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

[mbrad]

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

Your argument to have guns is stupid. The government is not going to try and take your freedoms, never has and never will. Therefore, you don't need to defend your liberties.

so now I ask you, what other reason should you own guns?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

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

Your argument to have guns is stupid. The government is not going to try and take your freedoms, never has and never will. Therefore, you don't need to defend your liberties.

so now I ask you, what other reason should you own guns?

Because I want it. What's you problem with that?

 

[mbrad]

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

Nothing, I own 3...my point is that there is no need to defend yourself with military style weapons. Im NOT saying we should take all guns away, im simply saying that owning a military style assault rifle, AT-4, AA ANYTHING isn't needed, and that all they do is cost innocent lives in the end. whats wrong with having a 10 round clip instead of a 30 round clip? you have to reload more? so does a coward who shoots up a school or a mall or whatever and I'm ok with putting you or me or anyone into a slightly inconvenient situation to have to reload more to save innocent lives.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

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

Nothing, I own 3...my point is that there is no need to defend yourself with military style weapons. Im NOT saying we should take all guns away, im simply saying that owning a military style assault rifle, AT-4, AA ANYTHING isn't needed, and that all they do is cost innocent lives in the end. whats wrong with having a 10 round clip instead of a 30 round clip? you have to reload more? so does a coward who shoots up a school or a mall or whatever and I'm ok with putting you or me or anyone into a slightly inconvenient situation to have to reload more to save innocent lives.

Who are you to say I have no need for the weapon of my choice? The only way one of mine would cost anyone their life is if I need to use one to protect/defend my family or property...

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

Your argument to have guns is stupid. The government is not going to try and take your freedoms, never has and never will. Therefore, you don't need to defend your liberties.

so now I ask you, what other reason should you own guns?

Really? So my right to buy something or not buy something wasn't taking away with Obamacares mandate and SCOTUS's upholding of the mandate? The right to privacy has not been violated with the Patriot Act? The farmers abilility to grow how much he wanted on his own land was not taken away? And none of the following people in this link never called for the ban of all weapons there by taking away peoples rights to own a gun? And of course none of them are admitting that they are trying to do so incrementally.......

Right?

 

[TurtleDude]

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

I bet you think Lincoln was a race baiter for opposing slavery. It's one absurd position to the next with conservatives.

Meanwhile the scholarship is in: militia meant "slave patrol" in the Constitution. So much for your fictive narrative about NRA members defending against tyranny.

By the way, did the NRA fight segregation in the south? Did it support the anti-war movement against Nixon's criminal acts? Did it support environmental against government action?

Nope.

You have one discredited law review article from a minor leaguer whose life work is to ban gun ownership

sorry that hardly proves anything

 

[TurtleDude]

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

And to suppress slave revolts. That's what it meant to George Mason, and he wrote the language!

University of California at Davis Law Review

So much for your macho NRA narrative.

sorry that nonsense by Bogus has been discredited and has no support among real scholars

 

[TurtleDude]

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

But you don't care what the 2nd Amendment means. Got it.

you are confusing what it means and what the supposed INTENT was. that is a poor argument and a pathetic bit of confusion There is absolutely no evidence that the founders were more concerned about shooting escaped slaves than dealing with another imperial threat that they had just dealt with. and since no one is running slave patrols, trying to ascribe racism to current advocates is idiotic.

IT is like saying the first Amendment was to prevent the Anglican church from having official status (which is far truer than the Bogus BS) and thus doesn't apply to say infringements on Islam

 

[Goshin]

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

Moderator's Warning:

WAY too much baiting and personal attacks in this thread. Infractions have already been issued for some. If you dont' want to join the giggity parade, keep it on topic and civil. Any further one-liners that appear to have no purpose other than to agitate other posters will be infracted, guaranteed. Any direct personal attacks will be infracted, guaranteed. Behave.

 

[Bonzai]

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

you are confusing what it means and what the supposed INTENT was. that is a poor argument and a pathetic bit of confusion There is absolutely no evidence that the founders were more concerned about shooting escaped slaves than dealing with another imperial threat that they had just dealt with. and since no one is running slave patrols, trying to ascribe racism to current advocates is idiotic.

