why we know the 2A is an individual right[W:999]

[Buck Ewer]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

anyone find this claim convincing as an answer to my question why would men who had just thrown off a tyrannical government and cherished natural rights as inalienable would pick of definition of infringed that not only would ALLOW the federal government to basically render the right worthless but actually was INTENDED to empower the federal government to engage in all sorts of infringements of that right?

Maybe they realized that no right or power should be given the status of totality ... and that good governance really lies in the art of compromise and mediation. After all, if the colonial government had some room for compromise and mediation, maybe the revolution would not have been necessary at all. I am convinced that they learned that lesson.
Absolutes and tenets are the standards set forth by dogma and kings. That is not the kind of government they were trying to set up here. That's the kind of government they were rejecting.

BTW TD you never told us what agency you served as a federal law enforcement agent.
Since you brought it up, I think it would have an important bearing on the strength of your arguments thus far.
It's just us here ... come on dude ...who did you work for?

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Is this list your opinion? Or did you get it somewhere?

The items themselves on the list are an accumulation of examples offered by anti-2A over the last 8 years of my presence of this forum. You see cocaine and meth labs listed because at some point someone actually offered those as examples of "arms" which the they said the 2A should protect. Rather than earn infraction points by highlighting that person's stupidity in thinking cocaine is a weapon protected by the 2A, I simply included it in the list.

The yeses and nos of "in common use" come from simply looking at the US military inventory and what Soldiers use.

The yeses and nos of "dangerous and unusual" begin with my formal Army training in the use of those items, supported by academic sources on the topic.

Anyway, what makes a hand grenade dangerous and unusual while a machine gun is not?

If you put both of them in a storage shed and leave them alone, a hand grenade will eventually explode, but the loaded stored machine gun will never fire. The chemical fuse in the grenade will degrade and eventually ignite the primary explosive, while the chemicals in the machine gun's ammunition will corrode and become inert.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

And let's not forget these gems:

There is no such thing as INFRINGEMENT in the Second Amendment.

Infringements...is a phrase found nowhere in the Second Amendment. To pretend it is as you have done in the past is to engage in the worst sort of intellectual fraud.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The items themselves on the list are an accumulation of examples offered by anti-2A over the last 8 years of my presence of this forum. You see cocaine and meth labs listed because at some point someone actually offered those as examples of "arms" which the they said the 2A should protect. Rather than earn infraction points by highlighting that person's stupidity in thinking cocaine is a weapon protected by the 2A, I simply included it in the list.

Fair enough. I don't have as many years here, so I probably couldn't have constructed a similar list.

The yeses and nos of "in common use" come from simply looking at the US military inventory and what Soldiers use.

The yeses and nos of "dangerous and unusual" begin with my formal Army training in the use of those items, supported by academic sources on the topic.

Okay. I must say, though, that my formal Army training would place some of those items in the "not dangerous or unusual" category. Hand grenades and grenade launchers, for example.

If you put both of them in a storage shed and leave them alone, a hand grenade will eventually explode, but the loaded stored machine gun will never fire. The chemical fuse in the grenade will degrade and eventually ignite the primary explosive, while the chemicals in the machine gun's ammunition will corrode and become inert.

This, I find to be weak reasoning and I wouldn't base a decision to allow a citizens right to keep and bear such arms to be infringed on this basis. I doubt anyone...whether military or civilian...would just put a box of grenades in a shed and leave them alone for years. Even if some small number of people possessing grenades tossed them in a shed, forgot about them for some length of time and found their shed blown up, that would be no reason to deny the more attentive and responsible grenade owners their rights under the second Amendment.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Maybe they realized that no right or power should be given the status of totality ... and that good governance really lies in the art of compromise and mediation. After all, if the colonial government had some room for compromise and mediation, maybe the revolution would not have been necessary at all. I am convinced that they learned that lesson.
Absolutes and tenets are the standards set forth by dogma and kings. That is not the kind of government they were trying to set up here. That's the kind of government they were rejecting.

That is very fine speculation. Do you have any factual evidence that the Founding Fathers had those things in mind? Or is that just your wishful thinking?

BTW TD you never told us what agency you served as a federal law enforcement agent.
Since you brought it up, I think it would have an important bearing on the strength of your arguments thus far.
It's just us here ... come on dude ...who did you work for?

 

[Crimefree]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Arms Webster 1928

'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

2. War; hostility.

Arms and the man I sing.

To be in arms to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

To take arms is to arm for attack or defense.

Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.

3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, etc., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.

4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.

Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.

A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot.

=====================

Infringe

INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

======================================

INFRINGEMENT, noun infrinj'ment. Act of violating; breach; violation; non-fulfillment; as the infringement of a treaty, compact or other agreement; the infringement of a law or constitution.

==========================================

MILI'TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

Apparently Haymarket still cannot read or learn or post his source of his meanings as the definitive meanings.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

And since it did not the definition of arms is what it is from the normal authorities on the language - any weapon. Period.

Exactly what problem do you have with that? Does ARMS not meet exactly the aims and intents of the founding fathers in including it?

Please leave emotional babble out of any reply and see if you can stay on topic and without ad hominem remarks. Ridicule is also not wanted. I know this is difficult for a person such as yourself but do try.

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Sure.

Unless you succeed in changing the Constitution...removing or rewriting the 2nd Amendment...the federal government is forbidden to infringe the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms.

States, of course, could outlaw possession of nuclear weapons (if consistent with their own constitutions).

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

States, of course, could outlaw possession of nuclear weapons (if consistent with their own constitutions).

Absolutely

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

There are two problems with what you say here:

1. As someone else pointed out, the government, according to the Constitution, doesn't have any rights. It only has duties and powers.

2. The Founding Fathers, when crafting the 2nd Amendment, made no mention of "reasonable regulations" being allowed. They were, in fact, quite clear when they said "...shall not be infringed."

So, haymarket, you can come up with all the rationalizations, contortions, spins, twists and opinions that you care to...but they are all useless...and some are downright despicable...when they run into that wall of words that comprise the 2nd Amendment.

1- so the government or a part of it does not have a right to exercise its given powers? That is simply silly. There are different meanings to the same word and this is one of those.

2 - so the only conclusion one can make from your position is that the government cannot lift its little finger to regulate or control any arm as you feel it is not authorized by the Constitution. Is that accurate?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Thats just your say-so. Not proof.

You were given the quote and the post number. The word DENSE does not even approach this level of denial.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

who are they? one libertarian who rarely comes on gun threads claims that "arms" means nukes? yet he also claims that the Federal government has no proper authority to regulate the ownership of nukes. You don't agree with that so enlisting his support is a bit specious.

Aha - so only your buddies who are one issue zealots in "gun threads" can dare offer an opinion that you will heed? Got it loud and clear.
I do not have to agree with his view of government power to agree with his definition of a key term. And that was the point of issue. Or do you operate in a world where everybody but be 'fer ya' or 'agin ya' all the way down the line marching shoulder to shoulder in perfect harmony?

YOu make a claim that Section 8 says something no one can find in the words.

What claim is that?

and your argument about clauses 15 and 16 are so pitiful that the gun control freaks in congress-FDR, the Democrats, LBJ, Clinton-NOT ONE OF THEM CITED those two clauses to justify their gun restrictions

The clauses are there just the same. The language is there just the same. The powers are there just the same. people can take different paths to reach the same conclusion. Or do you inhabit a world where people are not "allowed" top do that and must all march in perfect lockstep with each other because it has been decreed as such?

so it appears that you have no support for that claim

The Constitution supports me.

1) your definition of "infringed" has no relevance to the debate

You have never presented any verifiable evidence to the contrary. You simply reject definitions which prove you wrong.

2) your definition of infringed has no evidence it was the one the founders wanted to use

If they wanted to use a certain definition, they would have given one to us. They did NOT do so. The definition I use is from the most authoritative dictionary of the English language used in America at that time.

3) indeed, your definition of infringed runs counter to everything the founders believed in and everything they left us in terms of documents, letters, speeches or notes

The final work of the Founders was the Constitution and my definition - or better said - Webster's definition agrees perfectly with it. And as you and others have been told many times - the personal opinion of an indivudual or even several individuals is irrelevant compared to the document itself.

4) your definition of arms also has no support in said documentation

Except from the dictionaries of the time as cited. Except from other gun folk right here on the board. Except in reality.

5) your definition of arms is contrary to Keep and Bear or militia use

What happened to the "individual right" which is apart from militia use that you and other gun lobby supporters trumpet to the highest hills.?
So is it now your position that people can only have the arms that the militia used in the 1790's? Or do you want to have it both ways as it is obvious you do?

SO tell us Haymarket, what are you left with other than trumpeting the fact that FDR was as disrespectful of the intent of the founders as your posts have been

As all your objections and arguments have been crushed and flushed - I am left with a winning position that is consistent with history and reality.

What I am left with is the same position I have advocated all along: The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


What I am left with is the agreement of every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms .

What I am left with is the agreement of every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms.

What I am left with is the agreement of every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms.

What I am left with is the agreement of every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms .

What I am left with is the agreement of every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms.

What I am left with is the agreement of every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms.

What I am left with is the agreement of every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms.

What I am left with is the agreement of every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms.


And that mountain of support towers over your self imposed belief system like a mountain over a molehill.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Note that I am the disbeliever in this case.


