The second amendment?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I often wonder how the dems/libs look at the constitution as a whole, but I want to know how both sides look at this portion of the bill of rights.
I will go ahead and start it.
That it protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") and defend themselves and their liberties. It does not apply to sporting guns, but rather the tactical/combat/defensive type of weapon that the gun control folks specifically target.
IMO, adding the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by the historical concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to use a standing army or police force to oppress and create a standing rule that would minimize the citizens ability to defend themselves not only from the bad elements of a society, but the government itself, since history has shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance was to suppress political opponents by simply to taking away the people's arms and make it an offense for people to keep them.
So
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I often wonder how the dems/libs look at the constitution as a whole, but I want to know how both sides look at this portion of the bill of rights.
I will go ahead and start it.
That it protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") and defend themselves and their liberties. It does not apply to sporting guns, but rather the tactical/combat/defensive type of weapon that the gun control folks specifically target.
IMO, adding the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by the historical concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to use a standing army or police force to oppress and create a standing rule that would minimize the citizens ability to defend themselves not only from the bad elements of a society, but the government itself, since history has shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance was to suppress political opponents by simply to taking away the people's arms and make it an offense for people to keep them.
So
To often our elected officials use this particular item (the right to keep and bear arms) to further their own agendas. And it doesn't matter if you are pro-gun or anti-gun the constitution was written to be used as is, not changed to fit what someone else wants. If we allow the constitution to be changed in any way, we are allowing our rights as american citizens to be changed, this would only be the beginning of things to come.
Now I know that many of you will disagree with this statement, but it is just my opinion. I know it differs with others out there, but I am entitled to it and do understand that may others read this amendment differently.
The constitution was written in different times. The right to bear arms made more sense in the 1770s than it does today. We were still a small nation that needed to defend our country from foreign threats. Our military was different as was our law enforcement.
Today, all cities and counties have organized law enforcement, and our military is well armed with guns missiles etc.
For the average person at home to have a gun I believe created more problems than it fixes.
1) More domestic violence deaths.
2) Gang Warfare is enabled with drive by shootings
3) Accidental shootings by children playing with firearms (rare but it happens)
4) More danger to law enforcement as they can be shot by citizens.
If crooks and others didnt have guns, people would not need them to defend their homes.
In the UK and most of Europe, citizens cannot own guns, and violence and death is much lower than in the US.
I know it will never change here, but I do think there could be benefits from reducing gun ownership in the US.
Just my thoughts.
CB
The constitution was written in different times. The right to bear arms made more sense in the 1770s than it does today. We were still a small nation that needed to defend our country from foreign threats. Our military was different as was our law enforcement.
Today, all cities and counties have organized law enforcement, and our military is well armed with guns missiles etc.
For the average person at home to have a gun I believe created more problems than it fixes.
1) More domestic violence deaths.
2) Gang Warfare is enabled with drive by shootings
3) Accidental shootings by children playing with firearms (rare but it happens)
4) More danger to law enforcement as they can be shot by citizens.
If crooks and others didnt have guns, people would not need them to defend their homes.
In the UK and most of Europe, citizens cannot own guns, and violence and death is much lower than in the US.
I know it will never change here, but I do think there could be benefits from reducing gun ownership in the US.
Just my thoughts.
CB
Yes, it appears to me that the Repubicons only wish to observe the 2nd amendment. Many of them think the 1st, 4th and 14th should never have been written. I am mixed when it comes to the 1st. The Amendment was written during a times that weapons were very limited in their capabilities. If we accept your very valid assertion that the Amendment was meant to mean military grade weapons, then it should include tanks, helicopters, nukes, chemicals, and biological weapons. After all the Amendment is very vague and we can't just apply one persons definition. We need to legislate or clarify the right with legislation. Since not everyone agrees, I would suggest we make an amendment that clarifies our right or we allow legislation to define it. Let the majority decide.
Now, perhaps we can convince the right to quit trying to unconstitutionally prevent gay marriage, adultry, prostitution, public nudity, censorship of media etc. Perhaps we can convince the right that a tool used for an alternative to a pistol shouldn't be used to torture someone into compliance (tasers). Perhaps we can convince the right that the patriot act is a fucking assault on the constitution. Shall I go on???
-D-
Now, perhaps we can convince the right to quit trying to unconstitutionally prevent gay marriage, adultry, prostitution, public nudity, censorship of media etc. Perhaps we can convince the right that a tool used for an alternative to a pistol shouldn't be used to torture someone into compliance (tasers). Perhaps we can convince the right that the patriot act is a fucking assault on the constitution. Shall I go on???
-D-
what does the 2nd ammendment sa ? keep and bear arms. does it say what type? caliber? gauge?quantity? noi don't think anyone needs a 50cal. sniper rifle but someone else may think that they do. i think that before i passed a law outlawing guns,thus leaving law abiding people defensless i'd rather see a law passed making everyone carry a weapon.
