***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[Apple Jack]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Fortunately, I imagine this guy is already on a watch list.

 

[[icon]]

Refresh my memory, which poster answers the door with a gun?

If its late at night and its just the GF and I here... I get a knock and I don't recognize the person on the other side my shotgun is usually in hand if he is persistent about knocking.

and this has happened to you more than once?

Twice actually. One it was someone who legitimately needed help... Once the guy didn't make any sense and seemed crazy/sketchy. I told him that I was calling the cops and toget the #### off my property... Then closed the door. He left. If he hasn't, or tried to force entry I would have been prepared though.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Fortunately, I imagine this guy is already on a watch list.

That's all you got?

 

[Apple Jack]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Fortunately, I imagine this guy is already on a watch list.

That's all you got?

No, but you're even more insane than I thought, so I'm just going to step away quietly and crush some tacos.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Fortunately, I imagine this guy is already on a watch list.

That's all you got?

No, but you're even more insane than I thought, so I'm just going to step away quietly and crush some tacos.

As insane as Jefferson, Madison, etc...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Not necessarily so. Many (of the colonist) felt the betrayals actually came from the previous kingdoms. And not vice versa.As Britain began to change its original stance/agreements with colonists towards the new land because of its resources.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

How do you feel about terrorists?

What about them?

Generally in favor?

Define terrorist and define the purpose of your questioning.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Not necessarily so. Many (of the colonist) felt the betrayals actually came from the previous kingdoms. And not vice versa.As Britain began to change its original stance/agreements with colonists towards the new land because of its resources.

So what about my above statement is wrong?

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

How do you feel about terrorists?

What about them?

Generally in favor?

Define terrorist and define the purpose of your questioning.

Terrorist

and define the purpose of your questioning.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that cause worthy of becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country continues to run on to this day. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Not necessarily so. Many (of the colonist) felt the betrayals actually came from the previous kingdoms. And not vice versa.As Britain began to change its original stance/agreements with colonists towards the new land because of its resources.

So what about my above statement is wrong?

The bringing up of the colonists in this discussion.

 

[Slingblade]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that worth becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country runs on. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

Where did I say this? The second amendment exists to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Please point out one quote of mine where I said one should enact revolutionary war because of the AWB than is going to die before it even gets out of a committee.

I'm waiting. Thanks.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Not necessarily so. Many (of the colonist) felt the betrayals actually came from the previous kingdoms. And not vice versa.As Britain began to change its original stance/agreements with colonists towards the new land because of its resources.

So what about my above statement is wrong?

The bringing up of the colonists in this discussion.

Explain it to me live I'm five, because you are not making any kind of valid point.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that worth becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country runs on. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

Where did I say this? The second amendment exists to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Please point out one quote of mine where I said one should enact revolutionary war because of the AWB than is going to die before it even gets out of a committee.

I'm waiting. Thanks.

Ok. I guess I should just guess what your grievances are and not assume that your announcement on this of all days that you are entertaining the idea of treason is due to yesterday's and today's gun legislation/news. Not sure why I would have thought that. My bad. Carry on with your...whatever it is. I'll be sad for your eventual suicide by cop.

 

[Slingblade]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that worth becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country runs on. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

Where did I say this? The second amendment exists to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Please point out one quote of mine where I said one should enact revolutionary war because of the AWB than is going to die before it even gets out of a committee.

I'm waiting. Thanks.

Ok. I guess I should just guess what your grievances are and not assume that your announcement on this of all days that you are entertaining the idea of treason is due to yesterday's and today's gun legislation/news. Not sure why I would have thought that. My bad. Carry on with your...whatever it is. I'll be sad for your eventual suicide by cop.

Have we not been debating the purpose of the second amendment this entire thread?I guess I was wrong?

 

[Ranethe]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Fortunately, I imagine this guy is already on a watch list.

No doubt. This guy is just another of the many nuts who frequent this site. I think (and I may be mixing him up with another one of them) that his sig for years was "liberalism is a mental disease". Or maybe it wasn't his sig, he used to post it as a one liner in threads he didn't like.Just another wacko who is best ignored here.

 

[Slingblade]

This just in...You are a whacko if you support the constitution.Who would of thought?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that worth becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country runs on. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

Where did I say this? The second amendment exists to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Please point out one quote of mine where I said one should enact revolutionary war because of the AWB than is going to die before it even gets out of a committee.

