The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended - Page 2

The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended

This is a discussion on The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; You're trolling, right? I took a quick look at your work and it is nothing more than sophistry....

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61
Like Tree230Likes

Thread: The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    4,082
    You're trolling, right? I took a quick look at your work and it is nothing more than sophistry.
    ...You will understand everything immediately, when you yourself – "hands behind the back" – toddle into our Archipelago. ---Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  2. #17
    VIP Member Array LimaCharlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northwest Oregon
    Posts
    15,124
    Illogical and silly.
    Second Amendment: The difference between politicians and rulers.
    US Navy - US Army, Retired
    NRA Benefactor Life Member

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    Well I can't disagree with that. Even Locke says you have the right to defend yourself, although he rather thought people would never need to carry guns around with them all the time, so that remains a State opinion, not a Federal one.
    I'll bite...pray tell me where you get the idea that " thought people would never need to carry guns around with them all the time, so that remains a State opinion, not a Federal one"?
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    The whole thing comes across as a pseudo-intellectual attempt at distorting the facts to achieve a desired outcome. With a bit of gaslighting on the side.

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array RedSafety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    1,930
    Read the Second Amendment. It doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, it protects that right from infringement. Also notice that infringement is not limited to the government. That means, by the wording of it, gun-free zones, of any kind, is forbidden.
    When seconds count, help is only 18+ minutes away!

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    2,560
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    Well I can't disagree with that. Even Locke says you have the right to defend yourself, although he rather thought people would never need to carry guns around with them all the time, so that remains a State opinion, not a Federal one.
    If I remember my history,John Locke lived in the 1600’s England
    I think the first Bill of Rights in England was around the time the Catholics were being persecuted and parliament was wrestling so power from the King.
    I think only Protestants were allowed to keep arms.
    Unlike today, we’re just about anyone can afford to posses a gun. Very few people had the means to own a luxury such as a matchlock of flintlock. Most probably had edged weapons.
    I have not studied Locke and if he thought that people should not carry everyday as I don’t think that would be feasible for most people.
    I have a problem sometimes with equating today’s philosophy with the philosophy of the past.
    But without studying the past, we do miss a lot of knowledge.

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array BlackJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    This is my own new thought, so I understand it may be a shock to consider, but when a person is shot to death, their rights to bear arms are infringed. It also violates the primary right-to-life specified in both Lockean and natural-rights interpretations of Jeffersonian rights, but I have been singularly unsuccessful in persuading most pro-2a advocates that right to life is important.
    No argument there, when somebody is shot to death, they are deprived on ALL rights. However, the Second Amendment is not meant to limit my rights from you. The Second Amendments, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights are meant to limit the Governments ability to infringe on the rights of the people. I would suggest that in the case of somebody being shot to death, that case should be dealt in the criminal courts, which is where all crimes committed by one person against another should be dealt with, not in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is not a criminal code, it is the framework under which the government should be run. By arguing that the Second Amendment should be used a a prohibition against shooting somebody to death, and thus depriving that individual of their right to bear arms, you could just as easily say that anybody using any weapon, not just a firearm, to kill somebody does the same thing and should also be handled under the auspices of the Second Amendment. The problem with this is that, as I have already mentioned, the Bill of Rights is not about protecting the people from the people It is about protecting the people form the government. There are other legal codes that protect the people from other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    Therefore, I simply point to the paradox. When someone shoots another to death, they are using their right to bear arms to deprive the other of the right to bear arms. This remains a paradox. You won't have heard it before, I know it's a new thought, and it just rather surprises me, after how much I've heard debate on the topic, no one ever said it before. I did share it with one State Supreme Court judge who appeared rather much influenced by the thought, so I can't assume it's totally meaningless.
    Again, I do not see it as a paradox. The Second Amendment was not written to protect us form each other, it was written to protect us from the government. If the State Supreme Court Judge were to stop and think about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, and what they are supposed to do, he/she will not be able to come to any other conclusion either, if they are being honest with themselves and not looking at it from a political viewpoint.

    I am not saying that I disagree that shooting somebody to death is wrong, or that it does not deprive somebody of their rights, but I do think that you are wrong in bringing that argument to the Second Amendment, or to any part of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    The rest I had to write because, when losing an argument, a popular technique is to switch the subject and raise another objection. It seems the rest of of the debate is not so much disputed.
    Not sure I understand this part. Not only had nobody tried to switch the subject, but you continued to write without even giving anybody here the chance to respond to your argument.

    I think that you will find that most here are more than willing to agree that you have a right to your point of view and will even be willing to listen to your arguments, IF you are willing to give them the same courtesy in return. I find that the problems generally start with both sides are not willing to listen to the others argument because it "doesn't fit their agenda".

  9. #23
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    It might help if you actually read and understood the Second Amendment. Your entire argument is based upon a pre-determined outcome: curtail the 2nd Amendment with another Amendment, tax the crap out of citizens, and make it more difficult for one to carry a firearm.
    Seems to me, sir, you just want to duck social responsibility for innnocent deaths by guns and pretend they dont happen. And you doidnt read anything i wrote AT ALL. Could you please talk to yourself somewhere else.

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    Thread title changed, agenda revealed.
    msgt/ret, OD*, M1911A1 and 1 others like this.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    Seems to me, sir, you just want to duck social responsibility for innnocent deaths by guns and pretend they dont happen. And you doidnt read anything i wrote AT ALL. Could you please talk to yourself somewhere else.
    Nice try troll. We all see you for what you are.
    OD*, rotorhead1026 and M1911A1 like this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  12. #26
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackJack View Post
    The Second Amendments, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights are meant to limit the Governments ability to infringe on the rights of the people.
    Thank you for reminding me. Other people have had the same problem and I shouid make the article longer, lol. Constittuional law does apply to interactions between people. For example your right to free speech, and your right to privacy, put limits on what Facebook can do to your posts, and require it to ask permission to share data.

    I'm trying a new title to avoid problems with weird responses.

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    I'll bite...pray tell me where you get the idea that " thought people would never need to carry guns around with them all the time, so that remains a State opinion, not a Federal one"?
    @yofiel ... aka Alfredo Zubillaga, why won't you answer this simple question...?
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  14. #28
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by M1911A1 View Post
    Please remember that you asked for our opinions.
    You may disagree with my opinion, but that does not make my opinion an insult.
    OK. I asked for opinions ON AN ARTICLE. Well you are a total doik who cannot read more than four words of the first sentence before shooting your mouth off. That's my opinion of you. Kindly go away.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    OK. I asked for opinions ON AN ARTICLE. Well you are a total doik who cannot read more than four words of the first sentence before shooting your mouth off. That's my opinion of you. Kindly go away.
    The word you're looking for Alfredo Zubillaga, is dolt, not dolk.
    oldIthink likes this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  16. #30
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    @yofiel ... aka Alfredo Zubillaga, why won't you answer this simple question...?
    Because that's what Locke said. You clipped out the word LOCKE. Locke's opinion was that people would so much hate the very notion of shooting someone else, if they actually were given the option, that they could be trusted to be responsible with them. That rather turned out not to be true, however it was an opinion not based on empriical observation, so it doesn't have any bearing on the implementation of his thought in Jeffersonian natural rights.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •