other people on other forums have said.

You say you prefer to avoid the topic of guns. One is then forced to wonder why you felt the need to enter into a thread about the 2nd Amendment and start insulting gun owners. It's as if all you want to do is hurl your insults and run away.

Well, stand fast. Spew your insults if you must, but back them up with facts.

Years ago, my grandfather imparted a great piece of wisdom upon me: I've learned the most in life from people I've disagreed with.

You should try it sometime...

I would love to discuss gun legislation and gun safety.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The closest I'll come to mocking you is pointing out that you're wrong.

I can't speak for anyone else, and certainly not for anyone else on some other forum. What I will say is that the response you received may well be due to how you chose to interact with those you were conversing with. After all, my first interaction with you on the subject was you saying "gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts", so I don't have anything else to go on. Reacting to me in a manner caused by how someone on another forum reacted to you makes no sense, but if you treated them similarly I can certainly understand why someone might react as you say they do.

Do I have strong opinions? Yes, I certainly do. Am I passionate about the subject? Yes, I absolutely am. Have I ever told someone they don't know shit about guns, or that they're a fascist because they disagree with me? No, I haven't.

You would likely be very surprised to hear what I think should be done regarding our gun laws. I promise you it's probably not similar to what other people on other forums have said.

You say you prefer to avoid the topic of guns. One is then forced to wonder why you felt the need to enter into a thread about the 2nd Amendment and start insulting gun owners. It's as if all you want to do is hurl your insults and run away.

Well, stand fast. Spew your insults if you must, but back them up with facts.

Years ago, my grandfather imparted a great piece of wisdom upon me: I've learned the most in life from people I've disagreed with.

You should try it sometime...

I would love to discuss gun legislation and gun safety.

stay tuned, I might do what I have done before, do a thread on gun safety.

 

[Rucker61]

Here is my reply:
I have discussed guns on DP.
I also have other debate forums I attend.
I also participate on forums that are run on a different platform.
And on ALL of them, without fail, this is what happened:

I tried to give MY views on Guns, especially from a Canadian perspective, and the results were ALWAYS and I DO MEAN ALWAYS the same:
I don't know shit, I am an anti-2nd amendment person, I am a Fascist, I want to take your guns away (in ANY debate I had, I never once said that), and those were on forums that were somewhat regulated.

Now being the bright person you are, can you guess what I was called on forums where there is no moderation or regulations? Yup, you guessed it.

SO the simple truth is, there is ONE issue I rather avoid, it's guns. I can talk about abortion, partisan politics, whatever you like, but ANY and I DO MEAN ANY discussion about guns devolves into name-calling and personal attacks.
So, while you might not like my comment, it stands: gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts. They go full commando on anyone who even suggests gun legislation or regulations.

And to prove my point, you will now engage in name-calling and mocking. Waiting for it.

I have idea what your past experiences here or elsewhere are, but if there's one issue you rather avoid - guns - why are you here now?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I have idea what your past experiences here or elsewhere are, but if there's one issue you rather avoid - guns - why are you here now?

Big Steve wanted to goad me into a gun debate.

 

[Rucker61]

Big Steve wanted to goad me into a gun debate.

Are you having fun with that?

 

[Big Steve]

stay tuned, I might do what I have done before, do a thread on gun safety.

Well, if you do, PM me and let me know...

 

[Big Steve]

Big Steve wanted to goad me into a gun debate.

Why do you have to lie? I'm not trying to goad you into anything. After all, you're the one who decided to post in a thread regarding a topic you claim you prefer to avoid. Yours is the 3rd post on this topic, and you posted numerous times before I made my first post, which is #136.

Why be dishonest?

Let's have that gun debate. I'm confident in my arguments and I'm passionate about my position. I can have a reasonable, mature discussion on the topic without mocking or name-calling.

Can you?

 

[Eriech]

Just drawing some parallels, that's all and wondering why the outrage when these beliefs are challenged. There are so many things in our lives that are recorded, registered, licensed, documented, etc. etc. by local, state and federal agencies and we have no second thoughts about protesting. Yet... anyone mentions registering gun owners and it brings out the fanatics, lobbyists and everyone else who thinks this will lead to "someone" taking their guns away.

Yes, I was poking the bear a bit but I seriously believe it's short sighted to look at the second amendment like it's written in stone and untouchable. The concept of a firearm was radically different then compared to firearms available today, yet this amendment has not evolved with the changing times and available technology.

To your points though, we may not license and register cars specifically to prevent crime but we do license and regulate them for public safety. And I am not suggesting banning firearms, in fact, I'm not against reasonable firearm ownership at all.

The difference being is the second ammendment is a check against government. The founders had just overthrown a tyrannical government and recognized the people needed that option in the future. Allow in the government control in any form is like putting thieves in charge of security.