IT is like saying the first Amendment was to prevent the Anglican church from having official status (which is far truer than the Bogus BS) and thus doesn't apply to say infringements on Islam

Wasn't there a debate after the founding of this country about whether there should be a permanent standing army ? Given the state of human reality since forever, even debating the question always sounded kind of stupid to me...............

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Wasn't there a debate after the founding of this country about whether there should be a permanent standing army ? Given the state of human reality since forever, even debating the question always sounded kind of stupid to me...............

I have heard reputable scholars say that what the second means is that since the founders figured we'd have a standing army (ie a well regulated or regular militia) we'd need the people armed to serve as a check

 

[Bonzai]

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

I have heard reputable scholars say that what the second means is that since the founders figured we'd have a standing army (ie a well regulated or regular militia) we'd need the people armed to serve as a check

Which may or may not be valid, but "revolutions" occur when exasperated peoples feel they have nothing to lose by losing their lives , not when firepower aficionados feel the urge to show off their latest designer hardware....................

 

[mbrad]

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

sry, no one NEEDS a gun, just like you don't NEED a 50" flat screen HDTV or you don't NEED a boat. These things are nice, yes, and if you want them you should have to have a license or something. What that particular "something" is I don't know, but I DO KNOW that as long as there are people who have borderline sexual fetish with the 2nd amendment and to weapons of mass destruction like a AR-15's then there will always be mass killings and innocent lives taken.

your RIGHT to free speech ends when you endanger another human being, thats been ruled on. GUNS should be no different. CERTAIN GUNS have a LONG record of being used for killing innocent people. THESE guns should be banned. If you want to own a shotgun, FINE, go shoot a turkey, but you DO NOT NEED A MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT RIFLE OR A 30 ROUND MAG FOR ANYTHING.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Which may or may not be valid, but "revolutions" occur when exasperated peoples feel they have nothing to lose by losing their lives , not when firepower aficionados feel the urge to show off their latest designer hardware....................

That is a well reasoned point. ANd here is the issue. It is my belief that the left want to push more and more gun laws hoping more and more people who don't violate substantive laws (like laws against murder, and other "malum per se" offenses) violate "Malum prohibitum" laws such as registration etc. stuff that when violated harms absolutely no one but would allow the left to then brand the offender a felon, seize their weapons and perhaps jail them

there are lots of people who have never violated a substantive law who is faced with all their guns being confiscated and being sent to jail-who would then believe they have nothing left to lose and would kill. and it appears that is exactly what some of the gun banning fanatics want.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

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

sry, no one NEEDS a gun, just like you don't NEED a 50" flat screen HDTV or you don't NEED a boat. These things are nice, yes, and if you want them you should have to have a license or something. What that particular "something" is I don't know, but I DO KNOW that as long as there are people who have borderline sexual fetish with the 2nd amendment and to weapons of mass destruction like a AR-15's then there will always be mass killings and innocent lives taken.

your RIGHT to free speech ends when you endanger another human being, thats been ruled on. GUNS should be no different. CERTAIN GUNS have a LONG record of being used for killing innocent people. THESE guns should be banned. If you want to own a shotgun, FINE, go shoot a turkey, but you DO NOT NEED A MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT RIFLE OR A 30 ROUND MAG FOR ANYTHING.

Try learning how to use the "Reply With Quote" feature of the forum...

 

[TurtleDude]

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

sry, no one NEEDS a gun, just like you don't NEED a 50" flat screen HDTV or you don't NEED a boat. These things are nice, yes, and if you want them you should have to have a license or something. What that particular "something" is I don't know, but I DO KNOW that as long as there are people who have borderline sexual fetish with the 2nd amendment and to weapons of mass destruction like a AR-15's then there will always be mass killings and innocent lives taken.

your RIGHT to free speech ends when you endanger another human being, thats been ruled on. GUNS should be no different. CERTAIN GUNS have a LONG record of being used for killing innocent people. THESE guns should be banned. If you want to own a shotgun, FINE, go shoot a turkey, but you DO NOT NEED A MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT RIFLE OR A 30 ROUND MAG FOR ANYTHING.

