The gun hater's lament. [W:487, 811]

[CRUE CAB]

Think logically here, a nuclear weapon is considered an "arm" do you support Americans sitting with a missile or two in their back yard? There has to be limits and you and I both know that.

Yes, lets take it to the rediculous extreme. Short of Bill Gates, no one is going to afford a fusions weapon and its maintenance costs.

 

[CRUE CAB]

To understand the second amendment you would have to understand what the forefathers understood and intended "arms" to mean.


arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military) in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military) lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military) present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military) take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly
[from Old French armes, from Latin arma; see arm2]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


The second amendment as passed by the House of Representatives in 1789 read...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...."
http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_hr.txt

Without any qualifiers, "the conscientious objector clause, "bearing arms" clearly conveys an exclusively military or fighting connotation, and thus it would seem "to bear arms" also has a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, especially since most of the framers were lawyers."

Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

The framers clearly intended "to bear arms" to mean arming a militia and not bastardized into meaning an individual right to self defense outside the context of a militia defending the state. The framers would have understood individual "self defense" to be a natural inalienable right that can't be taken away and therefore didn't need enumeration beyond the protection found in the ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Wow, if you could be more wrong it would be some sort of record.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's funny because the constitution doesn't say there are limits. It says shall not be infringed.<----- That little thing that looks like a dot is called a period.

It never ceases to amaze me how people like you, who claim to love the 2nd Amendment so much, never cite the entire Amendment, only the part you want people to pay attention to.

WRONG!! Our rights are Inalienable :

in·alien·able Listen to audio/ˌɪnˈeɪljənəbəl/ adjective
formal : impossible to take away or give up
▪ inalienable rights

This is a huge problem in our great Country. Liberals really do believe that it's the government that decides what rights we have and don't have.

I read crap like this post and literally feel my I.Q. drop several points just trying to get to where they could come to that conclusion with any true study of our County's creation or the Constitution. Just WOW!!

If the rights granted in the Bill of Rights were inalienable, they wouldn't need to be in the Constitution. The right to own a gun is not an inalienable right.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

A child haters lament....

Mocking the parents of dead children, calling the massacre a hoax, mocking the dead children on facebook, giving away free AR-15's, basturdizing the constitution, calling themselves the real victims, shutting down the debate with mocking, bullying and misinformation.....

"...Nothing says “I’m responsible enough to own a gun” than Republicans who mock the deaths of 20 first and second graders by raffling off AR-15s, the very gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut...."
GOP giving away free AR-15 "Sandy Hook" rifles as pro-gun stunt

:spin: :alert That is not mocking the deaths of anybody at Sandy Hook. AR-15's were around way before then, and were given at Gun events way before then!

 

[CRUE CAB]

I agree. It would compliment the swastikas tatooed on their foreheads.

Do you shed a tear when you post that type of non sense?
I will tell you that 20 or 200 dead dont trump my 2A rights.
But, what about all the children that are beaten to death? Should we ban fists? I mean you really dont have a right to make a fist in anger.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It never ceases to amaze me how people like you, who claim to love the 2nd Amendment so much, never cite the entire Amendment, only the part you want people to pay attention to.

It amazes me, too, how people like you who purportedly speak English, can't tell the difference between a clause that imposes a condition on a right and a clause that provides the justification for a right.

If the rights granted in the Bill of Rights were inalienable, they wouldn't need to be in the Constitution. The right to own a gun is not an inalienable right.

By this standard, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right", which is a statement I would absolutely agree with-- but the right to own a gun, and indeed the right to carry a gun, is an essential human right on par with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of religion. The fact that much of the rest of the world does not recognize this right is tragic, but it does not change the importance of this right. Indeed, conditions in those parts of the world that do impose such limitations on this basic human right only serve to demonstrate how essential and vital it is.

 

[CRUE CAB]

:spin: :alert That is not mocking the deaths of anybody at Sandy Hook. AR-15's were around way before then, and were given at Gun events way before then!

