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

[haymarket]

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

You’re really splitting hairs in an effort to cloud the point. Guns, speech, privacy, religion, being gay, abortion… are all things/activities people engage in; they are things that have been recognized as people having the RIGHT to exercise. Whether it’s an physical object or an ideal, they are still things people have rights to practice or use. Set these things off to the side and they become inanimate; all of them. Not until they are actually used/exercised do they become tangible.

Your contention that GUN RIGHTS is being used dishonestly ignores the actual text of the constitution. It’s right there in the text:

“… the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But since you’ve decided to question this terminology, how would you word that right? If you were an advocate for people rights to keep and bear arms, how would you word it? Since you find ‘gay rights’, ‘abortion rights’, ‘civil rights’, etc… acceptable but not ‘gun rights’, give us your phrase and we’ll use that. But it won’t change the intent of the conversation: “The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

We talk all the time about ones Constitutional rights. We talk about ones First Amendment rights.

I would word it simply as what it is - Second Amendment rights.

Look over your list in your second sentence: Guns, speech, privacy, religion, being gay, abortion… ..... the only one that is an inanimate object is the word GUNS. The others are human activities.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

yeah - when they gazed into their secret crystal ball and looked a century and a half into the future they probably thought he was just some useless cripple who could not even work their own fields. :roll::doh:roll:

evasive nonsense. The founders all believed in Natural Rights and men being armed was one of them. THERE IS NO evidence whatsoever, that some of the founders thought the federal government would have a the power to regulate firearms. That is why the turd FDR had to make up such a power with a dishonest expansion of the commerce clause

 

[TurtleDude]

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

We talk all the time about ones Constitutional rights. We talk about ones First Amendment rights.

I would word it simply as what it is - Second Amendment rights.

Look over your list in your second sentence: Guns, speech, privacy, religion, being gay, abortion… ..... the only one that is an inanimate object is the word GUNS. The others are human activities.

Haymarket often talks about "the gun lobby" yet gets upset when people use the term "gun rights"

if guns don't have rights they don't have a lobby. the lobby is for people who are tired of having THEIR rights denigrated by scumbag mainly Democrat Party politicians

 

[alsos]

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

We talk all the time about ones Constitutional rights. We talk about ones First Amendment rights.

I would word it simply as what it is - Second Amendment rights.

Look over your list in your second sentence: Guns, speech, privacy, religion, being gay, abortion… ..... the only one that is an inanimate object is the word GUNS. The others are human activities.

And how would you define our 2nd amendment rights?

Where in the constitution does it talk about ‘gay rights’? Using the same logic, how would you define it?

The 2nd amendment is not talking about the object ‘arms’, it is talking about the ideal of using that object, just as if you were talking about abortion, we’re talking about ‘abortion’, we’re talking about a person’s right to use/exercise that right. Are you saying because it's actual physical object we really don't have a right to use it? Are you saying if I need to dig a hole in my backyard I don't have a right to keep and use a shovel?

Speech is an object. It’s has physical qualities that can be detected in the physical world. Yet speech is nothing until someone actually uses it.

But, you’re not going to divert me from the discussion here… do we, or do we not have a right to keep and bear arms? Do we, as individuals, have a right to go buy a gun and keep it for the purpose of self-defense and for the purpose of standing up a militia if THE PEOPLE decide it’s necessary?

 

[haymarket]

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

evasive nonsense. The founders all believed in Natural Rights and men being armed was one of them. THERE IS NO evidence whatsoever, that some of the founders thought the federal government would have a the power to regulate firearms. That is why the turd FDR had to make up such a power with a dishonest expansion of the commerce clause

The US Supreme Court says otherwise and your opinion is on the fringe.

The Founders expressed belief in lots of imaginary things. So what? All the belief in the world does not change something purely of the imagination into reality.

Remember that billionaires Kingdom of Faerie Castle Turtle? All the money poured into making that castle a real structure filled with special effects does not bring one imaginary faerie to life just the same.

And our Founders said the believed things that were an obvious lie as soon as quill was placed to parchment and the ink was still wet.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

And how would you define our 2nd amendment rights?

Where in the constitution does it talk about ‘gay rights’? Using the same logic, how would you define it?

The 2nd amendment is not talking about the object ‘arms’, it is talking about the ideal of using that object, just as if you were talking about abortion, we’re talking about ‘abortion’, we’re talking about a person’s right to use/exercise that right.

Speech is an object. It’s has physical qualities that can be detected in the physical world. Yet speech is nothing until someone actually uses it.

But, you’re not going to divert me from the discussion here… do we, or do we not have a right to keep and bear arms? Do we, as individuals, have a right to go buy a gun and keep it for the purpose of self-defense and for the purpose of standing up a militia if THE PEOPLE decide it’s necessary?

Leftwingers are amazing in their ability to stretch and contort and "find" rights for constituencies in the bill of rights but when it comes to guns we see this nuanced quibbling where they pretend that anything short of a complete ban on every gun ever made is not an infringement. It shows the dishonesty of the anti gun movement and it is proof that they anti gun left KNOWS that the second amendment-when interpreted consistent with the views of the founders-prevents their nefarious schemes

 

[haymarket]

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

And how would you define our 2nd amendment rights?

