What guns are protected by the 2nd?

[haymarket]

the founders did not say GOD, in the sense of anyone's faith, they stated the creator which is a subjective term, for anyone to interpret as they will.

during the writing of the DOI, jefferson wrote......"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable"....sacred & undeniable was removed, because Franklin and Adams, agreed it sounded to much like the church.

why would the founders, it they wanted religion part of the DOI, then not keep sacred & undeniable", and mention GOD in heaven........if you think it has something to do with religion.

WRONG.

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.--

Creator is capitalized as is God and it is abundantly clear it is the same entity.

Or is the Creator ones parents? :roll: IS that what the Founders are referencing? :roll:

 

[haymarket]

i am asking you how are rights determined in YOUR form of government.

you stated they are allowed and owed.......i asked you by whom, since you believe rights come by.......... flesh and blood

I have repeatedly told you over and over and over again: enough people demand a certain behavior be protected by the government as a RIGHT and they exert enough power or influence to get the government to declare that behavior as a RIGHT.

allowed & owed was you in your post 454

really then who in that system allows...owes the people rights.

 

[Master PO]

I have repeatedly told you over and over and over again: enough people demand a certain behavior be protected by the government as a RIGHT and they exert enough power or influence to get the government to declare that behavior as a RIGHT.

what is enough people?........majority rule?

you dancing about this BIG time.

let me translate your statement.

I have repeatedly told you over and over and over again: when the majority of people demand a certain behavior be protected by the government as a RIGHT and they exert enough power or influence to get the government to declare that behavior as a RIGHT.

 

[Master PO]

WRONG.

Creator is capitalized as is God and it is abundantly clear it is the same entity.

Or is the Creator ones parents? :roll: IS that what the Founders are referencing? :roll:

WHY DID THEY NOT KEEP .."We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable".......why did they not name Christianity flat out...?


sa·cred
ˈsākrid/
adjective
adjective: sacred

1.
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so

 

[Master PO]

allowed & owed was you in your post 454

SORRY NO...... IT WAS NOT..........it was YOU, in your post #445.

or it is you diDnt not read what you posted?

 

[haymarket]

what is enough people?........majority rule?

you dancing about this BIG time.

let me translate your statement.

Atricle V of the Constitution specifies the procedure for an Amendment. Read it and your question is answered by the authority on such matters.

I will make it easy for you

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[haymarket]

WHY DID THEY NOT KEEP .."We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable".......why did they not name Christianity flat out...?


sa·cred
ˈsākrid/
adjective
adjective: sacred

1.
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so

Asking me to explain what IS NOT THERE is a bit absurd. Keep your eye on the donut - not on the hole.

 

[Master PO]

Atricle V of the Constitution specifies the procedure for an Amendment. Read it and your question is answered by the authority on such matters.

really?.......the article states that the congress must pass by 2/3ths....then it must be ratified by the states by 3/4.......where are the people's vote only ?.......the majority rule?

 

[haymarket]

SORRY NO...... IT WAS NOT..........it was YOU, in your post #445.

or it is you diDnt not read what you posted?

So make it clear that you were quoting the WIKIPEDIA entry and NOT me.

 

[haymarket]

really?.......the article states that the congress must pass by 2/3ths....then it must be ratified by the states by 3/4.......where are the people's vote only ?.......the majority rule?

Perhaps you have heard we are a representive democracy and that is how the voice of the people is represented?

 

[Master PO]

So make it clear that you were quoting the WIKIPEDIA entry and NOT me.

you posted it..therefore...YOU agree with it.

 

[Master PO]

Perhaps you have heard we are a representive democracy and that is how the voice of the people is represented?

yes i have, and america is not a representative democracy, the people do not have all direct vote, over amendments.

and before the 17th ,they had no direct vote in the senate.

its republican government...not democratic.

 

[haymarket]

you posted it..therefore...YOU agree with it.

why would you isolate only two words out of a larger sentence and then ask the meaning of only those two words?

While I do not speak for Wikipedia, I read the entry to mean allowed by the mechanism of that nation which deals with such matters. In the case of the USA it would be the Constitution which describes the role of amendment process involving what i have already provided for you in an earlier post.

 

[haymarket]

yes i have, and america is not a representative democracy, the people do not have all direct vote, over amendments.

and before the 17th ,they had no direct vote in the senate.

its republican government...not democratic.

