Well you guys are much smarter than me, 2nd amendment (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

Thankfully, we still retain the right to keep and bear arms individually

 

[PatsWillWin]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

Doubt what you will. We have Madison's notes. We have what was said on the floor of Congress as they wrote it. It was all about militias. Every adult white male could be required to serve and was expected to bring a gun from home. So you had the right to own a gun so that you could fulfill your duty to serve in the militia if called up.We don't have militias anymore.

1) I'm pretty sure several state militias still exist.

2) Do you apply this same logic ("what was their intent?") to the rest of the Bill of Rights? Because I'm quite certain there are about a million examples of things that have been stuck into/covered by/removed from the BOR that was not the intent of those who wrote them.

3) No, I'm not a gun nut, have never owned one, probably never will.

 

[NCCommish]

But a Constitutional Amendment overwrites all that. Don't forget regardless of what could be done in MA states like SC had to be convinced to join the Union. MA was very Torry. Who asked for the BOR? It wasn't Mass. It was for States who were concerned they were creating an entity that would override their freedoms. You really think all 13 would have signed on if they had been told that one day the Feds could seize or outlaw their muskets just like the Royal government in Massachusetts? Doubt it.

Doubt what you will. We have Madison's notes. We have what was said on the floor of Congress as they wrote it. It was all about militias. Every adult white male could be required to serve and was expected to bring a gun from home. So you had the right to own a gun so that you could fulfill your duty to serve in the militia if called up.We don't have militias anymore.

1) I'm pretty sure several state militias still exist.

2) Do you apply this same logic ("what was their intent?") to the rest of the Bill of Rights? Because I'm quite certain there are about a million examples of things that have been stuck into/covered by/removed from the BOR that was not the intent of those who wrote them.

3) No, I'm not a gun nut, have never owned one, probably never will.

1) You are right. My mistake. Still it seems they are pretty much there so some guy can say he is in one more than doing much.

2) In this case I am pushing back against the NRA fantasy that unlimited gun ownership is a constitutional right. It wasn't intended to be and wasn't considered to be until very recently historically. But bring up your particular bugaboo and we'll see where I land.

3) I am not a gun nut either. However I have owned many guns over the years. If not for my wife's issues i would probably own one now. it wouldn't carry it around with me every where I went though.

 

[Henry Ford]

Thankfully, we still retain the right to keep and bear arms individually

"Retain"? For what, the last seven years?

 

[tdog]

I believe it provides the right to engage in a hobby.

 

[jonessed]

Thankfully, we still retain the right to keep and bear arms individually

"Retain"? For what, the last seven years?

It's not like the language changed.

 

[spreagle]

The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights. The second amendment means that law abiding individuals have a God given natural right to keep and bear arms whereever and whenever they please. Anything less is an infringement of constitutional rights. It's a very good thing that individual arms rights were enshrined in the Bill of Rights, otherwise that particular right would have disappeared long ago with hardly a whimper, not unlike how the constitutional right to an honest monetary system disappeared from the constitution with hardly a whimper (sidenote, that particular right was actually "suspended" not exactly usurped. Temporary "suspension" of constitutional rights, such as gun rights following Katrina, is a favorite tactic of gun control proponents of "getting around" the constitution.)

Now of course that doesn't stop many from trying various forms of gun control, there has always been those who don't and never will trust the law abiding citizens with arms, that's why we have a second amendment in the first place. Just because some forms of gun control are traditional, or laws happen to be on the books doesn't mean they are constututional. Those distrustful of the law-abiding citizenry include 1) the government, 2) government loyalists (liberals) and like-minded communities run by liberals, 3) certain establishments like taverns 4) communities that have gone to crap and have high gun violence like the inner cities. The complaints of the first two can be ignored, including the opinions of liberal Supreme Court justices, because they have always been natural enemies of the second amendment. They will always attempt to restrict gun rights but these attempts are always unconstitutional. Let them explain their reasons, it's always a laugher. The case of taverns and the llike is a grey area but it seems reasonable for both parties to agree (tavern owners and patrons ) should be restricted in such areas for abvious reasons. There are other wxamples similar to taverns that are more muddy by I will leave them out for the sake of brevity.

The fourth is handled thusly ... "The constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other" (John Adams). The second amendment was not written for the communities that have gone to crap ... the second amendment is by definition inadequate for them. But so what, the communities went to crap, the second amendment didn't go to crap. There is no way to make a national law that rewrites (or as liberals would say, reinterprets) the 2nd amendment that pleases the crapped out zones without unconstitutionally infringing on the rights of the law abiding of the nation. And there is no way to write a local law that pleases the crapped zones without unconstitutionally infringing on the rights of the law abiding within the crapped out zone. The crapped out communities have way bigger problems than gun violence, they need to address the fact that they have crapped out.

