What weapons does the 2nd protect?

[Bodi]

You assume all kinds of things, Goobieman.

I fall victim to assumptions sometimes too, but it is prudent that we not make the mistake of believing that our assumptions are irreversable facts. Being fallible is a strength, as long as people are willing to admit it.

... At least that is what I think.

 

[TurtleDude]

We have been over all of your blah blah whoopla before and all you are doing is repeating your interpretations. See, the difference is that I actually read the words and follow their clear and concise meaning whereas you read the words and interpret meanings that aren't expressed anywere by any of the Founders.

I have to say that reading your posts makes me realize that there are people out there desperate enough to be right that they dispose of things like honesty and integrity, and it makes me a little sad about the future. Not much I can do about that... but hope.

You are making stuff up and basically lying. You are ignorant of the basic underpinnings of the document and have no clue about the concept of natural law. Your posts on this issue are dishonest and have no integrity:mrgreen:

You also clearly have no training in this area and it is patently obvious to me that you have no legal education.

 

[Bodi]

You are making stuff up and basically lying. You are ignorant of the basic underpinnings of the document and have no clue about the concept of natural law. You are dishonest and have no integrity:mrgreen:

Wait a minute! :rofl

That is what I said about you! Are you also unable to be original?

Look... the words mean what the words mean.
The words do not convey a message larger than the message that words convey.

You are asking questions without answers, since the questions you are asking are have nothing to do with the intent of the Founders, so I, consequently, cannot answer your questions and provide the intepretations that you seem to find when reading, since you are reading more into their words than they intended. Is this starting to sink in at all?

Backing yourself with a bunch of like-minded opinions does not make your case, whereas I provided concrete and irrefutable proof that I am right and you are wrong... the words of the Founders themselves as they explain what their intent in the Amendment is about.

Sorry. You want to claim knowledge based off of ignorance? That is your deal and feel free to do so. Calling me names does nothing to negate the facts about what I am saying though, it only makes you look like a whiner.

 

[DeeJayH]

Backing yourself with a bunch of like-minded opinions does not make your case,

whereas backing oneself into opposition minded opinions makes his case :doh

 

[Bodi]

whereas backing oneself into opposition minded opinions makes his case :doh

Backing oneself with facts makes one's case, dude. :lol:

I guess that I am simply tired of whiney people that say that they are right and if you disagree with them, you are lying, ignorant or dishonest. It is too gradeschool for me to take seriously.

 

[TurtleDude]

Backing oneself with facts makes one's case, dude. :lol:

I guess that I am simply tired of whiney people that say that they are right and if you disagree with them, you are lying, ignorant or dishonest. It is too gradeschool for me to take seriously.

I am right because

1) every document generated within 20 years of the bill of rights says that the right was individual in nature and an inalienable one

2) because the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government-and did not serve to limit the inalienable rights of the people

3) Because Both supreme court decisions support my position-if MILLER held that you had to be in the National Guard to enjoy second amendment protection, Miller would have lost on standing

4) because of the 9th and Tenth amendments

 

[Bodi]

I am right because

1) every document generated within 20 years of the bill of rights says that the right was individual in nature and an inalienable one

Irrelevant to the issue at hand...

2) because the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government-and did not serve to limit the inalienable rights of the people

Irrelevant to the issue at hand...

3) Because Both supreme court decisions support my position-if MILLER held that you had to be in the National Guard to enjoy second amendment protection, Miller would have lost on standing

Irrelevant to the issue at hand...

4) because of the 9th and Tenth amendments

Irrelevant to the issue at hand...



The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?

That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.

 

[Iriemon]

But aren't you the one complaining about that? :lol:

Could be, but it is what it is.

 

[scourge99]

The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?

That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.

The historical narrative that petitioners must endorse would thus treat the Federal Second Amendment as an odd outlier, protecting a right unknown in state constitutions or at English common law, based on little more than an overreading of the prefatory clause.

...

