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

[Federalist]

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

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

Do you want the federal government to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to defend themselves with the same tools that non-military police officers use to defend themselves?

 

[TurtleDude]

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

It is completely clear to those who will see. I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


That is is. Pure and simple.


Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.






________________________________


I have repeatedly stated that if the government creates an environment where the people cannot exercise the right to bear arms, then the right has been INFRINGED. To define this in everyday terms of action all you have to do is apply one test. The test is simple and easy and not at all complicated:


If I as an American citizen want to obtain a firearm to exercise my second Amendment rights, am I able to do so? If the answer is YES, then the right is present and is able to be exercised. If the answer is NO, then the right has been infringed and that is prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, the person must be able to bear the gun, or have it available for its use. This is why the decision against DC in the Heller case shows that the government created such an illegal environment.

this is evasive. and your constant repetition of what politicians have done is specious unless you have testimony as to what they believed

 

[DA60]

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

sure!.........smoking bans......thru referendums, the people of a city, have choosen for business business not to allow smoking in their own business.

smoking bans can placed on public property however business are private property of the owners......no one is forces a person to enter into a business door...., ..it a voluntary action.

its the business owner and his property rights, to make that determination.

I meant the country...not municipalities.

When did the people of a modern, democratic country voting ONLY on national issues, using ONLY direct voting ever lead the country to tyranny?

Btw, the answer is 'never'.

And since the answer is 'never', then you cannot know that direct voting will lead to tyranny. You can believe or be convinced...but you cannot know.

 

[haymarket]

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

what I find disgraceful is your posts: refusing to really take a position and then complaining when people note that.

such as refusing to support the rationale for the FDR expansion or refusing to say why no specific weapon is protected

That is a lie. I have made it very very very clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms and does NOT protect individual firearms themselves. Do NOT blame me for that. Blame the author of the Amendment for the language they gave us and blame the state legislatures for ratifying it with that language. Also blame the entire lobbying and commercial support group that has formed around the issue and their dishonest of the use of the term GUN RIGHTS. Of course, there is no such thing as GUN RIGHTS any more than there are BOOK RIGHTS or NEWSPAPER RIGHTS or RADIO RIGHTS or TELEVISION RIGHTS. Guns do not have rights. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms and there is a difference. Pretending that there are such things as GUN RIGHTS leads to the jump that it is those very weapons which are protected by the Amendment when no specific gun actually is.

I could not be clearer about that.

 

[haymarket]

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

this is evasive. and your constant repetition of what politicians have done is specious unless you have testimony as to what they believed

It could not be clearer.

I do not put a whole lot of stock in what an individual politician or legislator says they might believe do not believe. In most cases it is just lipstick on a pig. I pay attention to the pig - the law that was passed and do not get fooled by the lipstick which is there to distract the rubes or the naive who lap up such things as self serving platitudes and flowery pontifications that tend to come with legislation. This realism comes from years of working with politicians and legislators and actually writing those statements and speeches. I know what they are and how utterly worthless they tend to be. And that is on both sides of aisle and both Democrats and Republicans are and have been guilty of it.

 

[haymarket]

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

Do you want the federal government to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to defend themselves with the same tools that non-military police officers use to defend themselves?

Police officers have the weaponry they do to perform their job. It is false equivalency to pretend that a citizen needs the same tools since they do not perform that same job.

Again, this is your tactic of asking the same question over and over and over and over and over again until you hopefully get the answer you want as part of some strategy in which you hope to trap me. It is sad and a sign of your desperation.

 

[Federalist]

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

Police officers have the weaponry they do to perform their job. It is false equivalency to pretend that a citizen needs the same tools since they do not perform that same job.

Again, this is your tactic of asking the same question over and over and over and over and over again until you hopefully get the answer you want as part of some strategy in which you hope to trap me. It is sad and a sign of your desperation.

Ok, so since you want to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to defend themselves with the same tools that non-military police officers use, I have to ask you the next logical question. Do you value the life of a police officer more than an ordinary citizen? Why should we restrict the ability of the ordinary citizen to protect his life and the life of his loved ones?

 

[haymarket]

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

well I guess I have still made it too hard to you.

I have my apology warming up in the bullpen.

answer these two questions and prove i am wrong please.

do you support democracy ...instead of republican government?

do you support the 17th amendment, and the removal of state chosen senators, in favor of democracy and the removal of the states check on federal power, and the doing away with federalism?

i have got my slow pitch, waiting to say i am wrong to you, if you answer the to questions to vindicate yourself.

please answer i really want to say i an wrong, and retract my statements.

Vindicate myself!?!?!?!? From what exactly? From this garbage that came from your post in 1170 in the Liberty Amendment thread?

you prefer the a system of government with no checks and balances, but all direct power concentrated into 1 entity, and you believe that entity should have total power over all things.

But when repeatedly challenged to show the post where I made these statements of beliefs YOU ARE IMPOTENT TO PRESENT ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. Instead, you attempt to put me on the witness stand to answer some questions you dreamt up which you hope will get you out of the corner you painted yourself in with these accusations.

It does not work that way EB. The way it works is you made a statement about what I believe and I got in your face and asked you where the hell you got some crap like that. And you have been powerless to present any source for it.

Its on you EB. Its completely and totally on you and I will NOT lift so much as a finger to help you or get you out of your own corner.

 

[haymarket]

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

Ok, so since you want to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to defend themselves with the same tools that non-military police officers use, I have to ask you the next logical question. Do you value the life of a police officer more than an ordinary citizen? Why should we restrict the ability of the ordinary citizen to protect his life and the life of his loved ones?

