Ron 10 #226 November 18, 2009 Quote How about you stick to the topic above. Funny coming from you after that was a REPLY to you when you said: "Once again you misread what I wrote, but that is par for the course for you." Maybe YOU should stick to the topic and not try to bitch at me for doing the thing YOU just did???? Irony score 11 out of 10 Quote Is that your version of logical discourse? Yes, care to answer it, or do you realize already that it would prove your point invalid? That some things that are protected are not SPECIFICALLY written in the US Constitution. Just as who you have sex with is not a GOVT issue and not in the Constitution, neither is the right to self defense, nor does it need to be. But the Constitution DOES have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not list ALL of the reasons such as sport, hunting, self defense... It only lists the ones that are in relation to the GOVT."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 #227 November 18, 2009 QuoteYes, care to answer it If you read carefully you would have noticed I already answered it. QuoteBut the Constitution DOES have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not list ALL of the reasons such as sport, hunting, self defense... It only lists the ones that are in relation to the GOVT The first amendmend does not contain qualifiers, why would the second amendmend? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #228 November 18, 2009 QuoteIf you read carefully you would have noticed I already answered it. Then maybe your communication skills need work if it is not clearly apparent. QuoteThe first amendmend does not contain qualifiers, why would the second amendmend? Actually it does. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" So according to your logic a private company is free to fire any Muslim they want... After all it says CONGRESS, not everyone. So it does IN FACT have qualifiers. Most logical people read it as a specific limit on the Govt, but that does not automatically exclude any rights not listed."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 #229 November 18, 2009 QuoteSo according to your logic a private company is free to fire any Muslim they want... After all it says CONGRESS, not everyone. No, according to my logic a Muslim cannot claim to have a constitutionally protected right to work for a private company based on your example and the partial quote from the first amendmend. QuoteThen maybe your communication skills need work if it is not clearly apparent. That is one option, the other option entails you brushing up on reading comprehension. Another option alltogether would entail asking for clarification when unsure. There generally are more than one or two options..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #230 November 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteSame 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. I neither support nor oppose it. I support the Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constitution, which you don't. Shows how little you trust the Justices of the SC.... 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
downwardspiral 0 #231 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. 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.) Many of our founding fathers were opposed to the Bill of Rights for this very reason. There was fear, and rightly so, that any rights not listed in the BoR would be not considered rights by the US government simply because it isn't listed in the BoR. Unfortunately they were right and the BoR has served to not only enumerate but to limit the rights of the American citizen. I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? Alexander Hamilton May 28th, 1788www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #232 November 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteSelf 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. You are incorrect. The BOR does not grant rights. It is an injunction AGAINST the government.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #233 November 18, 2009 Quote(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.) Maybe you should GAIN some comprehension before you start talking about it in others. Click here. Again - the bill of rights does not GRANT anything. It is a limitation upon government.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #234 November 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo according to your logic a private company is free to fire any Muslim they want... After all it says CONGRESS, not everyone. No, according to my logic a Muslim cannot claim to have a constitutionally protected right to work for a private company based on your example and the partial quote from the first amendmend. Correct. A Muslim (for example) does have a legal right to not be discriminated against in employment by a private company - but that right is guaranteed by the federal and state anti-discrimination laws (and maybe certain individual states' constitutions; I haven't looked it up), not the US Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #235 November 19, 2009 Quote I neither support nor oppose it. Your posts and posting history shows otherwise. QuoteI support the Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constitution, which you don't. So, you supported the SC and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case then."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 #236 November 19, 2009 QuoteThat is one option, the other option entails you brushing up on reading comprehension. Another option alltogether [SIC] would entail asking for clarification when unsure. It is crystal clear you would rather think you are perfect and argue than debate anything.... Your lame attempts to discredit people that don't' agree with you prove that."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 #237 November 19, 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. Hence, the claim that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms to defend yourself from crime is not correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are incorrect. The BOR does not grant rights. It is an injunction AGAINST the government. Since we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. If the Constitution does not grant right, than the bolded statement above is right by definition. mnealtx, thanks for proving my point. Sometimes one gets help from the strangest places. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #238 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuote I neither support nor oppose it. Your posts and posting history shows otherwise. . I don't believe I have posted anything ever about supporting gun bans on Army bases.... 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