I often wonder why the newspapers and media never seem to report on all the crimes that were prevented by law abiding citizens who had legal permits to carry concealed weapons or had a firearm in their home for protection. I believe the crime rate would be greatly reduced if more good citizens were armed. If you were a robber would you rather brake into someones home that had a gun or one that did not?
I think the framers of the constitution were incredibly wise. They knew the grave importance of their document and its need to stand the test of time.
Not being able to foresee actual, societal evolution, they allowed for future requirements as needed (amendments).
Today
Not being able to foresee actual, societal evolution, they allowed for future requirements as needed (amendments).
Today
Posted By: CBUTAH Reply posted on:
Oct 13, 2008 - 2:39 pm
The constitution was written in different times. The right to bear arms made more sense in the 1770s than it does today. We were still a small nation that needed to defend our country from foreign threats. Our military was different as was our law enforcement.
Today, all cities and counties have organized law enforcement, and our military is well armed with guns missiles etc.
================================================================
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
Oct 13, 2008 - 2:39 pm
The constitution was written in different times. The right to bear arms made more sense in the 1770s than it does today. We were still a small nation that needed to defend our country from foreign threats. Our military was different as was our law enforcement.
Today, all cities and counties have organized law enforcement, and our military is well armed with guns missiles etc.
================================================================
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
hey doesn't it say somewhere in there that the first 12 or 13 cant be changed .. just asking dont have a clue on the constitution as a whole .. lol guess its something i need to study a bit lol
MR sextra
MR sextra
SEXTRA,
It doesn't say they can't be changed. It takes 2/3 ratification of all states to pass a constitutional amendment. That's why there are only 27 of em. They are very difficult to pass.
JIMRNJANN,
I don't mind the 2nd amendment the way it's written, but then we have to allow Chemical, Biological and Nuclear arms. We also have to allow for tanks, attack helicopters, bomber jets and fighter jets etc. We need to allow it all because the word arms is a vague and broad stroking term, or we need to draw the line. That's my point. If you don't wanna assume, then do assume that they meant pistol, rifles and shotguns. Remember, everyone has their own idea of what reasonable is.
-D-
It doesn't say they can't be changed. It takes 2/3 ratification of all states to pass a constitutional amendment. That's why there are only 27 of em. They are very difficult to pass.
JIMRNJANN,
I don't mind the 2nd amendment the way it's written, but then we have to allow Chemical, Biological and Nuclear arms. We also have to allow for tanks, attack helicopters, bomber jets and fighter jets etc. We need to allow it all because the word arms is a vague and broad stroking term, or we need to draw the line. That's my point. If you don't wanna assume, then do assume that they meant pistol, rifles and shotguns. Remember, everyone has their own idea of what reasonable is.
-D-
Don - I can say this without hesitation and it is irrefutable!! YOUR WRONG!!!! I think the 1, 2, 4, 13 and 14 were the most important ones. And I am guessing you surely think I am one of those republicons you referred to.
Again though, this is not the place to debate guns, merely the interpretations of the amendment. Because at the end of the day, it does not matter your opinion on guns at all, you may hate them or love them, all the statistics (which are mostly BS anyhow) are irrelevant in this discussion.
In fact, I would also like to know, how much you personally know about the bill of rights, what was going on at the time and why it was written. I am not looking to call anybody out or embarrass or anything, this is just to satisfy curiosities as to how people view history.
Let me restate in more simpler terms, my opinion was that this right to bear arms, was to protect us FROM our own government, and a standing military or police force does not render this amendment useless, in fact actually make is more necessary.
As James Madison inferred, he actually felt that any standing army should be able to be held in check by the citizens of its own country. Realize the founding fathers were not exactly trusting in government and were dealing with tyranny and therefore wanted the citizens of their new country be able to hold it in check. Madison wrote often on this subject and as he was the one who put it in the bill of rights, I think his theories measure the spirit of the amendment.
Noah Webster also wrote about the second amendment "Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."
So to agree with Don, that is all where it gets real scary, like yeah we should have nukes and machine guns, tanks etc if it is indeed what the spirit of the law meant.
The Bill of Rights should not be taken lightly, if you allow them to fuck with one of them, they can fuck with any of them. Freedom of religion (or NOT to practice religion), Freedom from unlawful search or seizure (Patriot Act....Full blown unconstitional!!!)
Again though, this is not the place to debate guns, merely the interpretations of the amendment. Because at the end of the day, it does not matter your opinion on guns at all, you may hate them or love them, all the statistics (which are mostly BS anyhow) are irrelevant in this discussion.
In fact, I would also like to know, how much you personally know about the bill of rights, what was going on at the time and why it was written. I am not looking to call anybody out or embarrass or anything, this is just to satisfy curiosities as to how people view history.
