How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Get more specific please… If the government banned all guns except bb guns, would you consider that an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights?

yes - that would not pass the test I laid out.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don’t think they hate the constitution… I think they fear it. Their SIDE fears people that hold more power than government. The only way they can push their agenda is to limit people they disagree with. All the big anti-gun mouthpieces running around advocating banning this gun and that are typically the most armed people in our existence. They want theirs while depriving us of ours. It’s the only way they can control those in their opposition.

its sort of a given that gun control is coming from the same people who want more government

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You so called "argument" is based on a lie that cops are civilians. The weapons they have have not one thing to do with the Second Amendment and to use it to advance your agenda is blatantly intellectually dishonest.

civilian law enforcement officers are just that civilians. I know, I was one for years You are incorrect

and what also is blatant dishonesty is you ignoring the point I make. Cops have guns because federal laws exempt them from gun control laws but at one time YOUR SIDE claimed that the second amendment ONLY existed to allow states, and their political subdivisions, to arm their employees. I use the police weapons as weapons that clearly meet the Heller test and the Miller test. You have consistently and evasively tried to claim that since the second amendment is not the REASON WHY cops are armed, police weapons have no relevance while it is obvious that weapons issued to police for SELF DEFENSE clearly are both COMMON and not UNUSUALLY Dangerous when in civilian society

 

[alsos]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

yes - that would not pass the test I laid out.

So, at what point would you consider our 2nd amendment rights to be infringed upon? How many guns can be banned before our rights are infringed?

You see, what's infringement to you isn’t to someone else. What’s necessary for you to maintain our liberties isn’t the same for someone else. If you ever believed, in the smallest of belief, that this country could succumb to tyranny, how do we take our country back except through an armed citizenry? And even at that, how do we become equally armed to a military that would support such tyranny?

Thomas Jefferson said it was our duty to be armed:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “

 

[alsos]

its sort of a given that gun control is coming from the same people who want more government

Not just more government, but placing so much trust and power in the government to maintain our liberties, and through this we must not be trusted with firearms.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

civilian law enforcement officers are just that civilians. I know, I was one for years You are incorrect

Even GUNRIGHTSMAGAZINE disagrees with you calling cops civilians.

Cops have guns because.......

they are tools to do a job that you and I do NOT do.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

So, at what point would you consider our 2nd amendment rights to be infringed upon? How many guns can be banned before our rights are infringed?

You see, what's infringement to you isn’t to someone else.

That question is up to the duly elected representatives of the American people and finally the US Supreme Court. And if the people do not like whatever decision comes down, we ultimately can employ Article V of the Constitution and amend it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Even GUNRIGHTSMAGAZINE disagrees with you calling cops civilians.



they are tools to do a job that you and I do NOT do.

do you realize how moronic that is. I have never heard of that magazine. I have been on the cover of at least two major magazines including Skeet Shooting Review and I was a live guest on the NRA satellite radio show discussing the second amendment I have never heard of the magazine you trumpet that uses a colloquial NOT Legal definition. I have cited-as have others Federal code including the Posse Comitatus Act and CIVILIAN Law Enforcement Act of 1981. You think Colloquial definitions involving cops pretending they are not civilians in order to appear superior to non LEO civilians is more valid than FEDERAL LAW.

YOu again are engaging in dishonest evasion in your post by ignoring why I refer to police weapons-tools has nothing to do with it. Its all about common and not unusually dangerous.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That question is up to the duly elected representatives of the American people and finally the US Supreme Court. And if the people do not like whatever decision comes down, we ultimately can employ Article V of the Constitution and amend it.

No, it's not. The power to restrict the act of keeping and bearing arms is denied by the 2nd amendment. The people have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning that the act of keeping and bearing arms is legally protected. Protected from congress. That's the whole point of the amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No, it's not. The power to restrict the act of keeping and bearing arms is denied by the 2nd amendment. The people have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning that the act of keeping and bearing arms is legally protected. Protected from congress. That's the whole point of the amendment.

what Haymarket is saying is that he only accepts the definition that is currently used by the congress and not overturned by the USSC

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

do you realize how moronic that is. I have never heard of that magazine.

Yet again, you use yourself as the standard.

I have been on the cover of at least two major magazines including Skeet Shooting Review and I was a live guest on the NRA satellite radio show discussing the second amendment

And yet again you cite personal anecdotes which cannot be verified as evidence... of what exactly I have no idea.

I have never heard of the magazine you trumpet that uses a colloquial NOT Legal definition.

Again, you are not the standard no matter how much you wish it were so.

I have cited-as have others Federal code including the Posse Comitatus Act and CIVILIAN Law Enforcement Act of 1981. You think Colloquial definitions involving cops pretending they are not civilians in order to appear superior to non LEO civilians is more valid than FEDERAL LAW.