If the people did it by direct vote it would NOT be a representative democracy but a DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

You need to learn the difference.

 

[Master PO]

why would you isolate only two words out of a larger sentence and then ask the meaning of only those two words?

While I do not speak for Wikipedia, I read the entry to mean allowed by the mechanism of that nation which deals with such matters. In the case of the USA it would be the Constitution which describes the role of amendment process involving what i have already provided for you in an earlier post.

becuase rights must emanate from somewhere.....i believe they come from a higher power, you reject that, and believe they come from the people[democracy]................so i am am asking you , who are the people.........one, a few people, or the majority?

 

[Master PO]

If the people did it by direct vote it would NOT be a representative democracy but a DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

You need to learn the difference.

in direct democracy the people vote directly, and have government execute it

in representative democracy the representatives of the people vote directly, and they have government execute the law.


in Republican government.......the house is a representative democracy, because the people have their representatives vote the will of the people..........[congressman, is the peoples representative]

..........................................the senate is an aristocracy, because the state legislatures [whom the people elect INdirectly] have their representative [ the states representative] ....senator vote the will of the states.

for any legislative bill to pass congress, the will of the people ....and the will of the states must both be represented in congress.

that is what mixed government is.......it is a protection, against majority rule, and it comes from a man named polybius....WHO is referenced in the federalist papers.

Madison drew on the ideas of polybius, and created mixed government, for our american system of government.........of divided powers, so that one faction....be it one person[president] or a few [congress] or the majority [the people], could never all all direct power to become tyrannical.

 

[jaeger19]

I nevr said that and one cannot help but notice you DID Not QUOTE ME SAYING WHAT YOU stated my premise is.

You and I and other Americans do indeed have rights. The Constitution says so.

Well.. so how do you have these rights?

Have you not argued that these rights are only granted by government and therefore can be take away by government?

If that's so.. then you really don't have a right then.


If you give me a chainsaw, but tell me that at anytime you can take your chainsaw back... is it then really mine?

If you take it back as you stated you could, can I legitimately claim you stole it from me?

Please answer those easy questions...

 

[Master PO]

If the people did it by direct vote it would NOT be a representative democracy but a DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

You need to learn the difference.

correction:..that should be direct power........not vote.

yes i have, and america is not a representative democracy, the people do not have all direct vote<-------should be power, over amendments.

and before the 17th ,they had no direct vote<-------should be power in the senate.

its republican government...not democratic.

 

[blackjack50]

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about protecting specific arms themselves.

It protects the right to keep and bear arms. What arms can I keep?

 

[TurtleDude]

It protects the right to keep and bear arms. What arms can I keep?

Haymarket has claimed that NO specific arm is protected and if you own ONE FIREARM you will be able to ENJOY (whatever that means) your Second A rights in perpetuity. In other words, once you own one firearm no matter what the government does short of confiscating that gun, it cannot INFRINGE on your rights

 

[haymarket]

becuase rights must emanate from somewhere.....i believe they come from a higher power, you reject that, and believe they come from the people[democracy]................so i am am asking you , who are the people.........one, a few people, or the majority?

Why do you ask the same silly questions over and over again when you have already been given the authoritative answer from the US Constitution?

 

[haymarket]

in direct democracy the people vote directly, and have government execute it

in representative democracy the representatives of the people vote directly, and they have government execute the law.

It was already explained to you. Go back and check your work and you will discover your mistake.

 

[haymarket]

Well.. so how do you have these rights?

Have you not argued that these rights are only granted by government and therefore can be take away by government?

If that's so.. then you really don't have a right then..

nope. I argued that it is a two step process involving the will of the people and the government together.

If you give me a chainsaw, but tell me that at anytime you can take your chainsaw back... is it then really mine?

If you take it back as you stated you could, can I legitimately claim you stole it from me?

Please answer those easy questions...

Are chainsaws rights or is it a piece of physical property. Honestly answer it and you will see the false premise you are attempting to set up.

 

[haymarket]

correction:..that should be direct power........not vote.

yes i have, and america is not a representative democracy, the people do not have all direct vote<-------should be power, over amendments.

and before the 17th ,they had no direct vote<-------should be power in the senate.

its republican government...not democratic.

Go back and check your work next to what I educated you on and you will see the error of your ways.

 

[haymarket]

It protects the right to keep and bear arms. What arms can I keep?

That is up to the duly elected representatives of the American people and review of those actions by the courts.