Let me restate in more simpler terms, my opinion was that this right to bear arms, was to protect us FROM our own government, and a standing military or police force does not render this amendment useless, in fact actually make is more necessary.
As James Madison inferred, he actually felt that any standing army should be able to be held in check by the citizens of its own country. Realize the founding fathers were not exactly trusting in government and were dealing with tyranny and therefore wanted the citizens of their new country be able to hold it in check. Madison wrote often on this subject and as he was the one who put it in the bill of rights, I think his theories measure the spirit of the amendment.
Noah Webster also wrote about the second amendment "Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."
So to agree with Don, that is all where it gets real scary, like yeah we should have nukes and machine guns, tanks etc if it is indeed what the spirit of the law meant.
The Bill of Rights should not be taken lightly, if you allow them to fuck with one of them, they can fuck with any of them. Freedom of religion (or NOT to practice religion), Freedom from unlawful search or seizure (Patriot Act....Full blown unconstitional!!!)
No, I am not saying what you think. I am saying what I have observed personally. Republicans are traditionally the ones who fight for unconstitutional law that respects the Christian religion. i.e "sanctity of marriage laws". Republicans are also the ones I see advocating the rights for police to misuse their power etc. I am in no way saying you believe anything. I simply said many republicons preach the 2nd and ignore the rest. You can say I am wrong, but that doesn't make you right. What you are saying is very refutable.
You point about "protect ourselves against the government" only strengthens my argument that if we interpret the 2nd at it's face value, we have to allow people to possess Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. In order to put up an affective fight with the weapons of this day and age, we have to have weapons that are equal to or greater than our current military. So where do we draw the line?
I understand the bill of rights just fine my friend. Just like when Jefferson and Madison wrote each other about the 1st regarding religious encroachment. That they intended a secular government. Yet we still have ridiculous christian dogma unconstitutionally plaguing our laws.
-D-
You point about "protect ourselves against the government" only strengthens my argument that if we interpret the 2nd at it's face value, we have to allow people to possess Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. In order to put up an affective fight with the weapons of this day and age, we have to have weapons that are equal to or greater than our current military. So where do we draw the line?
I understand the bill of rights just fine my friend. Just like when Jefferson and Madison wrote each other about the 1st regarding religious encroachment. That they intended a secular government. Yet we still have ridiculous christian dogma unconstitutionally plaguing our laws.
-D-
HOLY CRAP!!!!!! STOP EVERYTHING!!!!!! DON AND I AGREE ON NOT ONE BUT TWO POINTS!!!!!!!
JK - But like in my immediate post, it is scary taking it a full spirit, then by that you and I should be able to walk into the local nuke dealer shop and walk out with a nice little briefcase bomb.
And I think it is not just republicans who like to pick and choose, both parties are very guilty of taking the ones they want. Like the Dems hate number 2 (no poo jokes please) the republicans always seem to have a problem with the due process, no search and seizure etc.
The scary thing about governments, as soon as they start "granting" rights, they have now defined what they can control.
Gay marriage, if they pass laws for it or against it...then they now own the issue, not us. Rights are only "granted" by the government via the dismantling somebody elses rights. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. But somebody is always getting fucked when the gov steps in.
JK - But like in my immediate post, it is scary taking it a full spirit, then by that you and I should be able to walk into the local nuke dealer shop and walk out with a nice little briefcase bomb.
And I think it is not just republicans who like to pick and choose, both parties are very guilty of taking the ones they want. Like the Dems hate number 2 (no poo jokes please) the republicans always seem to have a problem with the due process, no search and seizure etc.
The scary thing about governments, as soon as they start "granting" rights, they have now defined what they can control.
Gay marriage, if they pass laws for it or against it...then they now own the issue, not us. Rights are only "granted" by the government via the dismantling somebody elses rights. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. But somebody is always getting fucked when the gov steps in.
Passing pro gay marriage legislation wouldn't be taking anyone's rights away. The church has no fucking say in our government and quite frankly I am getting fucking sick of hearing about how they are using tax free money to lobby against it. FUCK RELIGION! I think every one of those fucking cults should be paying taxes.
You need not look any further than our nations capitol to see the truth about gun control in the modern day United States. Washington DC is the murder and crime capitol of the country and the world for that matter.. And it happens to be a gun free city...... Now how is that possible? Bottom line the police are NOT there for your personal protection and the criminals WILL always have guns legal or not........ Maybe if we taught are children gun control and respect for each others lives in schools rather than teaching them that growing up in a socialised non capotalistic country is good.
I have a better question for ya.... When you democrates finish destroying this country with your socialist idealism who is going to help you regain your freedom. Ask yourself when you pull the curtains closed behind you in the voting booth. How many jobs have been created from the wellfair state and middle class? What economic sector does create the jobs? and what do you think is going to happen to the jobbless rate in this country when Obama taxes the piss out of every body and small buisness making over 250,000 a year? (net by the way) They will cut jobs and pass the tax costs down to the lower classes. That is a fact. Obamas economic ideas will destroy the economy even worse than the democrates have over the last 3 years...... Yes I said democtares .. people seem to forget that the democrates have run both houses for the last 3 years.... B Frank C Dodd Natzi Palosi Harry Reid.. Frank Rienes the whole fucking socialist loving bunch....
