2nd Amendment misunderstood intentionally

This is a discussion on 2nd Amendment misunderstood intentionally within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In a message dated 9/28/2006 1:21:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cornell.14@osu.edu writes: Thanks for the note. I suggest you take a close look at my ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: 2nd Amendment misunderstood intentionally

  1. #16
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,311

    Talking My Final Reply To Him

    In a message dated 9/28/2006 1:21:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cornell.14@osu.edu writes:
    Thanks for the note.



    I suggest you take a close look at my new book which has much to say about what the Pennsylvania constitution.



    Best regards

    Saul

    What would my motivation be to buy your book when you didn't even type a complete thought in your above E-mail reply to me?

    Please tell me why I should buy your book and I sure will buy a copy and I'll send you a scan of the receipt.

    As a upstanding, outstanding, totally law abiding American citizen with no absolutely no past or present criminal history or any rap sheet or even a doggone unpaid parking ticket attached to my good name....what's in your new book for me?

    Your tenured college campus fantasy~world jaded interpretation of how my flawless personal life/business should be further restricted by over~educated professor type nincompoops?

    Just Curious.

    Best Regards,
    QKShooter
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array sticky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    parkesburg,pa
    Posts
    69

    wow

    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Saul

    I think that folks back in 1776 had a much clearer picture of their original intentions than you do today.

    One only needs to relate/compare the original Commonwealth of PA Constitution to your argument for Firearm Regulation to know that your 2nd amendment arguments are totally bogus modern interpretive fabrication and do not hold any water at all.


    As to EXACTLY What The Founding Fathers Meant

    The CONSTITUTION of the Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, As established by the GENERAL CONVENTION elected for that purpose, and held at Philadelphia, July 15th, 1776, and continued by adjournments to September 28th, 1776.

    XIII.
    That the people have a to right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


    That the people (just everyday ordinary people) have a right (notice the word "right") to bear arms (arms AKA Firearms) for the defence of themselves (Huh???? For The Defense Of THEMSELVES - That's OUTRAGIOUS!!!!!) and the state; (Oh,,,,AND the State.)

    Oh...I get it now....we have the Right to Bear Arms in Defense of Ourselves.....AND....The State. Hummmm....that's interesting.


    CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA [1790]
    Of the equality and rights of men.
    Section I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness

    Wow! NEAT! That's highly interesting. That ALL MEN have certain indefeasible rights...imagine that.

    ( What does the word indefeasible mean? Let's look it up together someday) Heck we can even actually ENJOY Liberty and DEFEND OUR LIVES AND...protect our property....even. They sure were generous back then...letting us do all that **** huh?



    OK...real "Quick Like" you go "look up" the word "indefeasible" and then read some more.

    Oh never mind...I did it for you...Here ya go.

    Main Entry: in·de·fea·si·ble
    Function: adjective
    Pronunciation: -'fe-z&-b&l


    : not capable of being annulled or voided or undone <an indefeasible right>


    - in·de·fea·si·bil·i·ty/-"fe-z&-'bi-l&-te/ noun
    - in·de·fea·si·bly/-'fe-z&-ble/ adverb




    To bear arms.
    Sect. XXI. That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned



    Just Curious.................What Does "IN DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES" & "SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED" mean to you? Just wondering?

    .

    CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA 1838
    The CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AS AMENDED BY THE CONVENTION OF ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN-THIRTY-EIGHT.

    Bear arms.
    Section XXI. The right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.



    Current Pennsylvania Constitution
    Right to Bear Arms
    Section 21.
    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


    And then since you're such a brilliant teacher - I was wondering if you could provide me with a plain English interpretation of the following:

    Reservation of Powers in People
    Section 25.

    To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

    OK...I already know what the word "inviolate" means....kept PURE unaltered, & not violated.