...said the person who doesn't know how to link to source material.


:lol:

Says the person who cannot click on the post he was given right in this very thread.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time",

The Constitution doe NOT contain that language.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

1- so the government or a part of it does not have a right to exercise its given powers? That is simply silly. There are different meanings to the same word and this is one of those.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government HAS no given power to infringe upon the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it doesn't have any right to exercise a power it doesn't have.

2 - so the only conclusion one can make from your position is that the government cannot lift its little finger to regulate or control any arm as you feel it is not authorized by the Constitution. Is that accurate?

LOL!! Dude...it's not something I "feel". It is something that is written into our Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Keep in mind that this is the person who thinks openly carrying a small pistol is worse than flying aircraft into buildings or other acts of terrorism.

So now can you not only not click on a post where you have been spoon fed the number, nor can you read the quote which is not in dispute from a member in that same post - but now you must lie about my position as well.

So lets see where I took the position you just claimed for me. Produce it in a quote or the post number of the thread or a link (since you seem obsessed by that method.

Of course you will not as your lies speak volumes about your intellectual integrity.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

And let's not forget these gems:

Both statements are 100% true and neither you nor anyone else has ever pointed out otherwise with facts and evidence.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Exactly what problem do you have with that? Does ARMS not meet exactly the aims and intents of the founding fathers in including it?

Please leave emotional babble out of any reply and see if you can stay on topic and without ad hominem remarks. Ridicule is also not wanted. I know this is difficult for a person such as yourself but do try.

They did not define it in any special or limiting way for the purposes of their legal language. So the definition of ARMS becomes the standard one used - a weapon.

It is amazing you did not choke on your own style and obvious hypocrisy typing out those last lines. :roll::lamo

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government HAS no given power to infringe upon the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it doesn't have any right to exercise a power it doesn't have.



LOL!! Dude...it's not something I "feel". It is something that is written into our Constitution.

History does not agree with you nor does the language itself.

So it is your position then that no weapon can be regulated or controlled by the government. got it.

And you guys on the far right wonder why when you put yourselves before the public on the LIBERTARIAN label that they reject you so thoroughly and so completely that you cannot even get 1% of the popular vote in a national election. Its crazed zealot positions like this that kill you.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Arms Webster 1928

'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along and with the evidence I and others have provided.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

History does not agree with you nor does the language itself.

So it is your position then that no weapon can be regulated or controlled by the government. got it.

It is not MY position. It is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. You got that?

Why do you want the federal government to be able to do something that is expressly forbidden it by the Constitution? Do you have such a low regard for that document? Do you have such a great desire for the government to be able to do anything it wants? Or, I should say, anything YOU want?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

It is not MY position. It is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. You got that?

Why do you want the federal government to be able to do something that is expressly forbidden it by the Constitution? Do you have such a low regard for that document? Do you have such a great desire for the government to be able to do anything it wants? Or, I should say, anything YOU want?

Oh but it is your position and runs contrary to our history and the Constitution itself.

Of course I DO NOT want government to be able to do anything it wants. Only to carry out the powers given to them in the Constitution. And Article I Section 8 clearly gives those powers to regulate arms to the Congress as long as the right is preserved.

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Oh but it is your position and runs contrary to our history and the Constitution itself.

The constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.

The federal government may not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's what it plainly says, if you think the government ought to be able to do so, I suggest you start working on an amendment.

Is a person carrying a select-fire rifle keeping and bearing arms?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Maybe they realized that no right or power should be given the status of totality ... and that good governance really lies in the art of compromise and mediation. After all, if the colonial government had some room for compromise and mediation, maybe the revolution would not have been necessary at all. I am convinced that they learned that lesson.
Absolutes and tenets are the standards set forth by dogma and kings. That is not the kind of government they were trying to set up here. That's the kind of government they were rejecting.

BTW TD you never told us what agency you served as a federal law enforcement agent.
Since you brought it up, I think it would have an important bearing on the strength of your arguments thus far.
It's just us here ... come on dude ...who did you work for?

so you are just pulling this out of your shorts. You have no argument or evidence, you just want to believe the bogus version of "infringed" allowing the government to ban just about anything.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government HAS no given power to infringe upon the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it doesn't have any right to exercise a power it doesn't have.



LOL!! Dude...it's not something I "feel". It is something that is written into our Constitution.

since their belief that the government has the power without any evidence in the language, they assume we engage in the same mythology

I think we can dispense with another 70+ pages of nonsense from the anti rights coalition by merely noting this about them

1) they BELIEVE that the federal GOVERNMENT NEEDS the power to restrict our rights

2) THEREFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE That power


that is all we have seen from the Anti Rights Coalition here