The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended - Page 4

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; Originally Posted by Hoganbeg You're trolling, right? I took a quick look at your work and it is nothing more than sophistry. Címon, guys, you ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61
Like Tree230Likes

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

  1. #46
    Member Array rotorhead1026's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The Far Side
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    You're trolling, right? I took a quick look at your work and it is nothing more than sophistry.
    Címon, guys, you all knew he was a troll when you read his first post. Looking at his web page confirms. :)
    Hoganbeg and Rock and Glock like this.
    *********************************

    Never let anything mechanical know that you're in a hurry.

  2. #47
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Here is my belief about the Constitution and the BOR: It was not primarily written for the intellectual consumption and interpretation of scholars, lawyers, judges and justices. If it had been, it would have been a lot longer document and written in a much more academic and legalistic fashion. The people who wrote those documents were learned men, well capable of doing that if that was what they wanted to do.

    The intended audience was the people, the common man. So the only way to interpret the documents is in light of that. They mean exactly what they say, in plain English, taking into account what the words meant when they were written, not the common vernacular today. They need little interpretation, certainly not all the interpretation they have had over the years. 2A is simple:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is the justification clause, as explained in the Heller decision, not a limitation clause. "Militia" means groups of able-bodied citizens, who protect their towns, colonies, states and sometimes allowed themselves to be nationalized to serve a central government, but they were not professional soldiers, they were common people. "Well regulated" in the 18th century meant well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined. It didn't mean "under the orders and restriction of the government." It meant it was in an effective shape to fight. But again, that is just a justification, not the right itself.

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is the operative clause and it could not be clearer. The government shall not restrict the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, period. There is no wiggle room there.

    People bring up a lot of red herrings about 2A, such as slavery, the idea that we may no longer need militias, The Militia Act of 1903, etc. But none of that has the leverage to change or nullify an amendment to the Constitution. That can only be done through an Article V proceeding.

    So that's it. There is no other valid argument to be made. Any restriction on the RTKABA is unconstitutional. And as has been said, the Constitution doesn't grant that right, it was just meant to guarantee it. The idea is we always had that right, with or without the Constitution and BOR, and we always will. People may violate that right, but we may take it back.
    Betcha it took you much less than five years to throw that together.

  3. #48
    Distinguished Member Array CavemanBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Kalirado
    Posts
    1,838
    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.
    Speaking of "pretend they don't happen", why is it that the anti-gunners are always so dismissive of defensive gun use and the innocent lives saved?
    The best citizenry is an informed citizenry

    NRA Patron member
    Gun Owners of America
    Electronic Frontiers Foundation https://www.eff.org/ - defending digital privacy and free speech including forums such as this one

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead1026 View Post
    Címon, guys, you all knew he was a troll when you read his first post. Looking at his web page confirms. :)
    Of course we all did, but this one was interesting enough to play along with for a bit.

  6. #50
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by CavemanBob View Post
    Speaking of "pretend they don't happen", why is it that the anti-gunners are always so dismissive of defensive gun use and the innocent lives saved?
    Because their fear of guns is so great that they cannot see anything beyond that fear. It's a form of emotional tunnel vision. I have a coworker who is an admitted liberal, and I have seen him go into that tunnel vision mode a few times. It's fascinating, but at the same time alarming. It's almost like a demonic possession.

  7. #51
    Ex Member Array oldIthink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Here is my belief about the Constitution and the BOR: It was not primarily written for the intellectual consumption and interpretation of scholars, lawyers, judges and justices. If it had been, it would have been a lot longer document and written in a much more academic and legalistic fashion. The people who wrote those documents were learned men, well capable of doing that if that was what they wanted to do.

    The intended audience was the people, the common man. So the only way to interpret the documents is in light of that. They mean exactly what they say, in plain English, taking into account what the words meant when they were written, not the common vernacular today. They need little interpretation, certainly not all the interpretation they have had over the years. 2A is simple:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is the justification clause, as explained in the Heller decision, not a limitation clause. "Militia" means groups of able-bodied citizens, who protect their towns, colonies, states and sometimes allowed themselves to be nationalized to serve a central government, but they were not professional soldiers, they were common people. "Well regulated" in the 18th century meant well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined. It didn't mean "under the orders and restriction of the government." It meant it was in an effective shape to fight. But again, that is just a justification, not the right itself.

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is the operative clause and it could not be clearer. The government shall not restrict the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, period. There is no wiggle room there.

    People bring up a lot of red herrings about 2A, such as slavery, the idea that we may no longer need militias, The Militia Act of 1903, etc. But none of that has the leverage to change or nullify an amendment to the Constitution. That can only be done through an Article V proceeding.

    So that's it. There is no other valid argument to be made. Any restriction on the RTKABA is unconstitutional. And as has been said, the Constitution doesn't grant that right, it was just meant to guarantee it. The idea is we always had that right, with or without the Constitution and BOR, and we always will. People may violate that right, but we may take it back.
    Too bad I can only -like- this one time! Even though the nail was small this hits it with full force! The BoR is clear!

    Arguments have been made as to the location of the apostrophe's in the sentence. The arguments being that those apostrophe's change the meaning to something it's not. Since the men, the framers, were all very well educated for their times; they knew exactly what they were they doing and what they were writing!
    PPS1980, JoeyD and rotorhead1026 like this.

  8. #52
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    19,137
    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.
    Being that John Locke died around 1704, "carry[ing] guns around with them all the time" probably never occurred to him. Likewise "State" versus "Federal" opinion.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    2,240
    Wow, I relax with friends and an adult beverage once and look what I missed
    Frodebro, Havok, Pete63 and 1 others like this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS1980 View Post
    Wow, I relax with friends and an adult beverage once and look what I missed
    I was thinking the same thing. Just got back from dinner and open my computer and our newest member is already banend!
    PPS1980, Pete63, M1911A1 and 1 others like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  11. #55
    Ex Member Array oldIthink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS1980 View Post
    Wow, I relax with friends and an adult beverage once and look what I missed
    HUH? You think missing a childish anti gun thread is missing something? Enjoy yourself! This Frodo (yofiel) was an imbecile with a degree. Maybe.
    PPS1980 and Pete63 like this.

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,131
    'At the end, the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" is also irresolutely paradoxical, because shooting someone to death infringes on their right to bear arms.'

    This is irrational, as owning a weapon is not identical to shooting someone to death. The guy also fails to grasp that the Constitution is a restriction on the activity of government, not of private citizens; so his argument would support the disarming only of the government, not the people - the exact contrary of his desired outcome. A private citizen can't violate the Constitutional rights of another, whether by shooting him to death or any other means.
    oldIthink likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  13. #57
    Distinguished Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,272
    The premise of the write up was flawed. When the link to an article suggesting the 2A was written to suppress slaves, well, I had to stop there. The founders clearly expressed why they felt the need for the 2A, and slavery was not part of the equation. Rather, the desire to not be slaves to the government, was. That was why they broke away from England after all.

    Drivel, and poorly written drivel, at that. Reminds me of the "scientific articles" explaining why we are all going to die because of man influenced climate change. When the researcher does work to reach a conclusion, then important information gets ignored because it doesn't fit the desired outcome. Invalidating the effort done altogether.
    msgt/ret and M1911A1 like this.

  14. #58
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    So... Does this mean we're not getting any participation trophies?
    Pete63, M1911A1, PPS1980 and 3 others like this.

  15. #59
    VIP Member
    Array Pete63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas
    Posts
    3,702
    SO, I clicked on this thread, because the it looke like a rediculous topic, AND IT WAS! What I don't understand is why does it still show OP is on line (green icon), when it's obvious he's "riding Maggie? Ex-member's STILL have their status listed? @gasmitty ?
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    Live Well, Laugh Often, Defend Yourself
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
    This land abounds in ruffians and varmints. Their numbers are legion, their evil skills commensurate.

  16. #60
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    19,137
    Thread is now CLOSED, but leaving it here (not putting it on ice) to serve as an example of pernicious trolls who show up here.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

Page 4 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
  •