I have a better question for ya.... When you democrates finish destroying this country with your socialist idealism who is going to help you regain your freedom. Ask yourself when you pull the curtains closed behind you in the voting booth. How many jobs have been created from the wellfair state and middle class? What economic sector does create the jobs? and what do you think is going to happen to the jobbless rate in this country when Obama taxes the piss out of every body and small buisness making over 250,000 a year? (net by the way) They will cut jobs and pass the tax costs down to the lower classes. That is a fact. Obamas economic ideas will destroy the economy even worse than the democrates have over the last 3 years...... Yes I said democtares .. people seem to forget that the democrates have run both houses for the last 3 years.... B Frank C Dodd Natzi Palosi Harry Reid.. Frank Rienes the whole fucking socialist loving bunch....
Yeah it was the Republicans that had the country the last 8 years and our gas shot up, we spent three trillion on a bullshit war and occupation. We gave up civil rights to the patriot act, we gave 700 billion to a bunch of greedy capitalist pigs. I think it's your bullshit ideals that are running this country into the ground. 
-D-
-D-
Actualy Jackass the gas didnt shoot up like crasy untill the Dem took over majority 2 years ago... LOL wrong again socialist..... its supply and demand.. but I wouldnt expect you to understand economics.. SOCIALIST!!!!!! lol
LOL yes we will see whos ideas run this country into the ground over the next 4 years if your lying socialist gets into the white house and both houses are dem(socialist) and the pres is also,...... God help us all.... I can not wait for my appologies.... lol
WRONG AGAIN FUCKTARD! I already posted department of energy graphs showing it shot up the year Bush took office. TRY AGAIN NUMB NUTS! You can start apologizing on your knees bitch.
-D-
-D-
back to the main question...
Normally, I am very liberal. VERY liberal. However, in the strictest sense of the Bill of Rights, when reading the full document, you can see the framers were direct in their prose. The NRA and others read the 2nd Amendment in partial terms, using the commas and semi-colons to their benefit. However, no where else does the reading of a punctuation mark alter the meaning of the Amendment.
In reading, say, the 6th amendment, the semi-colon is used to differentiate the sentence. The former part of the sentence is taken completely from the latter part so they are not dependent on each other.
However, for the 4th, where there is not a semi-colon, the sentence is taken as a whole. It is not broken into its parts.
So, using this logic, it would be resolved that 2nd applies to a well regulated militia and them only. During the 1700s, the militia was a voluntary but organized, state sponsored service. In today's terms, this would be recognized as a police force, national guard, or other government agency.
Personally, citizens should be able to own whatever weapon they desire. If you can afford it, you should be able to own it. It is not my right or anyone else's to assign or regulate their prerogative for ownership.
Boiling it down. According to the 2nd, you must be part of a government group to own weapons. Personally, own whatever the hell you want!
Mav
Normally, I am very liberal. VERY liberal. However, in the strictest sense of the Bill of Rights, when reading the full document, you can see the framers were direct in their prose. The NRA and others read the 2nd Amendment in partial terms, using the commas and semi-colons to their benefit. However, no where else does the reading of a punctuation mark alter the meaning of the Amendment.
In reading, say, the 6th amendment, the semi-colon is used to differentiate the sentence. The former part of the sentence is taken completely from the latter part so they are not dependent on each other.
However, for the 4th, where there is not a semi-colon, the sentence is taken as a whole. It is not broken into its parts.
So, using this logic, it would be resolved that 2nd applies to a well regulated militia and them only. During the 1700s, the militia was a voluntary but organized, state sponsored service. In today's terms, this would be recognized as a police force, national guard, or other government agency.
Personally, citizens should be able to own whatever weapon they desire. If you can afford it, you should be able to own it. It is not my right or anyone else's to assign or regulate their prerogative for ownership.
Boiling it down. According to the 2nd, you must be part of a government group to own weapons. Personally, own whatever the hell you want!
Mav
That's why I call for clarification. That way this bullshit argument doesn't keep going.
Posted By: AKLIM69 Reply posted on:
Oct 13, 2008 - 7:13 pm
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
Oct 13, 2008 - 7:13 pm
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
Posted By: AKLIM69 Reply posted on:
Oct 13, 2008 - 7:13 pm
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
Oct 13, 2008 - 7:13 pm
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
Posted By: HELPFIRE Reply posted on:
I often wonder why the newspapers and media never seem to report on all the crimes that were prevented by law abiding citizens who had legal permits to carry concealed weapons or had a firearm in their home for protection. I believe the crime rate would be greatly reduced if more good citizens were armed. If you were a robber would you rather brake into someones home that had a gun or one that did not?