    I'm just best guessing with my limited education that it means - Government ~ Keep Your Grubby Hands Off The Granted Rights In This Document - You can never even question or change my absolute inviolate right to keep & bear arms in defense of myself.

    Or am I missing something here?

    Any feedback from you would be greatly appreciated.

    Maybe you can straighten me out and tell me where I'm missing the boat....since you're the guy with all the brains and I'm just a plain ordinary dumb working jerk.

    Best Regards,

    QKShooter
    You mind if I write this in my own words and send to by legislator
    US Paratroopers give the enemy maxnimum opportunity to give his life for his country

  4. #18
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,311
    Oh Absolutely. They have already messed around with the original intent of the PA Constitution far too much.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  5. #19
    Member Array stevr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Foreign or domestic. Foreign or domestic. This guy's forgetting that much of the U.S. Constitution's purpose is to assert strict control over the limits of the government's actions againsts its own citizens. There is absolutely nothing in there to imply that gun ownership and gun usage was intended to be dropped the moment the "invasion" was from the people's own government. On the contrary, it's against exactly this sort of invasion (of usurping of rights) that the 2A was framed. The wording is: A government by the people and for the people. No mention is made of a government against the people ... except in the implied language of the Constitution, in terms of specific limitations placed on the government and the specific arming of the citizens with inalienable rights that may not be infringed by its government.

    The author has lost his academic mind.
    Isn't the Government representative of the people? When is it not? Who defines when an unjust infringement on 'The people' is made by the government? What defines the people? Example, if the government goes after a few people (perhaps 100-1000 wackos) that interpret the government is stepping out of bounds and infringing upon 2A rights, could these armed people not be considered a well maintained militia ensuring government does not infringe upon rights? Looks pretty gray to me. I'd like some clarification as this has always confused me. These 'freedom fighters' could also be categorized as terrorists. I suppose I would like to see where the line is drawn on infringement of rights and where the majority of consensus doesn't rule.
    Question 2: can the 2A not be changed if the majority ask for it?

    stevr
    "J.C. -His pain, our gain" !!

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array madmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    750
    Partially in response to stever,

    I do not believe the Constitution actually contains any "gray areas." Written in the language of the time, with all the supporting documents, it's intent was to be quite clear.

    It is only the desire by people who wish to bend and twist it to suit their own notions of what they think it should have been, that has caused the confusion, essentially casting a dark shadow across plain, simple black and white, creating these so-called "gray areas."

    None of our rights were granted by the Constitution, they were known to be pre-existing. The document enumerated some of them in order to guarantee their inviability for the future generations. As much is said in the document, itself.

    mm
    Last edited by madmike; October 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 PM. Reason: simplification
    Political Correctness has now "evolved" into Political Cowardice.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Just a couple more misunderstood boys...
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 14th, 2010, 10:10 PM
  2. Pilot Intentionally Crashes Plane Into Austin TX Office Bld (Merged)
    By TheShadow in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: March 9th, 2010, 09:21 PM
  3. Comments on intentionally revealing my IWB weapon.
    By aznav in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: October 19th, 2009, 02:53 PM
  4. Ugly: Motorist runs down Jr High students, apparently intentionally
    By heph in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 9th, 2009, 10:04 AM
  5. Lots of firsts here...scenario about a car backing into you intentionally
    By BigDaddy5 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: June 9th, 2006, 04:34 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment is misunderstood
,

2nd amendment misunderstood

,
how is the second amendment misunderstood
,
how+is+the+second+amendment+is misunderstood
,
is the second amend misunderstood
,
madison 2nd amendment misinterpreted
,
misunderstand the second amendment
,
secodn ammendment misunderstood
,
second amendment constitution misunderstood
,

second amendment misunderstood

,
second amendment misunderstood quotes
,
the 2nd amendment misunderstood
,
the constitution of the commonwealth of pennsylvania, as established by the general convention elected for that purpose,
,
the right to bear arms is intentionally misunderstood
Click on a term to search for related topics.