justinb138 0 #201 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp? Ask Antonin Scalia - even he has no difficulty acknowledging that the 2nd does not provide unlimited rights. It's too bad that none of them seem to have the same thoughts toward the Commerce clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #202 November 17, 2009 QuoteGotta read _before_ replying. I do.. Now you should understand_before_replying. Quote Rush, is that you? Didn't you say to me a bunch about playing the ball, not the player? Do all mods get to play by a different set of rules, or just you?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #203 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuotePolitical Motive! If your argument is that an attack with political motive is what it takes to make an act one of terrorism, you just define most of the recent wars the US and its allies waged as acts of terrorism. For the record, Chimp wrote it; I quoted and rebutted it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #204 November 17, 2009 Quote"And WE were not talking about tanks." "We" is a pronoun that identifies multiple people (in this case, the people posting in the thread.) FAIL!!!!!! Not even a good attempt to back peddle."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #205 November 17, 2009 >FAIL! OK, then you missed it as well. Perhaps in the future you could define what parts of the conversation you want ignored before adding your own comments. Then you would not need to read them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #206 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote Ask Antonin Scalia - even he has no difficulty acknowledging that the 2nd does not provide unlimited rights. More so back to the topic, ask Chief Justice Roberts about the 2nd as it applies to self defense. blah blah blah Which has exactly WHAT to do with your blanket statement, which you CONVENIENTLY snipped in your response to me? "The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp?" Apparently the Supreme Court has a better grasp than you do, since they acknowledge that the 2nd does not provide an unlimited right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #207 November 17, 2009 QuoteBut hey look at the 2nd... It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So if you want to just look at the words, no gun bans or limits are legal. I am asking an honest question here, not trying to start a fight. I am really trying to understand. I agree that “shall not be infringed” is self explanatory, but my understanding is that it is the “right to bear arms” that shall not be infringed. If the government were to ban all weapons except crossbows for instance. You still have the right to bear arms. They have not infringed on that. You may not be able to bear the arms that you would prefer to bear but you still have the right to bear arms. Am I missing something?Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #208 November 17, 2009 QuoteOK, then you missed it as well. Perhaps in the future you could define what parts of the conversation you want ignored before adding your own comments. Then you would not need to read them. Maybe you should understand the topic before you jump in? Also, still waiting on the "play the ball , not the player" question."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #209 November 17, 2009 Quote "The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp?" Apparently the Supreme Court has a better grasp than you do, since they acknowledge that the 2nd does not provide an unlimited right. The limitations were also discussed. Justice Roberts asked, "What is reasonable about a ban?" I think he knows more about Constitutional law than you."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #210 November 17, 2009 Quote I am really trying to understand. I agree that “shall not be infringed” is self explanatory, but my understanding is that it is the “right to bear arms” that shall not be infringed. If the government were to ban all weapons except crossbows for instance. You still have the right to bear arms. They have not infringed on that. You may not be able to bear the arms that you would prefer to bear but you still have the right to bear arms. Am I missing something? To make the claim you are making would be like saying the right to free speech only applies to things printed on a printing press, a book or spoken and does not apply to the internet, radio, TV, or anything printed with a laser printer. You would still have "free speech", right? The intent of both the right to free speech and the right to bear arms was to keep tyranny from taking over. Free Speech to inform people to take action such as elect someone else or hold elected people accountable.... Keep and Bear Arms as a last resort when all else failed. US V Miller 1939 argued four points. The salient point here is the Govt's argument that "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia". The Govt argued that ONLY military style arms are protected by the 2nd. DC V Heller stated that the weapons that are allowed are the ones in "common use at the [current] time". Looking at the Founding Fathers, and looking at the Constitution in a historical perspective, there is no logical support of your idea. The Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry to be able to protect the Constitution and the people from their own Govt. To think that the 2nd should only apply to crossbows, would be like supporting the 1st only for books and newspapers."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #211 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuote "The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp?" Apparently the Supreme Court has a better grasp than you do, since they acknowledge that the 2nd does not provide an unlimited right. The limitations were also discussed. Justice Roberts asked, "What is reasonable about a ban?" I think he knows more about Constitutional law than you. Who is talking about a ban? The SC wrote that reasonable restrictions are legal. To quote Heller: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ..... "The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, OR LAWS FORBIDDING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN SENSITIVE PLACES SUCH AS SCHOOLS AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS..."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #212 November 17, 2009 Quote And it's no more displeasing for me to see that soldiers on a base are sitting ducks than it is for all 40M of us living in California, where CCWs are non existing in general, nevermind in gun free zones. Thank you -- that's precisely the point of my first post in this thread -- and you stated it far more tactfully than I did. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #213 November 18, 2009 QuoteWho is talking about a ban? What would you call not allowing an object at a place? Further, it is a shame you don't trust soldiers enough to be armed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #214 November 18, 2009 QuoteThe Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry to be able to protect the Constitution and the people from their own Govt. So not for self defence, or also for self defence? Cause when I said that above, you told me this wasn't true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #215 November 18, 2009 QuoteSo not for self defence, or also for self defence? Cause when I said that above, you told me this wasn't true. And I already answered it. Self Defense was considered a non issue, a right that already existed and was so simple as to not need explanation, when you look at the writings of the FF's, this is easily supported. Additionally, the right to use a firearm for hunting was also assumed. Yet this use is not questioned???? The US Constitution was written trying to identify the powers and limitations of the GOVT. The right to keep and bear arms simply stated that the Govt would not have the right to outlaw weapons... And the perfunctory clause explained why it was an important in relation to the Govt. In essence, to keep it honest. Answered twice now."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #216 November 18, 2009 QuoteSelf Defense was considered a non issue, a right that already existed and was so simple as to not need explanation, when you look at the writings of the FF's, this is easily supported. Except it is not a right specifically granted in the constitution for that purpose. The right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution for a different purpose. Hence, the claim that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms to defend yourself from crime is not correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #217 November 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteWho is talking about a ban? What would you call not allowing an object at a place? Same as the Supreme Court. A reasonable restriction. Quote Further, it is a shame you don't trust soldiers enough to be armed. It's the US Army that made that call. I had nothing to do with it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #218 November 18, 2009 QuoteSame as the Supreme Court. A reasonable restriction. No matter what you call it... It does not change the fact it is a ban.... A Rose by any other name...... QuoteIt's the US Army that made that call. I had nothing to do with it. But you support it, and that speaks to how little you trust the troops."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #219 November 18, 2009 QuoteExcept it is not a right specifically granted in the constitution for that purpose. The right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution for a different purpose. AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED... .That is because the Constitution was about limiting or granting FEDERAL powers. The right to self defense was not related to the Govt. You don't see the right to keep and bear arms to hunt in there do you? QuoteHence, the claim that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms to defend yourself from crime is not correct. You don't see the right to have sex in there do you? So since the right to have sex is not SPECIFICALLY listed... then you must agree that we don't have that right then? The right to self defense is a given, the right to hunt is a given.... Read the FF's words and prove otherwise. Edit to add: And the SC has agreed people have the right to self defense... Read Heller."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #220 November 18, 2009 QuoteYou don't see the right to have sex in there do you? So since the right to have sex is not SPECIFICALLY listed... then you must agree that we don't have that right then? Once again you misread what I wrote, but that is par for the course for you. The claim that the constitution grants you the right to have sex would indeed be false. Just as the claim that the constitution grants you the right to bear arms for self defense is false. QuoteAS I HAVE ALREADY STATED... .That is because the Constitution was about limiting or granting FEDERAL powers. The right to self defense was not related to the Govt. QuoteYou don't see the right to keep and bear arms to hunt in there do you? I don't, which means that the right to bear arms to hunt is also not a right protected under the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #221 November 18, 2009 Quote Once again you misread what I wrote, but that is par for the course for you. Once again you claim that when you can't bring a logical discourse.... Par the course for you. QuoteThe claim that the constitution grants you the right to have sex would indeed be false. Then you would support the Govt banning sex?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #222 November 18, 2009 QuoteOnce again you claim that when you can't bring a logical discourse.... Par the course for you How about you stick to the topic above. is the right to bear arms for self defense a right protected under the constitution? QuoteThen you would support the Govt banning sex? Is that your version of logical discourse? I'm also not in favour of the American government to ban weapons of any kind. Personally I think Americans should have access to any and all weapon they can purchase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #223 November 18, 2009 Quote is the right to bear arms for self defense a right protected under the constitution? The right to bear arms is a protected right under the constitution. What you do with the arms(hunting, self defense) is up to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #224 November 18, 2009 QuoteThe right to bear arms is a protected right under the constitution. What you do with the arms(hunting, self defense) is up to you. Not according to the wording of the second amendmend. The Foundinf father's were pretty clear that the right to bear arms was to keep the government in check. If they meant in general, they would have said: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Look at the first amendmend, they kept that one pretty to the point. (For those with serious reading comprehension, this does not mean I am in favour of the american government banning arms. What I do mena is that the right to bear arms in the constitution was granted for a specific purpose. Hence, arguing that the right to bear arms for another purpose is a protected right under the constitution is IMHO not valid.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #225 November 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe right to bear arms is a protected right under the constitution. What you do with the arms(hunting, self defense) is up to you. Not according to the wording of the second amendmend. The Foundinf father's were pretty clear that the right to bear arms was to keep the government in check. If they meant in general, they would have said: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see that in the wording. I guess that how we interpret it differently. All I see is: "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." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