Another false premise which destroys your entire argument. Nobody is being restricted in the ability to defend themselves or their loved ones.

 

[Federalist]

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

Another false premise which destroys your entire argument. Nobody is being restricted in the ability to defend themselves or their loved ones.

Yes, they are. You want to forbid the ordinary citizen from using the most effective self-defense tools, those used by non-military police officers. I can see no good reason for doing so, perhaps you can explain why you want to create such second-class citizens.

 

[haymarket]

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

Yes, they are. You want to forbid the ordinary citizen from using the most effective self-defense tools, those used by non-military police officers. I can see no good reason for doing so, perhaps you can explain why you want to create such second-class citizens.

No they are not. Again, your premise is false on its face and your entire argument falls accordingly.

 

[Federalist]

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

No they are not. Again, your premise is false on its face and your entire argument falls accordingly.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion regarding what you think are the best tools for self-defense. Naturally, others have their preferences, which are different than yours.

But the question remains, why would you prevent a person from acquiring the same self-defense tools as are used by the non-military police?

 

[haymarket]

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

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion regarding what you think are the best tools for self-defense. Naturally, others have their preferences, which are different than yours.

But the question remains, why would you prevent a person from acquiring the same self-defense tools as are used by the non-military police?

Police officers have the weaponry they do to perform their job. It is false equivalency to pretend that a citizen needs the same tools since they do not perform that same job.

Again, this is your tactic of asking the same question over and over and over and over and over again until you hopefully get the answer you want as part of some strategy in which you hope to trap me. It is sad and a sign of your desperation.

 

[Federalist]

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

Police officers have the weaponry they do to perform their job. It is false equivalency to pretend that a citizen needs the same tools since they do not perform that same job.

Again, this is your tactic of asking the same question over and over and over and over and over again until you hopefully get the answer you want as part of some strategy in which you hope to trap me. It is sad and a sign of your desperation.

I'm am forced to repeat the question because you haven't answered.

Why would you prevent a person from acquiring the same self-defense tools as are used by non-military police?

 

[haymarket]

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

I'm am forced to repeat the question because you haven't answered.

Why would you prevent a person from acquiring the same self-defense tools as are used by non-military police?

You repeat yourself DESPITE being given the answer. Nobody is being prevented from defending themselves or their loved ones. Your premise is a false one.

 

[Federalist]

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

You repeat yourself DESPITE being given the answer. Nobody is being prevented from defending themselves or their loved ones. Your premise is a false one.

They are being prevented from acquiring the self-defense tool of their choice, the same tools as used by our non-military police. You have not explained why you want to place such a restriction upon your fellow citizen.

 

[American]

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

Police officers have the weaponry they do to perform their job. It is false equivalency to pretend that a citizen needs the same tools since they do not perform that same job.

Again, this is your tactic of asking the same question over and over and over and over and over again until you hopefully get the answer you want as part of some strategy in which you hope to trap me. It is sad and a sign of your desperation.

A citizen doesn't have to NEED it.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

It could not be clearer.

I do not put a whole lot of stock in what an individual politician or legislator says they might believe do not believe. In most cases it is just lipstick on a pig. I pay attention to the pig - the law that was passed and do not get fooled by the lipstick which is there to distract the rubes or the naive who lap up such things as self serving platitudes and flowery pontifications that tend to come with legislation. This realism comes from years of working with politicians and legislators and actually writing those statements and speeches. I know what they are and how utterly worthless they tend to be. And that is on both sides of aisle and both Democrats and Republicans are and have been guilty of it.

more evasive nonsense. What you are saying is that politicians want the power to ignore the clear language of the constitution. We get that We get that "realism".

 

[TurtleDude]

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

A citizen doesn't have to NEED it.

The more you read stuff from gun grabbers, the more you realize that anyone interested in preserving this nation's freedom NEEDS to be well armed

 

[TurtleDude]

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

They are being prevented from acquiring the self-defense tool of their choice, the same tools as used by our non-military police. You have not explained why you want to place such a restriction upon your fellow citizen.

He won't say because that would require him to first explain the use of weapons etc and then argue why non LEO civilians-who are attacked at rates 30-40 times more by criminals than cops, can defend themselves with lower round counts than cops who generally CHOOSE when they confront an armed criminal . What he wants is the ability for the Democratic Party to ban anything it wants if doing so is politically advantageous to the democratic party. His interpretation of the second amendment allows his party to ban almost anything without violating his interpretation of the second amendment.

 

[DDD]

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

It is the right of US civilians to bare arms. Before this right came to be Americans would use their bare arms for walk, work, pleasure, and other activities illegally. Ever since this right came to be though now US civilians can freely do this without being arrested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7gSyFTYvkc

 

[haymarket]

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

They are being prevented from acquiring the self-defense tool of their choice, the same tools as used by our non-military police. You have not explained why you want to place such a restriction upon your fellow citizen.

Where do you get the idea that their choices of weapons should be unlimited in the first place?

 

[haymarket]

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

A citizen doesn't have to NEED it.

And because they do not have to perform the same job as a police officer it is ridiculous to compare the two because a cops tools are indeed based on the needs of the job.

 

[haymarket]

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

more evasive nonsense. What you are saying is that politicians want the power to ignore the clear language of the constitution. We get that We get that "realism".

No - that is what you said.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

It is the right of US civilians to bare arms. Before this right came to be Americans would use their bare arms for walk, work, pleasure, and other activities illegally. Ever since this right came to be though now US civilians can freely do this without being arrested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7gSyFTYvkc

uh that is really stupid