I'm waiting. Thanks.

Ok. I guess I should just guess what your grievances are and not assume that your announcement on this of all days that you are entertaining the idea of treason is due to yesterday's and today's gun legislation/news. Not sure why I would have thought that. My bad. Carry on with your...whatever it is. I'll be sad for your eventual suicide by cop.

Got anything else besides personal attacks and insults for those that don't agree with your liberal thinking? Or is this just SOP right out of the progressive playbook?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that cause worthy of becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country continues to run on to this day. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

Nope but it was about a government with sights to become a larger more controlling government.It wasn't until the individual entities colonies/states decided to form a shadow government in each colony/state while appearing loyal to the current power hungry government. It was a political protest that sparked the revolution when a group of people stood up to this power hungry government that was demanding more money for imports they controlled which resulted in this power hungry government ending self-government and putting the colony/state under military control. Shortly thereafter a general of this power hungry government learned weapons were being gathered in the western part of the state to oppose this power hungry government. The aforementioned general sent troops to seize the weapons and the rest is history...yadda yadda yadda the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This just in...You are a whacko if you support the constitution.Who would of thought?

You are actually in support of a CHANGE (ie. amendment) to the constitution. That was to protect the citizenry.And now most believe in further changes to further protect the citizenry, in a modern/current way.Someone stated elsewhere that there have been something like 500 gun laws challenged in the courts based upon the 2nd, and yet almost everyone of those failed and the restriction-ary laws upheld... as a proper methodology of federal powers and the 2nd amendment.

 

[timschochet]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.

bump

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Someone stated elsewhere that there have been something like 500 gun laws challenged in the courts based upon the 2nd, and yet almost everyone of those failed and the restriction-ary laws upheld... as a proper methodology of federal powers and the 2nd amendment.

Im sure this will cause the Tremblay beacon to be sounded... and that he can summarily come lay the wood to me on some proviso or interpretation.

 

[Slingblade]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.

bump

And he is wrong. There are plenty others that disagree with this.

 

[Slingblade]

This just in...You are a whacko if you support the constitution.Who would of thought?

You are actually in support of a CHANGE (ie. amendment) to the constitution. That was to protect the citizenry.And now most believe in further changes to further protect the citizenry, in a modern/current way.Someone stated elsewhere that there have been something like 500 gun laws challenged in the courts based upon the 2nd, and yet almost everyone of those failed and the restriction-ary laws upheld... as a proper methodology of federal powers and the 2nd amendment.

The bill of rights are not just any amendments.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

[Henry Ford]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Are you suggesting taking up arms against the Federal Government of the US?

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Are you suggesting taking up arms against the Federal Government of the US?

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

What part of this country was founded by traitors don't you understand?

 

[Henry Ford]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Are you suggesting taking up arms against the Federal Government of the US?

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

What part of this country was founded by traitors don't you understand?

Not one single word of it. As long as you are happy with admitting that your position makes you a traitor to the United States and that it's not a right given to you by the Second Amendment, we're good.

 

[Power Monster]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.

bump

The second amendment is the law put into place to allow freedom loving Americans to be armed against a tyrannical government that lies, taxes, cheats, steals, deceives, corrupts, scams, detests freedom, grafts with dirty rats for their own good, bilks Americans out of their hard earned wealth, forces fiat money on the American classes, creates a complex military force that stretches the globe, uses the FDA, USDA, DHS and many other rougue groups to harass and force statism on the American people as well as uses the crummy east coast news media to spread lies as well as using Hollyweird and its perversion, filth, ulta demonic and utterly violent media to corrupt and decive and rob Americans. When the smoke clears fools like Timmy will be lying in a fetal position trying to wish it all away...

 

[timschochet]

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

Yep. Exactly. You are taking the position of Abraham Lincoln here. They are taking the position of Jefferson Davis.

 

[Slingblade]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Are you suggesting taking up arms against the Federal Government of the US?

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

What part of this country was founded by traitors don't you understand?

Not one single word of it. As long as you are happy with admitting that your position makes you a traitor to the United States and that it's not a right given to you by the Second Amendment, we're good.

It's not a literal right. I'll give you that. It exists so the citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government though.If you disagree with that then you are wrong. No point in debating that.

 

[Power Monster]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Are you suggesting taking up arms against the Federal Government of the US?