Andy9o8 2 #239 November 19, 2009 QuoteSo, you supported the SC and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case then. You've got one of those "So you must support eating live kittens in front of children, don't you?" styles. Kind of icky, to be honest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #240 November 19, 2009 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #241 November 19, 2009 QuoteYou've got one of those "So you must support eating live kittens in front of children, don't you?" styles. Kind of icky, to be honest. He made a statement that he supported the SC, and I didn't. I think it is a fair question. You are free to ignore it"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 #242 November 19, 2009 QuoteI don't believe I have posted anything ever about supporting gun bans on Army bases. Really?!?!??!?! First you said (Capitals done by YOU): Quote"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..." Then you said: QuoteI support the Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constitution, which you don't. Right there you said you support the ban. It is not rocket science."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 #243 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteI don't believe I have posted anything ever about supporting gun bans on Army bases. Really?!?!??!?! First you said (Capitals done by YOU): Quote"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..." Then you said: QuoteI support the Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constitution, which you don't. Right there you said you support the ban. It is not rocket science. You have a really bad reading comprehension problem, Ron. I observed that the Supreme Court finds such restrictions acceptable. That, then, is the currently correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of your personal opinion which carries no weight whatsoever.... 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 #244 November 19, 2009 QuoteYou have a really bad reading comprehension problem, Ron. You have a really bad foot in mouth problem. A: You quoted the SC and CAPITALIZED a specific part pertaining to this topic. B: You said you agree with the SC. A+B= C It does not take a genius. Also, your posting history supports this position. "What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson"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
downwardspiral 0 #245 November 19, 2009 Having debated in years past with kallend over gun control I can safely say he does not believe in gun bans, however, he does agree with the SC's interpretation of the 2nd which is to say the 2nd is not unlimited. In fact I'm not sure there is one American on this board that would agree with a total gun ban. Mainly what we have are members who simply want laws in place regardless of their effectiveness. The gun ban thing tends to be completely a European/Down Under perspective... on this board at least.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #246 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou have a really bad reading comprehension problem, Ron. You have a really bad foot in mouth problem. A: You quoted the SC and CAPITALIZED a specific part pertaining to this topic. B: You said you agree with the SC. A+B= C It does not take a genius. Also, your posting history supports this position. "What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson Acknowledging that the SC has ultimate jurisdiction over the meaning of the Constitution and BoR is not the same as agreeing with all their decisions.... 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
mnealtx 0 #248 November 19, 2009 QuoteSince we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. So, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I don't think so. As I said above (and provided in a link, if you bothered to read it), the BOR is a RESTRICTION against government. The fact that a militia is mentioned does not matter. The fact that self-defense is NOT mentioned does not matter. The government is NOT supposed to infringe upon the right to bear arms. It *does*, but it's not supposed to.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #249 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteSince we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. So, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I don't think so. As I said above (and provided in a link, if you bothered to read it), the BOR is a RESTRICTION against government. The fact that a militia is mentioned does not matter. The fact that self-defense is NOT mentioned does not matter. The government is NOT supposed to infringe upon the right to bear arms. It *does*, but it's not supposed to. According to the SC, many reasonable and long standing restrictions do not infringe on that 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
mnealtx 0 #250 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSince we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. So, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I don't think so. As I said above (and provided in a link, if you bothered to read it), the BOR is a RESTRICTION against government. The fact that a militia is mentioned does not matter. The fact that self-defense is NOT mentioned does not matter. The government is NOT supposed to infringe upon the right to bear arms. It *does*, but it's not supposed to. According to the SC, many reasonable and long standing restrictions do not infringe on that right. Re-read the last line of my post. Do some research and you'll find that many of the original gun-control laws were racist in origin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