Some might say "well why not rewite the second amendment" misses the point that the constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, we can't have a constitution that is written for an immoral people.

 

[tommyboy]

this country was founded by people with guns. get over it. Jeez its only been 240 yrs now and you guys are still mad?

 

[dparker713]

Good luck getting a straight answer out of this one. Most people I see who use it to "win" an argument are inventing things out of whole cloth.

First you'd need to repeal the 13th Amendment.

 

[dparker713]

Thankfully, we still retain the right to keep and bear arms individually

"Retain"? For what, the last seven years?

It's not like the language changed.

And yet somehow the interpretation of it did.

 

[Jackstraw]

If we interpreted the first as broadly as the second we could yell fire in crowded public places, incite riots, slander people at will etc.

 

[joffer]

A six year old exercised his second amendment rights against his three year old brother in Chicago the other day. yay guns.

 

[Johnnymac]

The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights. The second amendment means that law abiding individuals have a God given natural right to keep and bear arms whereever and whenever they please. Anything less is an infringement of constitutional rights. It's a very good thing that individual arms rights were enshrined in the Bill of Rights, otherwise that particular right would have disappeared long ago with hardly a whimper, not unlike how the constitutional right to an honest monetary system disappeared from the constitution with hardly a whimper (sidenote, that particular right was actually "suspended" not exactly usurped. Temporary "suspension" of constitutional rights, such as gun rights following Katrina, is a favorite tactic of gun control proponents of "getting around" the constitution.)

Now of course that doesn't stop many from trying various forms of gun control, there has always been those who don't and never will trust the law abiding citizens with arms, that's why we have a second amendment in the first place. Just because some forms of gun control are traditional, or laws happen to be on the books doesn't mean they are constututional. Those distrustful of the law-abiding citizenry include 1) the government, 2) government loyalists (liberals) and like-minded communities run by liberals, 3) certain establishments like taverns 4) communities that have gone to crap and have high gun violence like the inner cities. The complaints of the first two can be ignored, including the opinions of liberal Supreme Court justices, because they have always been natural enemies of the second amendment. They will always attempt to restrict gun rights but these attempts are always unconstitutional. Let them explain their reasons, it's always a laugher. The case of taverns and the llike is a grey area but it seems reasonable for both parties to agree (tavern owners and patrons ) should be restricted in such areas for abvious reasons. There are other wxamples similar to taverns that are more muddy by I will leave them out for the sake of brevity.

The fourth is handled thusly ... "The constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other" (John Adams). The second amendment was not written for the communities that have gone to crap ... the second amendment is by definition inadequate for them. But so what, the communities went to crap, the second amendment didn't go to crap. There is no way to make a national law that rewrites (or as liberals would say, reinterprets) the 2nd amendment that pleases the crapped out zones without unconstitutionally infringing on the rights of the law abiding of the nation. And there is no way to write a local law that pleases the crapped zones without unconstitutionally infringing on the rights of the law abiding within the crapped out zone. The crapped out communities have way bigger problems than gun violence, they need to address the fact that they have crapped out.

Some might say "well why not rewite the second amendment" misses the point that the constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, we can't have a constitution that is written for an immoral people.

Huh??

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Darn. I was hoping THIS would be the thread that would settle it once and for all.

 

[njherdfan]

Thankfully, we still retain the right to keep and bear arms individually

"Retain"? For what, the last seven years?

It's not like the language changed.

Until Heller and Mcdonald it it was legal for a state to ban the ownership of handguns. Those cases are 7 and 5 years old, respectively.

 

[tommyboy]

A six year old exercised his second amendment rights against his three year old brother in Chicago the other day. yay guns.

a 6 yr old doesn't have 2nd amendment rights. he'd have to be 18, or an adult in the eyes of the state

 

[tommyboy]

Thankfully, we still retain the right to keep and bear arms individually

"Retain"? For what, the last seven years?

It's not like the language changed.

Until Heller and Mcdonald it it was legal for a state to ban the ownership of handguns. Those cases are 7 and 5 years old, respectively.

you're talking about handguns. the OP is talking about all guns, there's a difference.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

A six year old exercised his second amendment rights against his three year old brother in Chicago the other day. yay guns.