===========================================
On the street
Robber pulls a gun on you and you have a concealled weapon....hmmm what happens...You reach for your gun and he shoots you. Or you get lucky and shoot him. Now you are going to court to and pleading self defense. All over $30 you had in your pocket.
Home
Most robberies happen either when no one is home. Professional theives arent looking for trouble. Most probably they know where you hide your gun and will steal that too.
Sorry, I cant agree with that argument. Its a poor attempt to justify owning a gun.
CB
I often wonder why the newspapers and media never seem to report on all the crimes that were prevented by law abiding citizens who had legal permits to carry concealed weapons or had a firearm in their home for protection. I believe the crime rate would be greatly reduced if more good citizens were armed. If you were a robber would you rather brake into someones home that had a gun or one that did not?
===========================================
On the street
Robber pulls a gun on you and you have a concealled weapon....hmmm what happens...You reach for your gun and he shoots you. Or you get lucky and shoot him. Now you are going to court to and pleading self defense. All over $30 you had in your pocket.
Home
Most robberies happen either when no one is home. Professional theives arent looking for trouble. Most probably they know where you hide your gun and will steal that too.
Sorry, I cant agree with that argument. Its a poor attempt to justify owning a gun.
CB
Actualy surf the government can and did take guns away.. Look it up.. After Katrina hit in NO the national guard did a sweep through the city and surrounding areas and confiscated all firearms from all citizens legal owners or not.. They still have not gotten them back. That is a fact. If you are a true gun owner and advocate. by all mean look it up its very true.
That's what happens when you let the police have more power than they should. That is a product of the right, not the left.
<script>document.write('<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://ww'+'w.
&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="ht'+'tp://ww'+'w.
&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>');</script>
<script>document.write('<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.
&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.
&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>');</script>
You can thank Bush for taking our right to search and seizure with the Patriot Act. Just another thing folks, that is a product of the right.
<script>document.write('<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://ww'+'w.
&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="ht'+'tp://ww'+'w.
&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>');</script>
<script>document.write('<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.
&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.
&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>');</script>
You can thank Bush for taking our right to search and seizure with the Patriot Act. Just another thing folks, that is a product of the right.
Good point SEXY, but they were in fact sued and are now having to settle suits about the gun confiscation in NO. And now LA has laws on the books that keep that from every happening again.
But again, this is not an argument for or against guns. But more about the amendment itself, I really do not need to hear from SURF on this one, he has already shown his stripes and really does not bring much to the table, name calling and BS statistics have no merit in this particular discussion..
Maven and Don bring up great points, I differ in my belief that state sponsored (nat guard and police forces) replace a the right to still own weapons, in fact I would prefer a militia that swears allegiances to the citizens of their community first and not their government.
DON - lemme play devil
But again, this is not an argument for or against guns. But more about the amendment itself, I really do not need to hear from SURF on this one, he has already shown his stripes and really does not bring much to the table, name calling and BS statistics have no merit in this particular discussion..
Maven and Don bring up great points, I differ in my belief that state sponsored (nat guard and police forces) replace a the right to still own weapons, in fact I would prefer a militia that swears allegiances to the citizens of their community first and not their government.
DON - lemme play devil
Hey DON, we should start a thread about the 1st amendment BTW... I will let you go first this time
"DON - lemme play devil
Can some one tell me which amendment the gay marriage thing falls under.... But thats another thread. As far as the 2nd goes I believe every citizen should be armed. If I decide to kill some one does it matter whether i use a gun or a knife or for that matter how about a good old louisville slugger? I know here in Florida it is quite liberal with what you can carry and when you can use it. Oh my bad should have said neo-con not liberal I forgot Florida is a republican state. As the saying goes guns don't kill. I normally carry a sidearm every time I leave the house to go some where and will use it if I have to. I have that right here in Florida. How about you california folks? I guess you're stuck with the bat for self defense. I believe all of the first ten amendments were put in place to keep the government in check. The problem is nowadays special interest groups try to control too much.
I agree, but my point still stands, you do indeed take rights from someone else to choose when you implicity give rights to somebody else. I am not saying I agree with it. I just hate that big brother has to step in and define what is morally and socially acceptable. Societies evolve, always have and always will. Sometimes gov has stepped in to push the evolution of the society in a way they see fit. I hate that, I really do, even when it benefits me. I do not want gov to grant me rights, that means somehow they were not there before they gave them to me. I am making any sense on that one?
HIGHWAY1,
That would be the 1st Amendment. Sanctity (godliness) of marriage laws are against the 1st Amendment.
CNKISS wrote:
"I agree, but my point still stands, you do indeed take rights from someone else to choose when you implicity give rights to somebody else."
