Open Carry: I appreciate the effort but...

[haymarket]

No that's actually not true. It was about personal self defense and then by extension the self defense of freedom by the militia over a potentially tyrannical government. That's what it was referring to and that's why its listed in the bill of rights... which is all about personal rights.

YOU have to take it out of context of that bill and pervert its intent.. ignoring all historical context.. to arrive at the definition that you do.

No - the first half of the Amendment explains the purpose of it and that is fairly clear. Only a single state had the right to bear arms in their state Constitutions that was separate from a community defense purpose and that was Massachusetts. So its clear that the purpose was in keeping with that tradition of community defense and the militia.

It is your side which has to ignore that reality and the historical context to pretend otherwise arriving at the definition that you do.

 

[jaeger19]

If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?

Jefferson refers to it...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

this is where the understanding the right of self defense and therefore the right to be armed in that defense springs from.

Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?

Yes it is beyond the reach of government. the caveat being that the exercising of this right cannot impinge upon anothers right.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

4 - What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

A regulation that prevented one from carrying a handgun or having a firearm that was operable.

Heller decision.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

So your argument that there is some sacred "natural right to be armed" is simply folly and nonsense. Why would Founders create two opposite systems if they so believed that this was a sacred right? It does not make sense on any level

.

Nope because there is not "two opposite systems".. that's only in your mind. You simply have it wrong

 

[TurtleDude]

No - the first half of the Amendment explains the purpose of it and that is fairly clear. Only a single state had the right to bear arms in their state Constitutions that was separate from a community defense purpose and that was Massachusetts. So its clear that the purpose was in keeping with that tradition of community defense and the militia.

It is your side which has to ignore that reality and the historical context to pretend otherwise arriving at the definition that you do.

that's specious because you need two parts

the first part being, a power delegated to the federal government to regulate firearms

an issue the FDR Miller court ignored as did the Heller court

why? because the justices don't want to look like morons trying to claim that the commerce clause actually was intended to allow gun regulation (the militia clause argument is so stupid none of the rabid gun banners even try to float that garbage). Rather, They just pretend its settled law though no case actually has specifically stated that directly

 

[jaeger19]

A sample size of 1,000 is not unusual in these sort of issue oriented polls. And I would think an NRA member in the household is - to a high degree - indicative of the thoughts of the NRA member himself or herself and could have very well been that member.

But the real proof in the pudding is that at least EIGHT POLLS demonstrated the same results despite different companies and methodologies. That says a whole lot more than nitpicking at one poll.

1. A sample size of 1000 is not unusual at all.. and its in part why the power of polls is negligible. Especially in issue oriented polls. In addition.. the number of NRA members or supposed NRA members was NOT 1000. it was a much smaller number... making the statement that 75% of NRA members even more suspect.

2. And NRA member "in the household" is in no way indicative of the thoughts of the NRA member.. and there was no way of ascertaining whether it was a member or not as the poll did not poll known NRA members.

3. And its not surprising that 8 polls demonstrated "similar results" since those 8 polls actually had the same basic flaws as I pointed out.

 

[jaeger19]

No - the first half of the Amendment explains the purpose of it and that is fairly clear. Only a single state had the right to bear arms in their state Constitutions that was separate from a community defense purpose and that was Massachusetts. So its clear that the purpose was in keeping with that tradition of community defense and the militia.

It is your side which has to ignore that reality and the historical context to pretend otherwise arriving at the definition that you do.

Nope... even the supreme court disagrees with you. and that's because quite frankly it is very clear what the founders meant. What they meant by militia and the importance they placed on personal arms. That's why they put it in a bill of rights that contains all individual rights. You choose to remove that context and say "they meant a militia to repel invading armies or some such"... when its very clear they meant personal arms so that the individual could protect themselves and by extension could form a militia to protect their community/society from the tyranny of government.

 

[haymarket]

Jefferson refers to it...



this is where the understanding the right of self defense and therefore the right to be armed in that defense springs from.

So Jefferson invented natural rights and the natural right to be armed?

The Heller decision turned two centuries of history on its ear because of one vote and thirty years of right wing advocacy in the name of extremism.

And it is very very clear you do NOT understand the obvious conflict and contradiction in the argument of Turtle since those two positions could not be more opposite. Either the Founders wanted government to regulate firearms or they didn't want government ANY DAMN GOVERNMENT to touch it as a sacred right. It is obvious that the same Founders would NOT have given states ultimate power over what Turtle considers a sacred natural right while forbidding the feds to touch it with even their little pinkie less INFRINGEMENTS be screamed from right wing towers all over the land in objection.