Unless you found something new, all you so called evidence was crushed and flushed, smashed and trashed as it did not define domestic American police officers doing their job in the USA as civilians. But feel free to present it if you dare.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No, it's not. The power to restrict the act of keeping and bearing arms is denied by the 2nd amendment. The people have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning that the act of keeping and bearing arms is legally protected. Protected from congress. That's the whole point of the amendment.

Reality disagrees with your belief.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yet again, you use yourself as the standard.



And yet again you cite personal anecdotes which cannot be verified as evidence... of what exactly I have no idea.


Again, you are not the standard no matter how much you wish it were so.




Unless you found something new, all you so called evidence was crushed and flushed, smashed and trashed as it did not define domestic American police officers doing their job in the USA as civilians. But feel free to present it if you dare.

I love how you ignore US code. I love how you find some obscure magazine and one author who supports your idiotic definition. Only someone seeking to prevaricate or evade would claim that the term CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER is not a CIVILIAN

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I love how you ignore US code.

Please present it and I will destroy that just as I destroyed your previous so called evidence. Please present it here and now.

I suspect you know what will happen and you will not do so fully realizing that your so called evidence does not define police officers doing their job in the USA as civilians.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Please present it and I will destroy that just as I destroyed your previous so called evidence. Please present it here and now.

I suspect you know what will happen and you will not do so fully realizing that your so called evidence does not define police officers doing their job in the USA as civilians.

you are going to destroy US code with a dictionary that has never been cited as authority in US courts

Give it up Haymarket. We all know why some cops claim non cops are civilians. (which of course is true-ANYONE not in the military is a civilian).

any your constant rants about cops not being civilians is patently evasive given I have edified you as to the weapons I speak of being both common and not unusually dangerous (which by definition cop weapons are) and thus within the Heller test

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Reality disagrees with your belief.

This is the reality: "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."

The people have a legal right to keep and bear arms. A legal right is legal recognition that an act is protected. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected behavior.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

you are going to destroy US code with a dictionary that has never been cited as authority in US courts

Give it up Haymarket. We all know why some cops claim non cops are civilians. (which of course is true-ANYONE not in the military is a civilian).

any your constant rants about cops not being civilians is patently evasive given I have edified you as to the weapons I speak of being both common and not unusually dangerous (which by definition cop weapons are) and thus within the Heller test

I was right again. You presented nothing.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

This is the reality: "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."

The people have a legal right to keep and bear arms. A legal right is legal recognition that an act is protected. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected behavior.

Actually, that is only a part of the reality. But your interpretation is absolutely not.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Actually, that is only a part of the reality. But your interpretation is absolutely not.

Then you clearly don't know what a right is.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Then you clearly don't know what a right is.

Please do let us know what happens when you break this shocking news to the US Supreme Court because apparently they seem to agree with me.

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street,
NE Washington, DC 20543.

Telephone:202-479-3000.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Please do let us know what happens when you break this shocking news to the US Supreme Court because apparently they seem to agree with me.

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street,
NE Washington, DC 20543.

Telephone:202-479-3000.

The federal government is the one violating the right. They are well aware of what they are doing.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The federal government is the one violating the right. They are well aware of what they are doing.

What about your precious states? Do they also violate the right?

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What about your precious states? Do they also violate the right?

It's my understanding that many states do.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

First off we have to remember that the second amendment, like the others in the Bill of Rights, were not originally in the Constitution. They were demanded by popular protest. Just keep that in mind, the wealthy who created the government (and still run it) never wanted those in the first place.

The heart of the second amendment is that a populace should be as equally armed as the State for protection against it. It is an out dated concept. It was written in a time where it was musket and cannon vs musket and cannon. Any armchair commando who thinks he will protect his rights with the AR he occasionally shoots paper with is delusional. There is a huge disparity of force. Drones, tanks, patriot missels, APCS, laser guided bombs, and all the rest.

Plus it tells us a lot about the mindset about the country. Rights are being taken away? Start killing people. We resort to violence much to fast. The best way to change the government is non-violent civil disobedience and strikes. That is how workers, women, and minorities has won their rights. Not by the use of arms.

On the other hand look at what 20,000 armed people are doing in Afghanistan.

If several millions (say 8-10) of US citizens, armed and ready to fight, decide to take on the US military, then the US military does not stand a chance of winning. That is the point.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

On the other hand look at what 20,000 armed people are doing in Afghanistan.

If several millions (say 8-10) of US citizens, armed and ready to fight, decide to take on the US military, then the US military does not stand a chance of winning. That is the point.

If ten million American citizens with deer rifles want a politician dead, he's toast