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Bodi]

The historical narrative that petitioners must endorse would thus treat the Federal Second Amendment as an odd outlier, protecting a right unknown in state constitutions or at English common law, based on little more than an overreading of the prefatory clause.

...

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The first part doesn't relate to what I am saying at all...
The second part is not relevant to the Issue At Hand, that is the issue that I just outlined.

Anything else?

 

[Goobieman]

Oh... I get it. It is quite simple. :lol:
They are making their decision based off of an assumption of what you are trying to say. I am being literal. Sorry, subtelty is not your strong suit, is it?

Or, a more likelly explanation:
You're just being a horse's backside.

But, because you'd obviously rather run away from a position you know you cannot defend, I'll re-word the question just for you; if you can find the maturity and intellectual honesty necessary to do so, you can use the existing poll options to answer it.

-----------

The court has determined that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual and is not connected to service in the militia in any way.

Now that this has been cleared up, this raises an obvious question:

What sort of 'arms' are protected under the 2nd?
That is, what 'arms' do the people have the right to keep and bear, under the 2nd?

Since the most relevant topic related to all this is gun control, it makes sense to limit the dicussion to firearms.

So:
What firearms are considered 'arms' under the 2nd?

Please be sure to provide your rationale for your answer.

 

[Goobieman]

We have been over all of your blah blah whoopla before and all you are doing is repeating your interpretations. See, the difference is that I actually read the words and follow their clear and concise meaning whereas you read the words and interpret meanings that aren't expressed anywere by any of the Founders.

Except that you're wrong.
The court says so.

 

[TurtleDude]

Irrelevant to the issue at hand...



Irrelevant to the issue at hand...



Irrelevant to the issue at hand...



Irrelevant to the issue at hand...



The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?

That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.

Irrelevant being any evidence that b-slaps your silly contrarian nonsense?

People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.

You cannot

 

[Goobieman]

People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.
You cannot

That's correct.
There is absolutely no evidence that the 2nd was intended to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right; there is ample evidence that the 2nd was intended to protect an individual right not connected to actual service in the militia so that, among other things, the collective right could continue to be exercised.

The court agrees with this. Bodhi is demonstrated wrong.

Not that he has the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's correct.
There is absolutely no evidence that the 2nd was intended to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right; there is ample evidence that the 2nd was intended to protect an individual right not connected to actual service in the militia so that, among other things, the collective right could continue to be exercised.

The court agrees with this. Bodhi is demonstrated wrong.

Not that he has the intellectual honesty to admit it.

I haven't seen much in the way of intellectual honesty from him. He either ignores or pretends that the concept of pre-existing rights was not something the founders assumed. he seems to think that the only rights people have are ones that are specifically given to them by a piece of paper which-of course-is anathema to the proper understanding of the delegation of powers that serve as the foundation of the USSC.

Like most statists, he engages in an outcome based laughable mis-analysis of the Bill of Rights in order to advance his hoplophobic nonsense.

 

[Goobieman]

I haven't seen much in the way of intellectual honesty from him. He either ignores or pretends that the concept of pre-existing rights was not something the founders assumed. he seems to think that the only rights people have are ones that are specifically given to them by a piece of paper which-of course-is anathema to the proper understanding of the delegation of powers that serve as the foundation of the USSC.

One must wonder where he stands on the "human rights" abuses by China, etc.

Like most statists, he engages in an outcome based laughable mis-analysis of the Bill of Rights in order to advance his hoplophobic nonsense.

Never mind that his argument has been rendered null and void by the court.

 

[Bodi]

Except that you're wrong.
The court says so.

:rofl You guys done sucking each others dicks yet? Don't get all bothered, jeesh, it is just a joke. Lighten up already.

The court says so, huh? All I have to say is.... Plessy vs. Ferguson

"hoplophobic"? - So you must try and label me irrational in order to assuage your inability to maintain rationality then? OKaaay.

I am extremely rational and you two running around making pathetic ad homs against me doesn't change the fact that you are both ridiculously wrong about this. Go ahead and keep up the whole, "the court says so" routine if you like though. Also, I provided both of you with heaps of evidence written and spoken by the Founders themselves the last time I beat you guys and it made no difference. You both flat out ignored it in a classic aquapub dodge.