 

[haymarket]

Nope... even the supreme court disagrees with you.

You confuse me with somebody who cares about one johnny come lately decision won by a single vote turning two centuries on its ear.

 

[haymarket]

And its not surprising that 8 polls demonstrated "similar results" since those 8 polls actually had the same basic flaws as I pointed out.

As you claim without any evidence.

 

[haymarket]

The five who decided Heller are morons.

But when will you speak to the issues raised here? Your argument has a hole big enough to drive an entire convoy of elephants through. You maintain that
1- the natural right to self defense was deeply held by the Founders and they would not have created a government which took steps against it
2- but yet you admit that state government - large parts of which where created by many of those same Founders - can indeed regulate firearms in that state.

So where was the almighty respect for a "natural right" than cannot be violated or encroached upon by government because it is a "natural right" and government cannot interfere with it?

Your argument makes no sense.

It was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with the natural right of people to be armed

If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?
If you insist that there is a "natural right to be armed" what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?
Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?
What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

One cannot simply claim that there is this natural right and that is what the Founders transferred to the Constitution without clear answers to these questions.

 

[TurtleDude]

So Jefferson invented natural rights and the natural right to be armed?

The Heller decision turned two centuries of history on its ear because of one vote and thirty years of right wing advocacy in the name of extremism.

And it is very very clear you do NOT understand the obvious conflict and contradiction in the argument of Turtle since those two positions could not be more opposite. Either the Founders wanted government to regulate firearms or they didn't want government ANY DAMN GOVERNMENT to touch it as a sacred right. It is obvious that the same Founders would NOT have given states ultimate power over what Turtle considers a sacred natural right while forbidding the feds to touch it with even their little pinkie less INFRINGEMENTS be screamed from right wing towers all over the land in objection.

MOre lies-Heller didn't turn two centuries on its ear. It tried to correct the idiocy of Democrats from the mid-twentieth century

the only contradiction we have seen is the pathetic claim that the 2A only applies to those in the federal militia and then claiming that the militia clause allows Congress to regulate the firearms of EVERYON.

you also deliberately ignore the fact that the founders were not in a position to tell each state what laws it could pass. The constitutional convention was a club where the members were STATES



your dishonest and unfounded claims that the founders would have prevented the several states from exercising powers they had is beyond pathetic

 

[jaeger19]

So Jefferson invented natural rights and the natural right to be armed?

The Heller decision turned two centuries of history on its ear because of one vote and thirty years of right wing advocacy in the name of extremism.

And it is very very clear you do NOT understand the obvious conflict and contradiction in the argument of Turtle since those two positions could not be more opposite. Either the Founders wanted government to regulate firearms or they didn't want government ANY DAMN GOVERNMENT to touch it as a sacred right. It is obvious that the same Founders would NOT have given states ultimate power over what Turtle considers a sacred natural right while forbidding the feds to touch it with even their little pinkie less INFRINGEMENTS be screamed from right wing towers all over the land in objection.

Nope.. Jefferson did not invent natural rights... he spoke about them as he understood that people have natural rights. And that includes to be armed. It also includes a whole host of other rights that are not listed and need not be listed since the constitution does not grant natural rights.. it protects them.

And the Heller decision in no way turned two centuries of history on its ear. The Heller decision came about because of thirty years of left wing extremism finally made the supreme court act.

Seriously.. turned two centuries of history on its EAR? America has been a gun loving gun toting country for centuries. Our founding fathers FOUGHT DUELS... when they were in the WHITE HOUSE!. Cripes.. are you trying to argue that for two centuries America was anti gun.. and only recently we became pro gun?


And there is no conflict that I can see in Turtle's argument.. the conflict is that you can't understand the position.

The government can regulate firearms.. even the federal government.. and I would believe that even turtle understands that.

Certainly he is not going to argue that criminals in federal prisoners must be allowed firearms in prison.

But what turtle understands and you most certainly do not.. is the government.. state or federal.. may not INFRINGE on our rights as law abiding citizens. And if a regulation is an infringement of that right then its unconstitutional. and quite frankly this ultimately severely restricts the power of the government to regulate guns... because it must do so without infringing on the right to bear arms.

 

[jaeger19]

As you claim without any evidence.

Nope.. the polls what they are. I pointed out that they share similar flaws.