You are responding to he aimless last gasp of gun control in this country.
They pushed and pushed hard for tighter gun control and were shut down like an illegal whore house.
The "parents" went and paraded their grief in DC at the direction of the administration.
The faces of the kids were on TV every night. Their names were read in slow emotion filled voices.
Our nations faced and faces much worse threats than the gun in my safe but those guns became the target and the focus of a PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION of the United States of America.
How many days and weeks did Obama WASTE on foolish legislation that had fail written all over it before it got off the ground?
All he did was create a spike market in the gun industry and made rich the people that he wanted to put out of business and sent millions into gun shops and gun shows to arm themselves while they could.
On top of that he expanded the ranks of the very organization that he wanted to put out of business, the NRA.
Good job Mr President.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It amazes me, too, how people like you who purportedly speak English, can't tell the difference between a clause that imposes a condition on a right and a clause that provides the justification for a right.



By this standard, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right", which is a statement I would absolutely agree with-- but the right to own a gun, and indeed the right to carry a gun, is an essential human right on par with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of religion. The fact that much of the rest of the world does not recognize this right is tragic, but it does not change the importance of this right. Indeed, conditions in those parts of the world that do impose such limitations on this basic human right only serve to demonstrate how essential and vital it is.

Good points! The purpose of the constitution is to limit and carefully define what are federal powers, clearly define certain basic rights of the citizens as off limits to gov't restriction and to leave the balance up to the several states to decide.

 

[Slyfox696]

clause that imposes a condition on a right and a clause that provides the justification for a right.

Yes, because the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically, are FULL of those justifications. :roll:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we assume the first part of the 2nd Amendment is justification, wouldn't that make it the ONLY Amendment to provide such a justification?

By this standard, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right", which is a statement I would absolutely agree with-- but the right to own a gun, and indeed the right to carry a gun, is an essential human right on par with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of religion.

That's not a human right, that's a right granted to you by the government.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Yes, because the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically, are FULL of those justifications. :roll:

Point; yes, it is the only Amendment to the Constitution that contains such a justification. And before we continue in this tone, please allow me to apologize for the hostility in my previous post. I am a bit of a zealot when it comes to this issue, but I haven't had enough interactions with you to justify my condescending tone.

My point does remain, however, that the 2nd Amendment in no fashion makes the right to keep and bear arms conditional upon membership in an organized militia, nor even to meeting the qualifications for the unorganized militia, which are spelled out in US law. Almost none of the thousands of gun laws that exist in this country are justifiable by "the militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment.

That's not a human right, that's a right granted to you by the government.

Would you care to explain to me the difference?

 

[iacardsfan]

Yes, lets take it to the rediculous extreme. Short of Bill Gates, no one is going to afford a fusions weapon and its maintenance costs.

I think a machine gun is a ridiculous extreme, yet people can own as many of those as they want. See my point?

 

[CRUE CAB]

I think a machine gun is a ridiculous extreme, yet people can own as many of those as they want. See my point?

Might want to pump the brakes on that one and read up on what it takes to legally own a "machine gun".

 

[SMTA]

The gun hater's lament.

Might want to pump the brakes on that one and read up on what it takes to legally own a "machine gun".

No kidding

 

[SMTA]

The gun hater's lament.

Wow, if you could be more wrong it would be some sort of record.

Absolutely correct

 

[Slyfox696]

Point; yes, it is the only Amendment to the Constitution that contains such a justification.

Ahh...you can see how someone like me would consider that be "convenient" for the pro-gun argument, correct? Almost as if it's just a way for the pro-gun crowd to explain away that which they do not wish to recognize.

And before we continue in this tone, please allow me to apologize for the hostility in my previous post. I am a bit of a zealot when it comes to this issue, but I haven't had enough interactions with you to justify my condescending tone.

Well, thank you for the apology, but it's not necessary. And, to be honest, if you had had more debates with me, I'm sure your reaction would be perfectly justified.