<hr>
If you want to argue that point in that manner, we could say that it takes my right away to shoot people or drive as fast as I want, because of current laws. That isn't an argument. You should never have the right to intentionally treat others wrongly based on things they cannot or should not have to change, so long as it's not a direct danger to others (rapists, murders, child molesters etc.). It's not your right to do others harm and you are harming them when you deny them work based upon your own moronic bigotry. All people are created equal according to our government. So I disagree with that argument and I could give a fuck what a bigot wants.
-D-
P.S. In order to have a government work, there has to be rules and rights. This particular government doesn't allow laws that respect religion. Sorry.
That would be the 1st Amendment. Sanctity (godliness) of marriage laws are against the 1st Amendment.
CNKISS wrote:
"I agree, but my point still stands, you do indeed take rights from someone else to choose when you implicity give rights to somebody else."
<hr>
If you want to argue that point in that manner, we could say that it takes my right away to shoot people or drive as fast as I want, because of current laws. That isn't an argument. You should never have the right to intentionally treat others wrongly based on things they cannot or should not have to change, so long as it's not a direct danger to others (rapists, murders, child molesters etc.). It's not your right to do others harm and you are harming them when you deny them work based upon your own moronic bigotry. All people are created equal according to our government.
So I disagree with that argument and I could give a fuck what a bigot wants. -D-
P.S. In order to have a government work, there has to be rules and rights. This particular government doesn't allow laws that respect religion. Sorry.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm sorry which part of the first are you refering to. I don't believe it gives anyone the right to get married. Marriage is like a drivers license, hence the getting a marriage license. Now don't get me wrong I don't care who marrys who or what (My disclaimer).
I'm sorry which part of the first are you refering to. I don't believe it gives anyone the right to get married. Marriage is like a drivers license, hence the getting a marriage license. Now don't get me wrong I don't care who marrys who or what (My disclaimer).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm sorry which part of the first are you refering to. I don't believe it gives anyone the right to get married. Marriage is like a drivers license, hence the getting a marriage license. Now don't get me wrong I don't care who marrys who or what (My disclaimer).
<hr>
<b>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"</b>. "Sanctity" means godliness. God is a religious figure. Therefore, such laws are prohibited by the constitution. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is merely a contract, having nothing to do with god. Godly validity should be a concern of the church and not the state. I, for one, could give a fuck what any church thinks. A state sees it as a contract and a contract can be entered into by two or more consenting adults. Marriage laws that require genders to be of the opposite sex are also in violation of our civil rights that protect us against matters of <b>gender</b>, religion, age, nationality etc. I do not deny that there are current laws that forbid it. I am saying those laws are unconstitutional.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctity
-D-
P.S According to the 14th. No state can deny you these rights.
I'm sorry which part of the first are you refering to. I don't believe it gives anyone the right to get married. Marriage is like a drivers license, hence the getting a marriage license. Now don't get me wrong I don't care who marrys who or what (My disclaimer).
<hr>
<b>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"</b>. "Sanctity" means godliness. God is a religious figure. Therefore, such laws are prohibited by the constitution. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is merely a contract, having nothing to do with god. Godly validity should be a concern of the church and not the state. I, for one, could give a fuck what any church thinks. A state sees it as a contract and a contract can be entered into by two or more consenting adults. Marriage laws that require genders to be of the opposite sex are also in violation of our civil rights that protect us against matters of <b>gender</b>, religion, age, nationality etc. I do not deny that there are current laws that forbid it. I am saying those laws are unconstitutional.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctity
-D-
P.S According to the 14th. No state can deny you these rights.
Don, start a first amendment thread then, lets discuss it there.
First off I DONOT see the word sanctity in the amendment. You can't just add words to try and justify your side. Secondly our cicil rights are spell out in the amendments hence being call bill of rights. So I ask again which amendment gives people the right to wed.
As an aside though Don let's look at gay marriage another way. Let's say that by chance you decide to join a swingers website and state you do not want single men writing you. Now let's say that the two gay guys that got married are really only bi and they are on the same site.
Is it ok for them to contact you? You don't need to answer as it is just a rhetorical question.
As an aside though Don let's look at gay marriage another way. Let's say that by chance you decide to join a swingers website and state you do not want single men writing you. Now let's say that the two gay guys that got married are really only bi and they are on the same site.
Is it ok for them to contact you? You don't need to answer as it is just a rhetorical question.
HIGHWAY!!!! LISTEN TO ME! The laws that are being pushed to prevent gays from marrying each other are called "SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE LAWS!!!!" I wasn't talking about the fucking first amendment having the word sanctity in it. You are proving my point. The consitution never mentions GOD or JESUS once! In fact, it mentions that congress shall make no law, with respect to an establishment of religion. THIS INCLUDES A SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE LAW! We are a secular government. Therefore, it's unconstitional to try and prevent gay marriage based on the sanctity of marriage argument. GET IT???