If they made further information regarding their methodology.. I would then be able to speak to the whole poll and its strengths and weakness. But that doesn't deter from the fact that what is known about their methods contains serious flaws.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope.. the polls what they are. I pointed out that they share similar flaws.

If they made further information regarding their methodology.. I would then be able to speak to the whole poll and its strengths and weakness. But that doesn't deter from the fact that what is known about their methods contains serious flaws.

for example asking people "if something should be done to stop people like Lanza from getting weapons" and then using the results to say X% want stricter gun control laws

 

[haymarket]

MOre lies-Heller didn't turn two centuries on its ear. It tried to correct the idiocy of Democrats from the mid-twentieth century

The LIE is your statement. there was no individual right before Heller and that goes back two centuries.

 

[haymarket]

Nope.. Jefferson did not invent natural rights... he spoke about them as he understood that people have natural rights. And that includes to be armed. It also includes a whole host of other rights that are not listed and need not be listed since the constitution does not grant natural rights.. it protects them.

So where did the great freedom lover Jefferson find these so called natural rights?

America has been a gun loving gun toting country for centuries

3/4 of American adults DO NOT own guns. That is hardly a love affair.

And there is no conflict that I can see in Turtle's argument.. .

I suspect Ray Charles could see it and he is both blind and dead. But then he was not a right wing extremist willfully blind to all which proved him wrong and intellectually dead.

 

[TurtleDude]

The LIE is your statement. there was no individual right before Heller and that goes back two centuries.

what silly crap

the right pre-exists the constitution and the court recognized that fact in Cruikshank

 

[haymarket]

Nope.. the polls what they are. I pointed out that they share similar flaws.

If they made further information regarding their methodology.. I would then be able to speak to the whole poll and its strengths and weakness. But that doesn't deter from the fact that what is known about their methods contains serious flaws.

That was merely your opinion because you did not like the similar results of eight polls.

 

[TurtleDude]

So where did the great freedom lover Jefferson find these so called natural rights?

why ask such stunningly stupid questions?

 

[haymarket]

what silly crap

the right pre-exists the constitution and the court recognized that fact in Cruikshank

When will you stand up like a man and actually debate answering questions which expose your attempt at intellectual fraud?

If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?
If you insist that there is a "natural right to be armed" what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?
Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?
What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

One cannot simply claim that there is this natural right and that is what the Founders transferred to the Constitution without clear answers to these questions.

 

[haymarket]

why ask such stunningly stupid questions?

I am on a roll. I figured you could not answer the first two dozen questions so why stop now.

 

[TurtleDude]

When will you stand up like a man and actually debate answering questions which expose your attempt at intellectual fraud?

If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?
If you insist that there is a "natural right to be armed" what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?
Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?
What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

One cannot simply claim that there is this natural right and that is what the Founders transferred to the Constitution without clear answers to these questions.

I cannot help it if you don't like honest answers

the founders believed individuals had such rights since the dawn of time

Those rights were formally recognized when the 2A and the Bill of Rights were adopted.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am on a roll. I figured you could not answer the first two dozen questions so why stop now.

why do you ask stupid questions even though you have been edified as to the answers so many times?

Didn't you claim to teach history? then you should know where Jefferson believed natural rights came from

 

[haymarket]

I cannot help it if you don't like honest answers

the founders believed individuals had such rights since the dawn of time

Those rights were formally recognized when the 2A and the Bill of Rights were adopted.

I love honest answers. How about giving me some?

1 - If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?

2- If you insist that there is a "natural right to be armed" what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?
Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?

3 - What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

 

[haymarket]

why do you ask stupid questions even though you have been edified as to the answers so many times?

Didn't you claim to teach history? then you should know where Jefferson believed natural rights came from

There are no "stupid questions". There are indeed stupid responses to valid questions. Insisting upon something and then not being able to support it with a vialble answer that can be supported with any evidence would qualify.

I did not ask you about anything Jefferson believed. I asked you where he found this claimed natural right to be armed among other natural rights?

from my 665

So where did the great freedom lover Jefferson find these so called natural rights?

I was told that he did NOT invent them. So where did he find them?

 

[jaeger19]

for example asking people "if something should be done to stop people like Lanza from getting weapons" and then using the results to say X% want stricter gun control laws

Oh yes.. or saying "would you still purchase a firearm even if you had to undergo a background check".. and then stating that a yes means that you support background checks.


I think its very telling that I cannot find the actual questions asked by these polls.