My point does remain, however, that the 2nd Amendment in no fashion makes the right to keep and bear arms conditional upon membership in an organized militia, nor even to meeting the qualifications for the unorganized militia, which are spelled out in US law. Almost none of the thousands of gun laws that exist in this country are justifiable by "the militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment.

And my point remains, which is those words were not written for the fun of it, they obviously had intention and meaning, and purposefully ignoring them shows a rather dishonest interpretation of the amendment.

Would you care to explain to me the difference?

A human right is not one which can be exhibited by a material possession, especially one which is relatively new within the context of world history.

 

[VanceMack]

Sanjaya sucked on American Idol too..

 

[VanceMack]

Read the article. Pathetic. Play on every emotion and attempt to exploit any tragedy to, in the words of the author, pass SOME sort of new gun control laws. And there it is. They dont give a **** about any of it. They dont care about the people, nor do they care about whether or not what is being proposed might stand a snowballs chance in hell of making things even a little bit better. Pass a law. Pass SOMETHING. Pass ANYTHING. Because at the end of the day...its just another group of mindless twat waddles promoting a 'cause'.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I think a machine gun is a ridiculous extreme, yet people can own as many of those as they want. See my point?

Give me the technicals of why a machine gun is "extreme". Is it in your opinion a "super weapon" with no limitations? Or is it that it uses more powerful ammo? Is the rate of fire traded off for anything possibly? Do give me a valid reason that "machine guns" in general, but more accurately full automatics are "extreme".

 

[Arbo]

:violin

-- the willful disregard for human life, the blind adherence to a hopelessly outdated Constitutional Amendment, the willingness to profit from violence, and political gamesmanship by the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and the Republican party, have reached such lows that not even the deaths of young children seem to matter to them anymore.

Where Is Gun Control? | Sanjay Sanghoee

There will always be idiots in this world. In this case there are loads of idiots that do not understand the Constitution, and fear a tool that is the reason this nation exists. It would be great to deny them the ability to reproduce and pass on their flawed genes, but that will never happen.

 

[blaxshep]

Give me the technicals of why a machine gun is "extreme". Is it in your opinion a "super weapon" with no limitations? Or is it that it uses more powerful ammo? Is the rate of fire traded off for anything possibly? Do give me a valid reason that "machine guns" in general, but more accurately full automatics are "extreme".

I have to laugh at the ignorance of gun haters. I don't know about you but I'll take my 7.62 Mauser sniper rifle over a machine gun any day.

 

[rhinefire]

It's not about the constitution. It is about the civilian population to be able to fight back against oppression. Take a look at Swat with all their machine guns and tanks and rocket launchers. These are police!!!!!!! They are more efficiently equipped to kill than American soldiers in WWII. If this government uses my tax dollars to arm those police officers with that much fire power then citizens derserve the right to have at least an assault weapon with a 30 round clip and we should be allowed to have fully auto weapons. A civilian population that cannot resist a military action by it's own government is in all aspects doomed to eternal slavery.

 

[iacardsfan]

Give me the technicals of why a machine gun is "extreme". Is it in your opinion a "super weapon" with no limitations? Or is it that it uses more powerful ammo? Is the rate of fire traded off for anything possibly? Do give me a valid reason that "machine guns" in general, but more accurately full automatics are "extreme".

It doesn't matter does it? You claim that nukes are too extreme, I claim machine guns are too extreme. The second amendment provides protection of arms, making you a hypocrite if you only support half of it.

 

[CRUE CAB]

It doesn't matter does it? You claim that nukes are too extreme, I claim machine guns are too extreme. The second amendment provides protection of arms, making you a hypocrite if you only support half of it.

You know what it takes to aquire and own a machine gun?
I asked you that before, but you just wish to keep blabbing.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Sanjaya sucked on American Idol too..

Sandyvajayjay, sounds like a gun hater.

 

[YoungConserv]

Think logically here, a nuclear weapon is considered an "arm" do you support Americans sitting with a missile or two in their back yard? There has to be limits and you and I both know that.

That's a straw man because no individual American has the resources to build one and its not considered a arm by common definition.