Bush said in 2004, the following:
"For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 20, 2004
State of the Union Address
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the <b>sanctity of marriage</b>. (Applause.)
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. <b>The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.</b> (Applause.)"
<hr>
This kind of bullshit is out of line and another reason I refuse to vote for fucking paleocons.
-D-
P.S. Marriage itself is actually unconstitutional.
Bush said in 2004, the following:
"For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 20, 2004
State of the Union Address
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the <b>sanctity of marriage</b>. (Applause.)
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. <b>The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.</b> (Applause.)"
<hr>
This kind of bullshit is out of line and another reason I refuse to vote for fucking paleocons.
-D-
P.S. Marriage itself is actually unconstitutional.
Marriage started out as arrainged unions to tie clans together, like peace treaties via the bodning of fmailies and making new families. The Greeks took them as unions for having children...as a promise to parent almost.....Religions started using it as a promise of fidelity and to make fucking OK. The dark ages cemented this by making fornication and adultry a crime that could be punishable by death (yeah people were still fucking though) and as relgion and politics were intertwined at that time, when they started to unwind, the marriage had to be given some legal rights to it.
So really, the original reason to get married was so you would not kill your spouses family and raise a family. Maybe we should get back to that and fuck the rest of this BS
So really, the original reason to get married was so you would not kill your spouses family and raise a family. Maybe we should get back to that and fuck the rest of this BS
The religious aspect of it has no place in our government. PERIOD!
And that's all I got to say about that!
Yet Japan and Canada prove that shit wrong. HAHA!
Posted By: CBUTAH Reply posted on:
Oct 14, 2008 - 9:50 am
Posted By: AKLIM69 Reply posted on:
Oct 13, 2008 - 7:13 pm
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
===============================================================
How is having a pencil going to help take your car wheel off? Dunno. What's your point? It wasn't meant for that sort of thing, was it?
Oct 14, 2008 - 9:50 am
Posted By: AKLIM69 Reply posted on:
Oct 13, 2008 - 7:13 pm
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
===============================================================
How is having a pencil going to help take your car wheel off? Dunno. What's your point? It wasn't meant for that sort of thing, was it?
Posted By: CBUTAH Reply posted on:
Oct 14, 2008 - 9:57 am
Posted By: HELPFIRE Reply posted on:
On the street
Robber pulls a gun on you and you have a concealled weapon....hmmm what happens...You reach for your gun and he shoots you. Or you get lucky and shoot him. Now you are going to court to and pleading self defense. All over $30 you had in your pocket.
Home
Most robberies happen either when no one is home. Professional theives arent looking for trouble. Most probably they know where you hide your gun and will steal that too.
===============================================================
Question: Are you 100% sure he will just take that $30 and not do something else? What about the fact that he might face an armed victim? Will that stop everyone? Absolutely not. OTOH, it might just stop some. Just like speeding. Will I go 100 in a 25 zone if I thought the chances of being caught were 1 in a million? Definitely. 1 in 100? Probably not. 1 in 20? Definitely not. Exaggeration but you get the picture. The perp won't know who is armed and who is not and it will give some pause just like people slow down in a well known speed trap area even there are no cops today. Why? Because they are not sure when and where the cops are there to bust them. If they are sure no cops are around, you can bet they will open up.
What you are talking about are professional thieves that go after big jobs not penny ante. Unfortunately, there are way more penny ante than professional.
Oct 14, 2008 - 9:57 am
Posted By: HELPFIRE Reply posted on:
On the street
Robber pulls a gun on you and you have a concealled weapon....hmmm what happens...You reach for your gun and he shoots you. Or you get lucky and shoot him. Now you are going to court to and pleading self defense. All over $30 you had in your pocket.
Home
Most robberies happen either when no one is home. Professional theives arent looking for trouble. Most probably they know where you hide your gun and will steal that too.
===============================================================
Question: Are you 100% sure he will just take that $30 and not do something else? What about the fact that he might face an armed victim? Will that stop everyone? Absolutely not. OTOH, it might just stop some. Just like speeding. Will I go 100 in a 25 zone if I thought the chances of being caught were 1 in a million? Definitely. 1 in 100? Probably not. 1 in 20? Definitely not. Exaggeration but you get the picture. The perp won't know who is armed and who is not and it will give some pause just like people slow down in a well known speed trap area even there are no cops today. Why? Because they are not sure when and where the cops are there to bust them. If they are sure no cops are around, you can bet they will open up.
What you are talking about are professional thieves that go after big jobs not penny ante. Unfortunately, there are way more penny ante than professional.
One thing hasn't changed. 911 is still only "After the fact". The only difference is the speed of the response.
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
===============================================================
How is having a pencil going to help take your car wheel off? Dunno. What's your point? It wasn't meant for that sort of thing, was it?