Where in the constitution does it talk about ‘gay rights’? Using the same logic, how would you define it?

The 2nd amendment is not talking about the object ‘arms’, it is talking about the ideal of using that object, just as if you were talking about abortion, we’re talking about ‘abortion’, we’re talking about a person’s right to use/exercise that right.

Speech is an object. It’s has physical qualities that can be detected in the physical world. Yet speech is nothing until someone actually uses it.

But, you’re not going to divert me from the discussion here… do we, or do we not have a right to keep and bear arms? Do we, as individuals, have a right to go buy a gun and keep it for the purpose of self-defense and for the purpose of standing up a militia if THE PEOPLE decide it’s necessary?

Speech is a human activity.

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.

Yes, a citizen has a right to purchase a firearm and use it for legal purposes.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

The US Supreme Court says otherwise and our opinion is on the fringe.

The Founders expressed belief in lots of imaginary things. So what? All the belief in the world does not change something purely of the imagination into reality.

Remember that billionaires Kingdom of Faerie Castle Turtle? All the money poured into making that castle a real structure filled with special effects does not bring one imaginary faerie to life just the same.

And our Founders said the believed things that were an obvious lie as soon as quill was placed to parchment and the ink was still wet.

the only times the supreme court has spoken was Miller and the Heller/McDonald cases

none of them support your idiotic "Enjoyment" theory of the second amendment

and both said that a compete class of weapons were protected

You are wrong

and also it is dishonest to claim that the pronouncements of the USSC cuts off all debate on the issue

its like the baseball replay I edified you with

umpire makes a call-it stands because there is no instant replay but when the camera shows the ump misses the call the rest of us can correctly note he was wrong

 

[haymarket]

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

Leftwingers are amazing in their ability to stretch and contort and "find" rights for constituencies in the bill of rights but when it comes to guns we see this nuanced quibbling where they pretend that anything short of a complete ban on every gun ever made is not an infringement. It shows the dishonesty of the anti gun movement and it is proof that they anti gun left KNOWS that the second amendment-when interpreted consistent with the views of the founders-prevents their nefarious schemes

I do not know which "leftwinger" you are attempting to excoriate Turtle, but I have made no such comparisons with gay rights or abortion rights or found any "rights" for what you claim are "constituencies.

 

[haymarket]

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

the only times the supreme court has spoken was Miller and the Heller/McDonald cases

none of them support your idiotic "Enjoyment" theory of the second amendment

and both said that a compete class of weapons were protected

You are wrong

and also it is dishonest to claim that the pronouncements of the USSC cuts off all debate on the issue

its like the baseball replay I edified you with

umpire makes a call-it stands because there is no instant replay but when the camera shows the ump misses the call the rest of us can correctly note he was wrong

I refuted your claim of natural rights and you respond with this? Can you ever stay on the subject and deal with what was actually said to your argument instead of going off on the usual rant?

As you well know, I support the Heller decision and have posted that many times. Here it is again for you:


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.

 

[alsos]

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

The US Supreme Court says otherwise and our opinion is on the fringe.

The Founders expressed belief in lots of imaginary things. So what? All the belief in the world does not change something purely of the imagination into reality.

What’s this ‘fringe’ thing you speak of?

So now a gun is not an actual object, it’s imaginary? The use of arms over our history has only been imaginary?

 

[haymarket]

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

What’s this ‘fringe’ thing you speak of?

So now a gun is not an actual object, it’s imaginary? The use of arms over our history has only been imaginary?

Fringe means on the far margins of the political continuum. I had a typo to Turtle in 2605 - the word was YOUR OPINION... the Y got dropped. Thank you for alerting me to it and I have corrected it.

As to the real object versus imaginary - I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[alsos]

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

Speech is a human activity.

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.

Yes, a citizen has a right to purchase a firearm and use it for legal purposes.

Using arms is an activity. It’s been done since the first spear was created, even before civilizations emerged.

But what you’re saying is, as long as we have bb guns and all other guns are banned we still retain our right to bear arms? Isn’t that like saying “as long as you can limit your speech to 100 words” you still retain your rights to free speech? Isn’t that like saying “you can be gay, but only in your bedroom”? Are you willing to place the same limits on your pet ‘rights’ that you are willing to place on guns?

 

[haymarket]

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

But what you’re saying is, as long as we have bb guns and all other guns are banned we still retain our right to bear arms? Isn’t that like saying “as long as you can limit your speech to 100 words” you still retain your rights to free speech? Isn’t that like saying “you can be gay, but only in your bedroom”? Are you willing to place the same limits on your pet ‘rights’ that you are willing to place on guns?

First, I never said a word about BB guns.

Second the Second Amendment does not cover speech. So it is dishonest to pretend that the qualities of speech apply to owning firearms.