you need to learn the facts. how many people are killed each year with the "military style assault rifle (sic).

that post is stupid, cops use them for self defense--that alone justifies the rest of us owning them

NEED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS


weapons of mass destruction-hall of shame in stupid anti gun arguments

 

[Bonzai]

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

That is a well reasoned point. ANd here is the issue. It is my belief that the left want to push more and more gun laws hoping more and more people who don't violate substantive laws (like laws against murder, and other "malum per se" offenses) violate "Malum prohibitum" laws such as registration etc. stuff that when violated harms absolutely no one but would allow the left to then brand the offender a felon, seize their weapons and perhaps jail them

there are lots of people who have never violated a substantive law who is faced with all their guns being confiscated and being sent to jail-who would then believe they have nothing left to lose and would kill. and it appears that is exactly what some of the gun banning fanatics want.

I'd buy the confiscation thing a little easier if the US was a provincesized well organized semipolice state on the level of some central European state of 1920's & 30's, but sorry to say, it's just some dump.....................

 

[Surtr]

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

For George Mason, whose language was used for the 2nd Amendment, it meant slave patrols, i.e., white death squads could kill and torture blacks without federal interference.

It actually began as a right under English law to supplement the natural right to self defense. Militia was included in the Second Amendment because we did not have a standing army when the Constitution was adopted. If you really want to debate this issue, leave your pathetic appeals to emotion via the race card elsewhere.

 

[American]

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

It actually began as a right under English law to supplement the natural right to self defense. Militia was included in the Second Amendment because we did not have a standing army when the Constitution was adopted. If you really want to debate this issue, leave your pathetic appeals to emotion via the race card elsewhere.

Don't expect to hear back with anything else.

 

[Bonzai]

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

It actually began as a right under English law to supplement the natural right to self defense. Militia was included in the Second Amendment because we did not have a standing army when the Constitution was adopted. If you really want to debate this issue, leave your pathetic appeals to emotion via the race card elsewhere.

All the points you are making would be valid and perfectly plausible in a country the size of , say, Switzerland. Our forefathers never foresaw the US becoming a global empire, which it's been for about 70 years now....................

 

[Surtr]

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

All the points you are making would be valid and perfectly plausible in a country the size of , say, Switzerland. Our forefathers never foresaw the US becoming a global empire, which it's been for about 70 years now....................

They're still valid, since that right shall not be infringed.

 

[Anti-Party]

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

:doh

you need to learn the facts. how many people are killed each year with the "military style assault rifle (sic).

that post is stupid, cops use them for self defense--that alone justifies the rest of us owning them

NEED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS


weapons of mass destruction-hall of shame in stupid anti gun arguments

Let me break down your version of the 2A........this will be fun;

In your interpretation we should have the same guns as military, any restrictions should be equal because militia has two meanings and you assume it means both and not just the more common one.

Libertarians also say that background checks are obsolete because, "criminals don't follow laws". Democrats say, "why makes laws at all then".

So you think that people should be able to purchase an Apache Helicopter with no background check. I understand your perspective because I could be trusted with one, I'm a pretty good guy. But that is where Libertarians fail.. You think that "If people are released into society they should be trusted enough to own any weapon/arm." But since Libertarian is a self centered party they don't have any ability to notice that the screening system is not perfect and it can never be. Is there a perfect way to let a violent person out of jail knowing 100% he/she will never be violent again? NO!.

I'm guessing you will say, "I never said that" because no Libertarians ever seem to be on the same page, they all have different agendas" But I've done the research, that is what your party thinks. We should be able to buy a tank with absolutely no background check. But you don't like to talk about that right off the bat right? :lamo :lamo

 

[Bonzai]

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

They're still valid, since that right shall not be infringed.

Right. You obviously trust other people alot more than I do...............................

 

[Surtr]

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

Right. You obviously trust other people alot more than I do...............................

Your personal mistrust is not valid grounds to remove a right from US citizens.

 

[Bonzai]

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

Your personal mistrust is not valid grounds to remove a right from US citizens.

It's grounds for me not to care about it...................