Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ashotep

Get rid of the Constitution

276 posts in this topic

I showed you the 4 first results of an IxQuick search, now it is your turn to show me 1 result from a forum search... trying to attack is not restoring your believability.

Okay, since you're now going to try to deny what you said, no problem.

If the majority seez goodbye second amendment it is goodbye second amendment. The reason why those things are called amendments is so they could be changed or abolished as time required and as society evolved.

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4595094

Total surrender from then to now, like I said.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your acting silly again Q. Lets get this back on track to a fact based thought out discussion. Instead of playing one upsmanship.

I was not trying to discredit anybody by making up BS about him/her. If you want to play that game you are welcome but be aware that I am most probably the biggest ar$ehole on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4595094

Total surrender from then to now, like I said.

What I said there, as anybody capable of reading can see is:

If the majority seez goodbye second amendment it is goodbye second amendment. The reason why those things are called amendments is so they could be changed or abolished as time required and as society evolved.

and you are making up that I said that I want to get rid of the second amendment. Which is not the same. Now, as I believe in civilization and not violence I would go by the rule of the majority, whether I like it or not. Because the alternative is to deprive the majority of their rights by instating a dictatorship. Which some around here seem to advocate.

And then they accuse others of being anti-american.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said there, as anybody capable of reading can see is:

and you are making up that I said that I want to get rid of the second amendment. Which is not the same. Now, as I believe in civilization and not violence I would go by the rule of the majority, whether I like it or not. Because the alternative is to deprive the majority of their rights by instating a dictatorship. Which some around here seem to advocate.

And then they accuse others of being anti-american.

No, what I said quoted you accurately. It was so wrong, it was over a month ago and I still remembered it almost verbatim.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241924&st=180#entry4643166

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not trying to discredit anybody by making up BS about him/her

Not what Im saying. Im just saying one upsmanship doesnt get us anywhere in this debate. Im sure Im quickly gaining ***hat awards to many around here as well. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what I said quoted you accurately. It was so wrong, it was over a month ago and I still remembered it almost verbatim.

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4643166

So, you deduce that if I abide by the rule of the majority I am against something. Good to know your comprehension capabilities, makes it easier not to react towards your unqualified comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go again talking about "most" Americans. :no:

How much hypocrisy is one people supposed to take? Americans deserve better than they're getting.

Hey Frank, I notice you write perfect English, have a very western name and use American idioms regularly in your speech. I was wondering, are you an American living in Vietnam? If so, what hand were you dealt to wind up there? Also your username is a bit curious. A first and last name, very mundane, yet not a public figure's. I don't think anyone would use their real name as a username on an anonymous message board, so I wondered as well where that came from. If you don't want to answer that's fine, or if you'd rather PM with me that's okay too. I've been curious for several days now.

Thanks for the interest.

I went to college in the United States but had to go home when things got rough in Vietnam. I now have a job that takes me all over North America and Asia, so I stay pretty current. I also consult on English education and have quite a few native English-speaking friends. My level is therefore quite good, although sometimes I wonder. I have been accused of being too formal and using pretentious words -- I assure you that is just what I was taught.

My name is one I used back when I was in college -- my generation often adopted Western names to fit in better, although they don't do that much now. No it is not my real name, but I've had it with me so long I naturally answer when someone says, "Frank." (By the way, Frank couldn't possibly be more un-Vietnamese, since the language has no "F." It is therefore a good way to tell the good speakers from the non-so-good.)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do ppl keep arguing about militia detail in 2nd??

it has been defined by ussc that 2nd protects individual right, regardless of service in militia.

do you guys like arguing about outdated stuff???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you deduce that if I abide by the rule of the majority I am against something. Good to know your comprehension capabilities, makes it easier not to react towards your unqualified comments.

Everything I've accused you of on this thread is either verifiable by your own words on this thread, the words I just linked to above, or words I am more than capable of linking to in the future.

Don't insult "the majority of gun owners" if you want to have credibility here. Don't insult "a majority of Americans" if you want to earn respect here. Don't make up fantasies about what "the majority" is legally capable of in this country when you should know full well how wrong that is. The majority of Americans doesn't have a shred of hope of getting rid of the 2nd. You know that now. It took a month for you to admit it, but finally you've surrendered to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original definition of a well regulated militia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations and to declare war. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. States are restrained from forming sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed. No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated (meaning well trained), disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

I know all of you likie to poo poo these outdated non important documents but then you cant define it yourself so why not look at those that did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do ppl keep arguing about militia detail in 2nd??

it has been defined by ussc that 2nd protects individual right, regardless of service in militia.

do you guys like arguing about outdated stuff???

It was interpreted by the USSC. The 2nd Amendment was already defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing some reading about the Second Amendment and would like to introduce something a little bit different.

As I understand it, all Obama wants to do is regulate guns, not prohibit them.

Now the First Amendment guarantees various things (it's interesting that these basic liberties of the First Amendment don't include guns there, but instead it has to wait for the second). Among the things the First Amendment guarantees is freedom of speech and of the press.

Does that mean that you can publish absolutely anything you want without consequences? What about slandering someone, or calling them a criminal when they are an honest citizen? What about using freedom of speech to deliver a harangue on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night?

Aren't these denials of freedom of speech and the press?