==================================================
Huh? The response was about 911. On 9/11/2002 the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attached by planes flying into them. Our soldiers in Iraq have guns, bit ones, and they were getting killed by suicide bombers. Owning a gun (or the right to) will never change that.
CB
========================================
How is having a gun in your house going to stop a plane from Crashing into it, or a suicide bomber from driving into the side of the local mall.
CB
===============================================================
How is having a pencil going to help take your car wheel off? Dunno. What's your point? It wasn't meant for that sort of thing, was it?
==================================================
Huh? The response was about 911. On 9/11/2002 the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attached by planes flying into them. Our soldiers in Iraq have guns, bit ones, and they were getting killed by suicide bombers. Owning a gun (or the right to) will never change that.
CB
The dabate for or against guns is a fantastic one, sooo polarized, and there is no real proof on either side.
My favorite fact about it is this:
The biggest lobbying group for gun control is the AMA...the american medical association.
Why do I find this funny?
Accidental gun deaths in 2005 total were 789
Whereas medical mistakes made up 2,309 deaths........
Food for thought.
My favorite fact about it is this:
The biggest lobbying group for gun control is the AMA...the american medical association.
Why do I find this funny?
Accidental gun deaths in 2005 total were 789
Whereas medical mistakes made up 2,309 deaths........
Food for thought.
cnkiss - I'm not making any gun control statement pro or con. But you have given a perfect example of useless fact-flinging.
The number of gun deaths is a raw number that means very little by itself. Same for the number of medical-mistake deaths. There is no correlation between those two raw numbers. Yet you expect your audience to conclude what? Doctors kill more people than guns do?
I'm assuming you are playing a variation of the old which-shell-is-the-nut-under game? You make two basic statements as if they are tied together. Your audience thinks "well, that's obviously true so this guy must know what he's talking about - his subsequent conclusion must be correct also". The only problem - the conclusion really has nothing to do with the empty shells!
Slick trick - hollow truth.
Posted By: CNKISS Reply posted on:
Oct 15, 2008 - 2:09 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dabate for or against guns is a fantastic one, sooo polarized, and there is no real proof on either side.
My favorite fact about it is this:
The biggest lobbying group for gun control is the AMA...the american medical association.
Why do I find this funny?
Accidental gun deaths in 2005 total were 789
Whereas medical mistakes made up 2,309 deaths........
Food for thought.
The number of gun deaths is a raw number that means very little by itself. Same for the number of medical-mistake deaths. There is no correlation between those two raw numbers. Yet you expect your audience to conclude what? Doctors kill more people than guns do?
I'm assuming you are playing a variation of the old which-shell-is-the-nut-under game? You make two basic statements as if they are tied together. Your audience thinks "well, that's obviously true so this guy must know what he's talking about - his subsequent conclusion must be correct also". The only problem - the conclusion really has nothing to do with the empty shells!
Slick trick - hollow truth.
Posted By: CNKISS Reply posted on:
Oct 15, 2008 - 2:09 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dabate for or against guns is a fantastic one, sooo polarized, and there is no real proof on either side.
My favorite fact about it is this:
The biggest lobbying group for gun control is the AMA...the american medical association.
Why do I find this funny?
Accidental gun deaths in 2005 total were 789
Whereas medical mistakes made up 2,309 deaths........
Food for thought.
If I'm not mistaken CN was saying that the ama is the biggest lobbyist group for gun control. The ama is mostly against guns because of the accidental shooting that happen. Therefore, their statement correlating accidental gun deaths to the deaths that the ama cause is quite correct and makes sense.
"The perp won't know who is armed and who is not and it will give some pause just like people slow down in a well known speed trap area even there are no cops today."
<hr>
People still attack people with guns and people still speed in 25 mph zones. Guns don't help your chances much when they have the element of surprise. Even cops get killed with their own guns.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cop-shot-to-death-with-her-own-gun/20080129164309990003
<hr>
People still attack people with guns and people still speed in 25 mph zones. Guns don't help your chances much when they have the element of surprise. Even cops get killed with their own guns.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cop-shot-to-death-with-her-own-gun/20080129164309990003
They want me to register it, they want to keep a database of each one of them and share that information with law enforcement agencies across the nation. They want me to be licensed to use it and even restrict my ability to use it if I don
SWINGTIDE -
The gun control issue has always been a difficult one for me. I have no empathy with either extreme.
Your comments sound quite sensible and practical to me (which almost always disqualifies them for consideration by the hotheads on either side).
That said, I would guess that the right will take issue with your proposals because they would put a little "control" in Gun CONTROL.
The gun control issue has always been a difficult one for me. I have no empathy with either extreme.
Your comments sound quite sensible and practical to me (which almost always disqualifies them for consideration by the hotheads on either side).
That said, I would guess that the right will take issue with your proposals because they would put a little "control" in Gun CONTROL.
SWINGTIDE,
Great post.
-D-
Great post.
-D-