Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516:1716:2243]

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

I already gave you the answer. What is the Militia?

Well regulated militia of the entire people, a few public officials excepted, is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Sorry, that is only part of what the 2nd Amendment is about. As I said, taking one quote from one founder does not tell the whole story.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Sorry, that is only part of what the 2nd Amendment is about. As I said, taking one quote from one founder does not tell the whole story.

That is what the literal text is about.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not about natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

It also means one can evaluate his babbling as just that.

Only the right wing is that fantastical, with their special pleading:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

That is what the literal text is about.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not about natural rights.

Sorry, that's been dis-proven time and time again. Repeating the same mantra over and over does not further your cause in the slightest nor does it make it true.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Sorry, that's been dis-proven time and time again. Repeating the same mantra over and over does not further your cause in the slightest nor does it make it true.

disproven with what? nothing but fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

disproven with what? nothing but fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

wrong and you know it. The bill of rights all guarantee rights that pre-exist government and the state

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience

Are any of the gun control laws not collective? Or do they affect everyone?

Universal background checks: Well, by its very definition everyone is supposed to get one done when they buy a gun. So, it affects everyone.

Licensing requirements: Everyone that owns a gun is supposed to get one...usually for each gun that they own.

Gun insurance: Everyone that owns a gun is supposed to get it. From what I understand...for each gun that they own.

Taxes: Everyone that buys one will have to pay the taxes.

So, all those laws are collective. They affect everyone.

And each and everyone of those laws would make a gun harder to get. By the gun-controls very argument that is the idea behind gun control. To make guns harder to get for criminals...well hate to tell you this but if the laws affect everyone as I have demonstrated..then it is going to make it harder for everyone to get those guns, not just criminals.

And btw: Child support laws do not target men. They also target everyone. If a man receives custody of the child then the woman must pay child support also. It just seems like the men are targeted because more often than not the woman gets custody of the children.

Kal Stang, what is the difference between "broad" and "collective?"

Just because the law prohibits or condones the actions and/or property of a large group of people, up to and including every citizen, does not make it collective.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

That is what the literal text is about.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not about natural rights.

You would do better to argue something like the Amendment means every gun owning person should be part of an organized militia.

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

well if you study their writings, the notes of their speeches and the language of the constitution, and combine that with an understanding of the natural law that underlies their great document, its obvious they didn't want the federal government being able to disarm free men. You don't agree with it because you start with the belief that you don't like armed citizens and you are upset that the second amendment guarantees that

can you find a SINGLE note or comment from a founder that even suggests otherwise?

No, I don't disagree that people should be freely armed. I disagree that it is an unlimited right because of they way you or anyone else interpreted the writings of the framers. I don't think they intended the government to be powerless to govern, even with regard to personal ownership of firearms.

With the limitations of the Second Amendment in mind, the state government can implement responsible gun control. There is no law in effect today, about gun control, which has violated the Second Amendment. An outright ban would.

You seem to disagree with the process used to implement a ban on automatic weapons, but I don't think automatic weapons are necessary for self defense, nor is a ban on automatic weapons unconstitutional. I cannot think of a single law pertaining to guns, which is in effect today, that is not constitutional. Can you?

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

wrong and you know it. The bill of rights all guarantee rights that pre-exist government and the state

These are legal rights, such as limitations on the federal government. They especially exist in civilized cultures with a well formed legal code. The rights may have pre-existed our Federal and state governments, but did they exist before governments existed?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been the rights every human has desired, throughout history, whether "free men" or in the charge of some prince, preener or drama queen.

I do not think the same can be said about ownership of a deadly weapon. That is not a God given, natural right, but a privilege endowed to us by our neighbors and legislators.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

wrong and you know it. The bill of rights all guarantee rights that pre-exist government and the state

Our Second Amendment is not about the concept of natural rights.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

You would do better to argue something like the Amendment means every gun owning person should be part of an organized militia.

simple appeals to ignorance by the fantastical, right wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Our Second Amendment is not about the concept of natural rights.

you are wrong. You just make stuff up. The bill of rights is based on the founders belief in natural law and natural right. Cruikshank noted that the second amendment does not create a right but recognizes one-what right is that?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

But as we well know the rabidly deluded gun control lunatics living in their fantasy world of fear and hatred of inanimate objects they believe are possessed by magical properties and can kill at will, are going to have fabricated some other version. Take it from any sane person they never ever know what they are mindlessly babbling.

Are you serious ...?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

These are legal rights, such as limitations on the federal government. They especially exist in civilized cultures with a well formed legal code. The rights may have pre-existed our Federal and state governments, but did they exist before governments existed?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been the rights every human has desired, throughout history, whether "free men" or in the charge of some prince, preener or drama queen.

I do not think the same can be said about ownership of a deadly weapon. That is not a God given, natural right, but a privilege endowed to us by our neighbors and legislators.

as usual, you are wrong on this topic. The cruikshank decision notes that the second amendment does not CREATE a right but merely recognizes one. What is that right that the second amendment recognizes?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

No, I don't disagree that people should be freely armed. I disagree that it is an unlimited right because of they way you or anyone else interpreted the writings of the framers. I don't think they intended the government to be powerless to govern, even with regard to personal ownership of firearms.

With the limitations of the Second Amendment in mind, the state government can implement responsible gun control. There is no law in effect today, about gun control, which has violated the Second Amendment. An outright ban would.

You seem to disagree with the process used to implement a ban on automatic weapons, but I don't think automatic weapons are necessary for self defense, nor is a ban on automatic weapons unconstitutional. I cannot think of a single law pertaining to guns, which is in effect today, that is not constitutional. Can you?

every major city and state, and every federal law enforcement agency that is civilian in nature has determined that automatic weapons are necessary tools that their civilian employees use for self defense. So what you think is necessary is really irrelevant.


The Hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional

THe 1934 NFA is clearly unconstitutional

the bans on semi autos in some states are clearly unconstitutional

any ban on a firearm being owned by people is unconstitutional

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

as usual, you are wrong on this topic. The cruikshank decision notes that the second amendment does not CREATE a right but merely recognizes one. What is that right that the second amendment recognizes?

The Cruikshank decision from the 19th century?

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

you are wrong. You just make stuff up. The bill of rights is based on the founders belief in natural law and natural right. Cruikshank noted that the second amendment does not create a right but recognizes one-what right is that?

No, it is not. The concept of natural rights has nothing to do with our Second Amendment, since the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Posse comitatus is where the concept of natural rights applies.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry."

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

The Cruikshank decision from the 19th century?

Yep. and it is correct other than saying that the bill of rights does not apply to the states. but it correctly notes that the bill of rights were only INTENDED to apply to the federal government

Haven't you figured out the following?

1) saying the second amendment is "limited" is stupid unless you can show where the relevant government had been given the power to actually act

2) the second amendment was a complete ban on a government (federal) that was never given ANY power to regulate firearms in private hands

3) this entire nonsense about the second amendment being "limited" did not crop up until FDR pretended that the commerce clause allowed federal infringements

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

No, it is not. The concept of natural rights has nothing to do with our Second Amendment, since the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause.



Posse comitatus is where the concept of natural rights applies.

You have admitted several times on several boards that you are making this up and you have no support for your silly claims. So until you actually come up with some support for your claims that have nothing to do with reality and run counter to EVERY known fact as to the foundation for the Bill of Rights, I am not going to continue to address points that have no evidence whatsoever

 

[Bodi]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

simple appeals to ignorance by the fantastical, right wing.

Great counter argument. :lol:

I win.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience

Kal Stang, what is the difference between "broad" and "collective?"

Just because the law prohibits or condones the actions and/or property of a large group of people, up to and including every citizen, does not make it collective.

Does it affect the collective? Your proposal is that the 2nd Amendment is a collective Right that is meant to protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. I explained how the gun control laws that you want are going to make it harder for the people to own and bare arms. I asked you what these gun control laws are going to do to the collective in regards to their ability to defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic based on that. You have yet to answer that. Would you please answer it?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

disproven with what? nothing but fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Your claim said here:

Our Second Article of Amendment clearly states that Only well regulated militia of the whole People (a few public officials excepted), are necessary to the security of a free State.

And I did so by quoting the very founding fathers that you quoted and then some. It's not my fault that you are ignoring all other quotes from them but the one that you want to listen to. Sorry but that is not how it works. You do not get to pick and choose who you listen to and who you don't. As I said previously, you have to take into account ALL of the founding fathers views on the 2nd Amendment. Not just one quote from one founder. The reason is that it took all of the founding fathers to enact the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The majority opinion is what says it is what it is. Not one persons voice. That is not how our Republic works. We are not ruled by a king. So taking the quote of one person is not going to work.

In order to have a free state it is necessary to have an armed citizenry. Because it is the citizenry that makes up the defense of this country. WE are the militia. All of us. Not whoever the government says is.

 

[Celebrity]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience

Does it affect the collective? Your proposal is that the 2nd Amendment is a collective Right that is meant to protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. I explained how the gun control laws that you want are going to make it harder for the people to own and bare arms. I asked you what these gun control laws are going to do to the collective in regards to their ability to defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic based on that. You have yet to answer that. Would you please answer it?

Whether or not it affects the collective is a different matter. Regarding your comments about child support, I disagree that it is collective. If women are individually obligated to pay child support, isn't that because the law addresses individual women, and not women collectively? If women can willfully, intentionally and maliciously use their genitalia to cause a situation in which they and/or third parties in the state are permitted to control a man's financial life, then it is broadly discriminatory against men. Yet child support is not collectively owed, by any community of men or women, but generally one person (or maybe two persons if an obligor marries in a state where that unification is grounds for treating the two people identically as one person). So, I don't think your argument will make very much use of that analogy.

I meant to include some reflection about what it would mean if we treated the law as unilaterally "collective," in terms of gun control, but I'll have to address that later because I forgot what I was going to say about it.

Now, I'm not really sure what the grounds are for comparing the Second Amendment to gun control legislation in terms of how likely they are to improve the defense against foreign and domestic enemies. Are you implying that I may think that they will both augment our defensiveness, and if I don't think that, then I must think that one or the other diminishes it?

That appears to be an important question, but I believe it is a false dichotomy. It is possible that gun control will neither increase nor decrease our ability to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic. I have responded to commentary like this from Turtledude, among others, in another thread. When I made the argument that the (state) government should have the ability to implement responsible gun control in tandem with the statement that we know for certain the Second Amendment protects the ownership of at most one firearm, it was actually supposed by some posters that I was arguing that the Second Amendment gives the government the power to do so. Are you trying to make this type of strawman argument again? Although it is possible that the framers imagined that two or three per person would be fitting, that we don't know. Before I can answer that question, I would like to know more about the categories into which you neatly divide what is the pure and unadulterated collective right of the people and what is abominably wrong for the big bad government to legislate.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

You have admitted several times on several boards that you are making this up and you have no support for your silly claims. So until you actually come up with some support for your claims that have nothing to do with reality and run counter to EVERY known fact as to the foundation for the Bill of Rights, I am not going to continue to address points that have no evidence whatsoever

like i said; nothing but right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788