So if they are subject to regulation for public safety, why are guns different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing some reading about the Second Amendment and would like to introduce something a little bit different.

As I understand it, all Obama wants to do is regulate guns, not prohibit them.

Now the First Amendment guarantees various things (it's interesting that these basic liberties of the First Amendment don't include guns there, but instead it has to wait for the second). Among the things the First Amendment guarantees is freedom of speech and of the press.

Does that mean that you can publish absolutely anything you want without consequences? What about slandering someone, or calling them a criminal when they are an honest citizen? What about using freedom of speech to deliver a harangue on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night?

Aren't these denials of freedom of speech and the press?

So if they are subject to regulation for public safety, why are guns different?

Did you ever see any american news while bush was in office frank?I did not to much care for him as a president,but wow talk about slander and being called a criminal!Obama has done much the same bush did yet they gush and praise every step he takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't these denials of freedom of speech and the press?

No, There is specific laws that detail the limits of free speech. An example would be yelling fire in a crowded theatre. As for slander ..you can find yourself on the wrong side of a lawsuit so do so at your own risk.

The 2nd Amendment was written after the 1st because it is intended to be that which protects the first. This can be gleamed from quotes following the writing of the Constitution such as..

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

But then again the Constitution bashers like to say these people are irrelevant today.

This is a question Frank...as I dont know the answer. Is Ho Chi Min considered irrelevent today even though your form of government has shifted some from his original vision ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing some reading about the Second Amendment and would like to introduce something a little bit different.

As I understand it, all Obama wants to do is regulate guns, not prohibit them.

Now the First Amendment guarantees various things (it's interesting that these basic liberties of the First Amendment don't include guns there, but instead it has to wait for the second). Among the things the First Amendment guarantees is freedom of speech and of the press.

Does that mean that you can publish absolutely anything you want without consequences? What about slandering someone, or calling them a criminal when they are an honest citizen? What about using freedom of speech to deliver a harangue on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night?

Aren't these denials of freedom of speech and the press?

So if they are subject to regulation for public safety, why are guns different?

Those "denials" of what we do with words in the 1st are analogous to what we do with guns in the 2nd. Does the 2nd Amendment mean that we can ambush anyone we want with gunfire without consequences? Go stand on a bridge and start opening fire on traffic? No! The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect our right to pull guns out and murder people. It protects our right to bear them. So that might beg the question, what good is bearing arms if they aren't used? Other than the obvious deterrence that being armed confers, we would be using our guns to stop a tyrannical government. How do we define a tyrannical government? A government that no longer abides by the Constitution. We can't respect our rule of law if we're breaking it. Stopping criminals with force if necessary is upholding the highest law in the US. It's citizens' justice, and what our Constitution empowers us with, love it or hate it.

Obama isn't denying certain words. God help us all if he was. It depends entirely on what we do with them. Likewise, guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a question Frank...as I dont know the answer. Is Ho Chi Min considered irrelevent today even though your form of government has shifted some from his original vision ?

Ho Chi Minh was the unifier of the country, and as such he is a national symbol. His picture is on the currency and passports and so on, the largest city in the country carries his name, and he is to much of my generation a figure of considerable emotion.

The fact that Vietnam is no longer (after a disastrous attempt at it) a fully socialist country is seen as just an adjustment to his policies. Plenty of quotes have been found in his writings to justify the change, and for all I know he may have set the changes in motion himself before he died. As you might expect, the present doctrine is known as "HoChiMin-ism."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama isn't denying certain words

Thats debatable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtTXcwbpno4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was interpreted by the USSC. The 2nd Amendment was already defined.

you right, but it doesn't matter much, ussc clearly (for me at least), states that militia detail is no longer relavant. that is why argument that only militia is allowed to bear arms holds no water. imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you right, but it doesn't matter much, ussc clearly (for me at least), states that militia detail is no longer relavant. that is why argument that only militia is allowed to bear arms holds no water. imo

Where, strangely, we agree.

What is also questionable is that, had the founding fathers known that there would be a standing army since day 1 of the revolution to our days, the second amendment would have come into existence at all. The vision always was that America would have no standing army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is also questionable is that, had the founding fathers known that there would be a standing army since day 1 of the revolution to our days, the second amendment would have come into existence at all. The vision always was that America would have no standing army.

No, because they discuss the right for self defense as a right under the 2nd Amendment as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because they discuss the right for self defense as a right under the 2nd Amendment as well.

There might have been the one or other wanting tom include it, but evidently there was no majority majority for that and that never got passed... unless of course somebody forgot to write that down...

To remind you, this is all it says:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

you are kind of slow, aren't you?????

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the right of the people to keep and bear Arm

It says it right there Q. Thats the self defense clause. You need to read your history a little deeper to understand that it was an "understood" concept for the writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i think we can all agree to is this is still a better country than most,that we can still sit here and argue freely over the constitutions meanings is cool.If in russia we would have done been detained for hooliganism hahaha

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says it right there Q. Thats the self defense clause. You need to read your history a little deeper to understand that it was an "understood" concept for the writers.

That is not a self defense clause, that is the right that you may arm yourself, and if in the context of the whole sentence, to be part of the militia. That you can defend yourself is derived from your right to life, not the second amendment. And that takes precedence over the bill of right as it is enshrined in the original constitutional text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.