I have ignored nothing that you both have said, it is simply that you keep providing irrelevant information. I could call you gun freaks, but that does not make it so, and it is childish as well. Perhaps you guys can step up and understand that we are adults and that we may differ in opinion, and in trying to convey our understanding to one another, we can do so logically and honestly without the hoplophobic, contrarian, statist, horse's backside and other foolish tripe thrown in. Sound alright? Good.

Again, I am simply reading the words of the document and accepting their meaning.
You guys are apparently not reading the words, since it proves you incorrect, and instead opting to let the court misinterpret them for you. You then sit back, congratulate yourself on being smart, and then whip out the court's ruling anytime somebody has the nerve to think for themselves.

 

[Bodi]

One must wonder where he stands on the "human rights" abuses by China, etc.

Why don't you ask me instead of making this sissy little snide comment? :roll:

Originally Posted by Goobieman
- Never mind that his argument has been rendered null and void by the court.
- The court agrees with this. Bodhi is demonstrated wrong.
- Except that you're wrong. The court says so.

Since the court is infallible and all. You're too much... :lol:

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
Like most statists, he engages in an outcome based laughable mis-analysis of the Bill of Rights in order to advance his hoplophobic nonsense.

You should have no trouble displaying how I am a statist and a hoplophobe I guess, since you are stating that I am as you describe. So, go ahead and show us your irrefutable evidence about me, and after that is done, perhaps I will be able to take your stance in guns more seriously. If not, you are only further cementing yourself as just another person that is angry that they believe in something that is wrong, but don't have the balls to admit it or the brains to understand it... either way, it doesn't look good buddy.

Irrelevant being any evidence that b-slaps your silly contrarian nonsense?

The only one looking silly is you, especially when you keep repeating this "contrarian" rubbish.

People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.

1. Define "always had the right". Because people have not always had the right to have weapons in the various civilizations that have existed.
2. You are wrong. The burden is on you to show why your interpretation of the Founders belief in citizens rights to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia is no longer correct.

You cannot

I don't need to. This is the concept that you are not fully appreciating. That being said, I have proven that the Founders intended the right to bear arms as a means of maintaining a militia to prevent tyrrany and oppression. They did not simply want the people to just have guns simply to have them, but to have them for the purpose of maintaining a militia.

Bodisatva
The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?

That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.

Turtledude
Irrelevant being any evidence that b-slaps your silly contrarian nonsense?

People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.

You cannot

Goobieman
Not that he has the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Turtledude
I haven't seen much in the way of intellectual honesty from him. He either ignores

That is amusing and extremely ironic. :rofl
Do you see it?

You two accusing me of not being intellectually honest after you completely ignore The Issue At Hand as I outlined. You don't even attempt to answer it, instead you both start again with telling me, or each other, what you think that I think (how sophomoric is that?) and start parroting again your ad homs and the "court says so" stuff. Intellectual honesty is something that, unless you display it yourself, you should refrain from accusing others of not having.

 

[TurtleDude]

:rofl You guys done sucking each others dicks yet? Don't get all bothered, jeesh, it is just a joke. Lighten up already.

.

Is that sort of language permissible on this board? I:roll:

 

[Bodi]

Is that sort of language permissible on this board? I:roll:

I guess so, since the filter didn't stop it.
Besides, it was just a joke, since the two of you are humping each other in some vain attempt to degrade me.
It is a lot more acceptable than you and he, insulting me and breaking that one rule about being a jerk in the DP Rules. :2razz:

Hey, what I find interesting, is that again, you have not even tried to be reasonable or to answer the purpose of the 2nd. Instead, you opt to ignore, thus showing your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty.

Let me know when you are ready to sink your entire case by answering that very simple question.

:2wave:

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess so, since the filter didn't stop it.
Besides, it was just a joke, since the two of you are humping each other in some vain attempt to degrade me.
It is a lot more acceptable than you and he, insulting me and breaking that one rule about being a jerk in the DP Rules. :2razz:

Hey, what I find interesting, is that again, you have not even tried to be reasonable or to answer the purpose of the 2nd. Instead, you opt to ignore, thus showing your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty.

Let me know when you are ready to sink your entire case by answering that very simple question.

:2wave:

You are being dishonest-again. Your profound ignorance or ignoring of the entire basis upon which the nation was founded is unbelievable. You seem to think that the only rights that people were presumed to have were ones that were spelled out and if a right was not specifically illustrated, it did not exist. The purpose of the second was to guarantee one of the most important pre-existing rights and that was the right of free men to be armed. It also was to prevent the evils of a standing army.

Anytime you want to compare your credentials in this field with me I would be happy to oblige you. You don't like guns so you pretend that an amendment that protects gun ownership doesn't say what it clearly does say. You ignore both history and the obvious realities surrounding the writing of this amendment. A militia is something that is formed WHEN NEEDED, as opposed to a STANDING ARMY-which, by definition, exists in both peacetime and war. FOR a militia to be effective, those who join it must be able to provide their own individual weapons and have some inkling as to how those firearms, sabers, dirks, bayonets, or swords are to be used. IF THE citizens are disarmed, an effective ("well regulated" -meaning a militia that had been assembled, provided with orders and officers and ready to function) militia could not be readily formed in time of emergency.

For those who claim that the right (which PRE-EXISTED THE CONSTITUTION) only attached after the militia had been mustered and set into action is idiotic and has absolutely no support IN ANY document or speech or other supporting entity contemporaneous with the drafting and adoption of the Constitution. It was something that politicians who wished to disarm "undersireables" (be they freed slaves in the post-reconstruction south, or "papist" immigrants in NYC or Boston in the early 1900's) foisted on us based on their power to interpret.

 

[Goobieman]

The court says so, huh? All I have to say is.... Plessy vs. Ferguson

Yes. We all know that you believe you're right and the court is wrong.
That doesn't make you right, that just makes you dishonest -- and if you take your argument to court, you'll lose, every time.

I am extremely rational and you two running around making pathetic ad homs against me...

Oh, the irony....

So, were you going to address my revised question, or were you going continue to avoid having to post anyting substantive?

 

[Goobieman]

You two accusing me of not being intellectually honest after you completely ignore The Issue At Hand as I outlined.

Except that's -not- the issue at hand.
The issue at hand - what firearms are considerd 'arms' under the 2nd -- is the issue you're avoiding.

YOUR issue has been settled, and you were on the losing side.
Accept that, kitty, and you'll be a lot happier.

 

[Bodi]

Yes. We all know that you believe you're right and the court is wrong.

Right, because the court is infallible. Great dodge kiddo.

That doesn't make you right, that just makes you dishonest --

No it doesn't ... it makes me a realist. God your obtuse. :roll:

and if you take your argument to court, you'll lose, every time.

Tell that to Linda Brown and Martin Luther King. :lol:

...So, you are a racist then? Or just not that intelligent? Here I am thinking that you are not being intellectually honest when all along it might simply be that you don't have the capacity to maintain an intellectual thought.

Oh, the irony....

So, were you going to address my revised question, or were you going continue to avoid having to post anyting substantive?

I am waiting for you to address the issue, and that is the actual wording of the 2nd and not what some biased or ignorant judges interpret from it.

Except that's -not- the issue at hand.

Sure it is. Conversations and debates have a life of their own, and this is the issue that we arrived at, and when we did, you punked out.

The issue at hand - what firearms are considerd 'arms' under the 2nd -- is the issue you're avoiding.

I believe that I have already answered that.

Most guns, in case you don't remember. I have no problem with guns at all, completely negating your entire weak and pathetic characterization of me. I have told you this before. I have shot numerous guns and know manypeople that own guns and that is fine. No biggy. You tried to call me a liar before when I said this, and that makes you a childish goof. You have to portray any differing opinion as something idiotic, dishonest, ignorant or a lie. You are almost a waste of time, the circles you keep running yourself around in are amusing, yet a little disturbing too.