The gun was purchased illegally by their former gang member father and was "stored" in pajama pants on top of the refrigerator.What law could we craft to prevent such things in the future?

 

[tommyboy]

A six year old exercised his second amendment rights against his three year old brother in Chicago the other day. yay guns.

The gun was purchased illegally by their former gang member father and was "stored" in pajama pants on top of the refrigerator.What law could we craft to prevent such things in the future?

its illegal to have guns unsecured in a house? I don't know, seems like we want to legislate for common sense. You could just as easily pass a law that says its illegal to use your cell phone and drive at the same time.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

A six year old exercised his second amendment rights against his three year old brother in Chicago the other day. yay guns.

The gun was purchased illegally by their former gang member father and was "stored" in pajama pants on top of the refrigerator.What law could we craft to prevent such things in the future?

Great post!

 

[chauncey]

Good luck getting a straight answer out of this one. Most people I see who use it to "win" an argument are inventing things out of whole cloth.

The "answer" to the gun problem in America is really far more complex than the typical arguments I see on this board, and have seen on this board for years, by the same people, giving the same arguments, going circular, going nowhere.

The people who are against guns, don't see much hope in changing their minds.

The people for guns, don't see much hope in changing their minds.

Guns aren't going away. This isn't just a social issue, it's a jobs/economy issue. Taking away guns is taking away jobs. I'm not trying to lean that on either side of the fence, it's just the reality of it. Politically, moves that start taking jobs away, a lot of them, isn't going to fly well out there.

Sadly, both sides have a lot of ignorance. People with guns who think they have all the answers. People without guns who have no experience with guns at all, deciding what others with guns should do.

My solution is simple. I think Robert Heinlein was onto something ( though he wasn't exactly reinventing the wheel)

Mandatory conscription of all youth, starting in what should be their senior year of high school and extending to three years of compulsory service, either in the military, or in a government program or overseas program like the Peace Corps. You give three years, mandatory, in a formalized chain of command structure. I think it's the only way you get universal indoctrination into the expectations of adults in this society. It's not all about you, you'll have to work as a team, there are greater goals than just what you want.

I honestly feel you'd have a lot fewer worthless jack offs if more people spent time having to dig a ditch, fill a sandbag, do log PT, face inspection, learn to march, learn to clean a toilet, understand the value of time.

I personally would prefer a society where young people felt a duty to surrender their seats to the elderly on a bus. Where doors are held open for people. Where people are called Sir and Ma'am normally. Where basic civility and duty and respect are seen as the baseline standard.

If everyone is exposed to firearms, taught to handle them safely, and their limitations and role, I think you'd get more people making informed decisions on whether they'd want them for the rest of their life.

Are you going to still get some douchebags and screw ups and nut jobs? ( Digging ditches didn't make Doctor Detroit civil did it? But at least he'll stump for Wounded Warrior) Sure. But you've trained the rest of society how to handle them as well. And honestly I could see worse things in the world than a bunch of uniformed 18-20 year olds, military based or not, to do things like building new homes, creating public gardens, cleaning up the city for civic good, providing services for the community, helping children in need. Go overseas and dig a well for people without clean water.

Gun control is about people control. Not all people control is bad. Sometimes you just need an environment to let people know that being a total ####### ### hole isn't acceptable.

You want more responsible people, then show them the cost of not being responsible. Want to vote? Earn it. Give service. Want to have your kids be eligible to go to college? Give service. Want public office? All your kids must conscripted and sent to any front line station.

Fantasy football as a community is a billion dollar business. And in all my time in fantasy football, the only time I've ever seen anyone openly and formally give to any charity at all is Matt Waldman with the Rookie Scouting Portfolio. I've said it before, if every FF league out there gave 10 percent of their league pot to things like youth sports or Toys For Tots or youth programs or tutoring, think of the kind of real world massive impact that would be. And beyond that, you could save music programs all across the country in schools. Support after school programs for kids. But the reality is most people just don't give a ####.

You can't make people give a ####. You can however make them dig enough ditches and do enough push ups until they understand it's not all about them. Imagine if Otis spent less time whining about his first world problems, his high paying job and why he can't get more and do less, all because he had to spend three years of his youth filling sandbags and actually having to do things for the greater good of the community around him.

Fix the entitled ### hole problem, and you'll fix most of the gun problem. And lot of you guys are just that, entitled white western washed ### holes complaining about your first world woes who probably could have gotten some real life perspective if you simply had to dig a few ditches in your life.

:triggered: