The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended

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; I am requesting comment on a 3,000-word conclusion to five year's work on the subject on my personal blog, 'yofiel.com," here: the 2nd Amendment, being ...

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61
Like Tree230Likes

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

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10

    The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended

    I am requesting comment on a 3,000-word conclusion to five year's work on the subject on my personal blog, 'yofiel.com," here:

    the 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended

    Abstract:
    "This article describes the current law, gun-control issues, and major, problematic paradoxes at both ends of the 2nd Amendment. At the beginning, rights to form "a well regulated militia" is paradoxical because, when the Bill of Rights was written, the USA's army was so insignificantly tiny as to be non existent, whereas the USA has a real army now. 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. As such, the Amendment could be interpreted to mean either banning arms entirely, or any number of restrictions to protect the primary right to life, or none at all. Federal and State Supreme Courts have reached the best conclusions they can for their constituents, but the entire debate about the 2nd Amendment itself remains totally meaningless.
    Notwithstanding, rights to firearms as property for self defense, sports, and hunting remain under the natural right of 'pursuit of happiness,' with specific limits on individuals who have shown themselves a likely threat to life contingent on current rates of rights abuse. As well as making huge political donations, the gun lobby has created so much false propaganda and fake facts, political decisions cannot be based on any reliable data from its side. A Constitutional Amendment, based on state-sponsored independent research, is really necessary for a fair solution. Gun-violence tax to pay for its cost, as well as mandatory firearms insurance, are logical and valid at the federal level, and already in place in some areas."
    Last edited by yofiel; January 4th, 2020 at 10:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    404 Page Not Found
    Posts
    23,024
    The right to self-defense is a natural right. The Second Amendment only states that natural right will not and cannot be infringed by our government.

    Are you over thinking it?

    I am a bit of an absolutist, a simpleton perhaps. It is clear to me.
    msgt/ret, OD* and Merovius like this.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here



    "If we suppose them sincere, we must pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays." Alexander Hamilton

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array BlackJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    821
    I do not see a conflict between the Second Amendment and Natural Rights. However, without even reading your paper, just based on what you have written here, I do see a conflict with your interpretation and what the Second Amendment actually says.

    First, nowhere does the Second Amendment say anything about "rights to form "a well regulated militia"". It does mention the need for "a well regulated militia", but nowhere does it mention a right to form one.

    Second, "the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed"" is in no way "paradoxical". The Second Amendment specifically protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and continues to say, about this right of the people, that it "shall not be infringed".

    Third, based on my second point, I am not sure how you could possibly interpret it to mean "either banning arms entirely, or any number of restrictions to protect the primary right to life". This particular amendment is not about protecting the "right to life", it is about protecting your rights to self defense and protection.

    Fourth, and here I do agree with you, as far as it goes... No, you can not rely on the "false propaganda and fake facts" provided by the "gun lobby". However, it goes both ways and I see just as much, if not more "false propaganda and fake facts" from the gun control groups. Before you start calling for a Constitutional Amendment based on "state-sponsored independent research", you should do two things. First, you should read the Second Amendment and dissect it based on the English language and it's grammar rules rather than reading it based on a preconceived political idea of what it means. Second, look into the "facts" presented by both sides and compare them against some real unbiased facts, like the FBI stats that are published every year.

    If, after you do this, IF you can honestly say that you believe what you have posted above, then come back and ask for some honest dialogue to find out why we might disagree with your views.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array CWOUSCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baja Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,213
    Based on your abstract you wasted 5 years of your life. You do not think logically so learning to code is out, I'd suggest a career in janitorial services.


    Send bachelors and come heavily armed.
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.
    Black Rifles Matter

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    665
    yofiel, I find your arguments Jesuitical, and, with reference to the use and meaning of the Second Amendment, silly, and even foolish.

    The (here redacted) phrase, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is not made meaningless – or as you would have it, paradoxical – by the offensive or defensive actions taken by a citizen.
    The negative relationship which you have posited does not exist, because neither aggression nor defense modifies the pre-existing natural right.

    There would be no meaning to the natural right to keep and bear arms unless a possibility of using them exists, and is admitted, to give meaning to the right. Why keep and bear arms if there never would be any threat to person, liberty, or property?
    But there will always be people who are asocial, anti-social, malevolent, or insane, who will and do threaten people and their liberty and property, and against whom people must have a defense, and also sometimes a need to mount an offense.
    And these ill-acting people are often found in government, and have, do, and will cause malevolent governmental behavior against which people must have a defense, and sometimes must even mount an offense.
    Thus, as our government's Founders recognized from their own experience, the people had a need to keep and bear arms, understood as a natural right, uninfringible by both government itself, or by a Utilitarian majority.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, pręparet bellum."

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    My good man, I do believe you're overthinking this just a bit.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    2,558
    People lose their right to bear arms when they are shot to death?
    How long in your five year study did it take you to come to that conclusion.
    When you are dead, you cease to exist therefore even you right to breathe is gone.
    I agree with a lot of what Blackjack stated.
    I will thank the poster for giving us a synopsis of his paper as I do not believe I would have read a 3k paper
    Here on this forum

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Thank you for your thoughts. Generally I would agree, that natural rights don't impose a conflict, except for the right to life, which is rather ignored by absolutist interpetations termed 'pro 2a.' If I may focus on your second point:

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackJack View Post
    Second, "the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed"" is in no way "paradoxical". The Second Amendment specifically protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and continues to say, about this right of the people, that it "shall not be infringed".
    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.

    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.

    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.

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    I agree with a lot of what Blackjack stated.
    I will thank the poster for giving us a synopsis of his paper as I do not believe I would have read a 3k paper
    Here on this forum
    Please see above reply then.

  11. #10
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by M1911A1 View Post
    yofiel, I find your arguments Jesuitical, and, with reference to the use and meaning of the Second Amendment, silly, and even foolish.
    I did read your post. That's very pretty rhetoric but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. And you said my thought is foolish. Please take your insults somewhere else.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    6,198
    We go to war on a a regular basis for natural rights - it's what we do since the enlightenment, naturally.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler
    We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
    welder516
    Buck the donkey

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    2,558
    I do not see it that way, If I kill someone wrongly I expect to pay the consequences and lose my rights
    If I have to kill someone defending my life or that of any innocent against evil I am protecting my rights. And they deserve to lose theirs.
    You sound like quite an educated man.
    I am just a simple Cowboy who sees the world in a more black/white good/evil way.
    But I am enjoying the conversation

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    I did read your post. That's very pretty rhetoric but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. And you said my thought is foolish. Please take your insults somewhere else.
    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.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  15. #14
    Ex Member Array yofiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    I do not see it that way, If I kill someone wrongly I expect to pay the consequences and lose my rights
    If I have to kill someone defending my life or that of any innocent against evil I am protecting my rights. And they deserve to lose theirs.
    You sound like quite an educated man.
    I am just a simple Cowboy who sees the world in a more black/white good/evil way.
    But I am enjoying the conversation
    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.

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by yofiel View Post
    I did read your post. That's very pretty rhetoric but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. And you said my thought is foolish. Please take your insults somewhere else.
    Please remember that you asked for our opinions.
    You may disagree with my opinion, but that does not make my opinion an insult.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, pręparet bellum."

Page 1 of 5 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
  •