The issue is the reason for guns and what those that own guns intend to use them for. I understand that this is a subtle, yet extremely important, point... but if you think about it for a while it might just dawn on you that you and that other guy are arguing against me and you don't even understand how ridiculous you both look, since you are not even addressing the issue.

YOUR issue has been settled, and you were on the losing side.

You havn't addressed this issue... and you are gonna just make that little claim.
Interesting and telling.

Accept that, kitty, and you'll be a lot happier.

I am a guy ya freaking child. :lol:

Perhaps you never outgrew your angry teen years?
Grow up and act like a man already...

 

[Bodi]

You are being dishonest-again.

I am not purposely lying or being dishonest.
If anything, I am simply making an incorrect assessment.
I certainly don't think so, and I am trying to get you to answer a simple thing. Perhaps if you did that, I might even find out my error, if there is indeed one.

You think that you are right and I think that I am right. Deal with it.
It is debatable, hence the ****ing debate. Grow up already. :roll:

Your profound ignorance or ignoring of the entire basis upon which the nation was founded is unbelievable. You seem to think that the only rights that people were presumed to have were ones that were spelled out and if a right was not specifically illustrated, it did not exist.

I don't seem to think that. That is your interpretation of what I am saying.
Seeing how incorrectly you interpret my words, I can see why you are having difficulty in interpreting the Founders words.

We are arguing the INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS vs. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COURTS.

Why is this so hard for you to deal with?

The purpose of the second was to guarantee one of the most important pre-existing rights and that was the right of free men to be armed. It also was to prevent the evils of a standing army.

That is the ISSUE AT HAND.
The ISSUE that I am trying to get you to address.

What you just said, "The purpose of the second was to guarantee one of the most important pre-existing rights and that was the right of free men to be armed. It also was to prevent the evils of a standing army." is correct, but only part of the purpose. You are not addressing the rest.

Anytime you want to compare your credentials in this field with me I would be happy to oblige you.

Your credentials don't mean dick, slick. I am a volunteer firefighter in my spare time. Been to a lot of fires and rescued/saved a lot of people from death in my time. Are you going to tell me that this means that if you have a researched and honest opinion about fires, accidents, prevention, etc. that all I have to do is tell you my credentials and tell you that you are wrong and that is that? Nice reasoning skills. See, you don't even get this and that is why your credentials are irrelevant.

That being said, you have no idea what my field is anyway, or what I studied at University or what I study now.

You don't like guns so you pretend that an amendment that protects gun ownership doesn't say what it clearly does say.

I have no problem with "guns". Do you understand that yet? I doubt it. A gun is just a thing. "Things" don't worry me.

You ignore both history

Oh the Irony. What was that about credentials again? :rofl

and the obvious realities surrounding the writing of this amendment.

No I don't. I have stated what you do, and agreed with you about almost all of the intended meaning of the Constitution.

A militia is something that is formed WHEN NEEDED, as opposed to a STANDING ARMY-which, by definition, exists in both peacetime and war.

Yep... Keep going.

FOR a militia to be effective, those who join it must be able to provide their own individual weapons and have some inkling as to how those firearms, sabers, dirks, bayonets, or swords are to be used.

Good... keep going.

IF THE citizens are disarmed, an effective ("well regulated" -meaning a militia that had been assembled, provided with orders and officers and ready to function) militia could not be readily formed in time of emergency.

True... but your getting off track.

For those who claim that the right (which PRE-EXISTED THE CONSTITUTION) only attached after the militia had been mustered and set into action is idiotic and has absolutely no support IN ANY document or speech or other supporting entity contemporaneous with the drafting and adoption of the Constitution.

Shoot. You were doing so well there too. This is your obstacle. I am not sure why you can't get past this point. This is certainly not what I am saying, or what I have ever said either.

I have repeated my request more than a few times now. I'll keep checking to see how you are coming along with it.