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

What part of this country was founded by traitors don't you understand?

Not one single word of it. As long as you are happy with admitting that your position makes you a traitor to the United States and that it's not a right given to you by the Second Amendment, we're good.

Sorry the real traitors are sitting in public servant roles. They disobey laws. The federal government serves the American people and when they don't they must go.

 

[Slingblade]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.

bump

Law professor? Really? You mean a hackjob poli sci professor.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.

bump

- The chapter on the interpretation of the Second Amendment fails to answer any of the arguments raised by pro Second Amendment scholars (who are not necessarily anti-control) such as Clayton Cramer, Robert Cottrol, Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, Sanford Levinson and Lawrence Tribe. (Most of these authors have works available on Amazon.Com - I suggest you search and decide for yourself.) Many of these scholars appear in the endnotes, so obviously Dr. Spitzer has read their work, but their primary arguments are neither presented nor refuted. Of greater concern is that Dr. Spitzer's work promised to tell us what role, if any, should be assigned to judicial precedent, in deciding the future of gun control. Given that the courts have produced both good and bad decisions, how are we to know which ones are to be given credence and which consigned to the trash heap? After reading this chapter I was left with the feeling that Dr. Spitzer's criteria was based on which cases supported his preferred outcome.On a general basis, I found especially irritating the emotive, value-based, unsupported, adjectives that are peppered throughout the text. I was looking for an alternative viewpoint, not consistent needling. For pro-control readers this may give you a warm glow; for more doubtful readers it may simply make you grit your teeth and reach for the markup pen.

In the final analysis, Dr. Spitzer begins with the twin propositions that the "purpose of government is to maintain order" and that the "purpose of firearms is the ... destruction of people, animals, and objects." Neither assumption is adequately supported; they are presented to be taken on faith. Perhaps, to one holding such beliefs, the burden of proof for the necessity of gun control is much lighter. To those who actually believe that governments are instituted to secure the blessing of liberty and that firearms are simply a tool for good or ill, The Politics Of Gun Control remains unconvincing.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Gun-Control-Edition/product-reviews/1594519870/ref=sr_cr_hist_all?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

 

[Henry Ford]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

They were traitors to a country they belonged to and that ruled over them.

Are you suggesting taking up arms against the Federal Government of the US?

Of course he is. Not today, but of course he is. So are all these people who believe the Second Amendment is about the ability to 'defend' ourselves against the Federal Government. Most of them don't consciously think about it as such, but it's the position that they have the Constitutional right to, and will take up arms against the United States. Which is not just an historically inaccurate position, it's legally inaccurate and, carried out, it would be treasonous.

What part of this country was founded by traitors don't you understand?

Not one single word of it. As long as you are happy with admitting that your position makes you a traitor to the United States and that it's not a right given to you by the Second Amendment, we're good.

It's not a literal right. I'll give you that. It exists so the citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government though.If you disagree with that then you are wrong. No point in debating that.

So, the second clause in the Bill of Rights, by your estimation, conveys a non-literal right? Its purpose is to give a right that is what? Figurative? Not sure you're on very solid ground there, counselor.

 

[tommyboy]

I plainly stated reality.. so the "If your reality" straw man statement gets you no where..#1 The second amendment was intended to empower the people against their government if need be.. You disagree?#2 If you agree that the second amendment was intended to empower the people, if need be, against the government, then would we need to increase the availability to weapons, rather than limit them? We're already out gun-ed, this idea is pushing us future in the wrong direction (as according to the second amendment) right?

If no one else is going to say it, I will. I disagree. Assuming I'm reading your question properly.Maybe someone can explain to me why, when the NRA and anti-regulation individuals seem so latched onto the "plain reading" of things like "shall not be infringed," they think it's totally cool to disregard the entire text of the Second Amendment and the Constitution and think that the Founding Fathers intended them to have guns to take up arms against the government.Edited to clarify. Hell, I'm pro-gun. I meant anti-regulation.

just go read wikipedia entry on 2nd amendment, pretty well covers all of it. #1 is correct.

 

[timschochet]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy. The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

 

[Slingblade]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:

The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy.

The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

Nukes...yet tim claims to want to have a rational discussion.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The entire thread. The fact that we have a debate about taking peoples rights away to own an inanimate object that does discriminatory damage by a government that is based on these types of weapons and extremely large indiscriminate weapons is baffling to me. Why does our government need so many of these weapons?

Gotcha. Your position is duly noted.

It is kind of odd that the people who seem most afraid of government domination also support virtually unlimited "defense" spending and placing an armed government employee in close proximity to all our children. But whatever.

That is your own conclusion separate from reality. I don't have to fear government domination in order to want and hold fast to my civil rights. And I personally disagree with both gun limitation for sane and law abiding citizens and detest the amount of military spending our government does.. Sorry for burning down your strawman..

What civil rights are being infringed on here?

Right to bear arms

 

[pantherclub]

The entire thread. The fact that we have a debate about taking peoples rights away to own an inanimate object that does discriminatory damage by a government that is based on these types of weapons and extremely large indiscriminate weapons is baffling to me. Why does our government need so many of these weapons?

Gotcha. Your position is duly noted.

It is kind of odd that the people who seem most afraid of government domination also support virtually unlimited "defense" spending and placing an armed government employee in close proximity to all our children. But whatever.

That is your own conclusion separate from reality. I don't have to fear government domination in order to want and hold fast to my civil rights. And I personally disagree with both gun limitation for sane and law abiding citizens and detest the amount of military spending our government does.. Sorry for burning down your strawman..

What civil rights are being infringed on here?

Right to bear arms

you are going to have to unpack this a bit

 

[tommyboy]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

 

[Henry Ford]

I plainly stated reality.. so the "If your reality" straw man statement gets you no where..#1 The second amendment was intended to empower the people against their government if need be.. You disagree?#2 If you agree that the second amendment was intended to empower the people, if need be, against the government, then would we need to increase the availability to weapons, rather than limit them? We're already out gun-ed, this idea is pushing us future in the wrong direction (as according to the second amendment) right?

If no one else is going to say it, I will. I disagree. Assuming I'm reading your question properly.Maybe someone can explain to me why, when the NRA and anti-regulation individuals seem so latched onto the "plain reading" of things like "shall not be infringed," they think it's totally cool to disregard the entire text of the Second Amendment and the Constitution and think that the Founding Fathers intended them to have guns to take up arms against the government.Edited to clarify. Hell, I'm pro-gun. I meant anti-regulation.

just go read wikipedia entry on 2nd amendment, pretty well covers all of it. #1 is correct.

Thanks, I'll look into that amazing sounding source.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

You are aware that they were traitors to a country that was not the United States, right?

You're aware they were considered traitors to the monarchy of the time right? The governing body?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are aware that taking up arms against the Federal Government of the United States is treason, right?

You are aware that every single colonist fighting against the British were traitors, right?

How do you feel about terrorists?

What about them?

Generally in favor?

Define terrorist and define the purpose of your questioning.

Terrorist

Basically, anybody with or advocating for the ownership of, ... Guns... You know.. Like Jefferson and Madison.. etc..

 

[pantherclub]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think the Revolutionary War was started over people whining about not being able to squeeze off 11 bullets in like five seconds, but instead only being able to do it in six seconds. Not sure they would find that worth becoming a traitor, especially considering those you are comparing yourself to built the very framework that this country runs on. But please don't think I didn't find joy in seeing you likening yourself to Jefferson and Madison.

Where did I say this? The second amendment exists to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Please point out one quote of mine where I said one should enact revolutionary war because of the AWB than is going to die before it even gets out of a committee.

I'm waiting. Thanks.

Ok. I guess I should just guess what your grievances are and not assume that your announcement on this of all days that you are entertaining the idea of treason is due to yesterday's and today's gun legislation/news. Not sure why I would have thought that. My bad. Carry on with your...whatever it is. I'll be sad for your eventual suicide by cop.

Got anything else besides personal attacks and insults for those that don't agree with your liberal thinking? Or is this just SOP right out of the progressive playbook?

You must be new here

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy. The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

Tim you are being an ###, you lost and are wrong. You will be better off accepting your fate.

 

[pantherclub]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy. The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

Tim you are being an ###, you lost and are wrong. You will be better off accepting your fate.

why dont you answer him?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy. The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

Tim you are being an ###, you lost and are wrong. You will be better off accepting your fate.

why dont you answer him?

He has already been answered numerous time with links, essays and the actual wording on the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.He doesn't agree with the whole concept of the 2nd amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers of this country, how am I to answer him with anything better defined than that?

 

[Slingblade]

 

[pantherclub]