 

[scatt]

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

The first part of the phrase with the three powers clearly refers TO THE MILITIA - and as we know that is ALL THE PEOPLE. The last part refers to the called up militia in the employ of the federal government.

Those are two different things.

For your interpretation to be correct it would have to have been written differently as follows

"To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing, the part of the Militia as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

And it did not say that.

The US government is to provide organizing, arming, disciplining and governing to the part of the militia that is employed. Feel free to detach the government enumerated power to govern the militia if you want.

 

[alsos]

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

First, I never said a word about BB guns.

Second the Second Amendment does not cover speech. So it is dishonest to pretend that the qualities of speech apply to owning firearms.

Did you read the quote from George Washington?:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

He has placed the importance of firearms above all other rights. Without the ability of the people to defend themselves both personally and in the event of tyranny, our constitution and all other rights die.

BB guns was an example. Your contention is that certain limits can be placed on the right to keep and bear arms. What are these limits? Currently our government seems to think banning certain firearms and magazine volume, and forcing people to register, fingerprint, etc… in order to control the number of guns and who gets them. By doing so, people like you claim we can still exercise our 2nd amendment rights because there are still guns out there you can buy. Given that argument, if we banned all guns except bolt-action .22’s we could still exercise our right to keep and bear arms – right? Given that argument– we’re going to limit constitution rights – if we banned all words except – let’s say – 500 of them, you can still exercise your right to free speech can’t you? If you told gays that they can have their rights as long as it doesn’t leave the bedroom, they are still able to exercise their right to be gay, right? If we place such limits on one right, it’s only logical we should be able to on others – right? This is the logic. If the government has the power to limit one right, why shouldn’t they have the power to limit all rights?

You do support limits on guns right? You’re okay with banning certain firearms, magazine volume, registering firearms…? You do agree this places limits on our right to keep and bear arms, and you’re okay with these limits?

 

[Federalist]

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

You want my definition or you want one from a dictionary?

I want to know what you think a right is, what it means to have a right to something.

 

[Federalist]

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

Yes it was. And it did not change or revoke the language in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16. But feel free to cite the legal decision or precedent where it was ruled that it did.

It changed the constitution so as to forbid the federal government from denying the right to keep and bear arms. If there is anything in article I that does empower the federal government to deny the right to keep and bear arms (which there isn't), then the second amendment overrides this and forbids the government from doing so.

The amendment is very clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Federalist]

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

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.

The people have a right to keep and bear arms. If a person has an arm (say, a short barreled shotgun), and the government punishes them for this, then their right to keep and bear arms has been violated, because they have a right to own it.

 

[haymarket]

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

Did you read the quote from George Washington?:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

He has placed the importance of firearms above all other rights. Without the ability of the people to defend themselves both personally and in the event of tyranny, our constitution and all other rights die.

I do not argue that in the USA the right is indeed an important one. I never said otherwise.

You do support limits on guns right?

There are no such things as "gun rights" to support or oppose.

 

[haymarket]

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

The US government is to provide organizing, arming, disciplining and governing to the part of the militia that is employed. Feel free to detach the government enumerated power to govern the militia if you want.

You just changed what paragraph 16 actually says. Why would you do that?

Here it is from the Constitution

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It clearly is talking about two things here: the entirety of THE MILITIA (and it uses that term) and then the different subset of that the EMPLOYED MILITIA in the service of the USA as opposed to the entire Militia.

The first part of the phrase with the three powers clearly refers TO THE MILITIA - and as we know that is ALL THE PEOPLE. The last part refers to the called up militia in the employ of the federal government.

Those are two different things.

For your interpretation to be correct it would have to have been written differently as follows

"To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing, the part of the Militia as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

And it did not say that.

 

[haymarket]

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

I want to know what you think a right is, what it means to have a right to something.

A right is a behavior recognized and protected by the government.

 

[Federalist]

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

A right is a behavior recognized and protected by the government.

Okay, so what behavior is being protected by the second amendment?

 

[scatt]

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

You just changed what paragraph 16 actually says. Why would you do that?

Here it is from the Constitution



It clearly is talking about two things here: the entirety of THE MILITIA (and it uses that term) and then the different subset of that the EMPLOYED MILITIA in the service of the USA as opposed to the entire Militia.

The first part of the phrase with the three powers clearly refers TO THE MILITIA - and as we know that is ALL THE PEOPLE. The last part refers to the called up militia in the employ of the federal government.

Those are two different things.

For your interpretation to be correct it would have to have been written differently as follows

"To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing, the part of the Militia as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

And it did not say that.

We will go with your claim, the US government cannot govern the militia unless they are currently employed. That sounds like shall not be infringed applied to everything (including all arms).

 

[alsos]

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

I do not argue that in the USA the right is indeed an important one. I never said otherwise.



There are no such things as "gun rights" to support or oppose.

My, my… you do love splitting hairs.

Do you support limits on the 2nd amendment; such as that have been passed in MD and other states?

i.e. Banning semi-auto assault rifles, limit on magazine capacity, registration, finger printing...