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
questionmark

Reid supports expanding background checks

86 posts in this topic

Besides, the text matches thier quotes. "Shall not be infringed" is exactly what they were trying to say in thier quotes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what your saying what they said is not important today ? cause Ill just throw that back at you and say much of what was said yesterday is irrelevant today or is there hard date for things maintaining relevant that anything said before is irrelevant. Perhaps 1933 would be a good year to say anything before was irrelevant.

As to the signing of the Constitution I personally am aware of the controversies over the wordings and where the pulled some of the text used from. There are even people that refused to sign it as they saw it as too invasive to their freedoms.

Maybe Im not understanding what your saying but I do find the quotes relevant as to the mindset of our forefathers and to get a glimpse as how to interpret some of the language that was decided upon by the majority of the writers of the Constitution.

I am not saying that it is irrelevant,but as it is not the text of the law it can be discarded when interpreting the law. For that only its text is valid, not any intention a part of the members of Congress had at the time. It was 66 Congresspeople, of whom 44 had to pass the bill. And there were 26 senators, from which 17 had to pass the bill. And then there were 13 States out of which 9 had to pass the bill. So it could even be that the above is the minority opinion (as we don't seem to know everybody's opinion).

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it could even be that the above is the minority opinion (as we don't seem to know everybody's opinion).

A decent argument but as I have not seen any other opinions and the text of specifically the 2nd Amendment became more restrictive on the insistence on New York (and perhaps others I dont know).

But Ill maintain the quotes are indicative of the beliefs the individuals (some of which had nothing to do with the Constitution) maintained at the time. But in a legal context they are indeed irrelevant unless your trying to understand the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the commas that cause so many confusion. Then the quotes do become a good source of commentary on the subject IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A decent argument but as I have not seen any other opinions and the text of specifically the 2nd Amendment became more restrictive on the insistence on New York (and perhaps others I dont know).

But Ill maintain the quotes are indicative of the beliefs the individuals (some of which had nothing to do with the Constitution) maintained at the time. But in a legal context they are indeed irrelevant unless your trying to understand the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the commas that cause so many confusion. Then the quotes do become a good source of commentary on the subject IMO.

Be it how it may, what we have is the text, and the text is law. And on top of all else we have to consider that the right of life comes above any of the items as it was put in the original constitutional text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there are people like Reid, Obama, and Piers Morgan; there will be people in powerful position to challenge our constitution.

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 keepand bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    .. maybe i'm dense... but what part of People , and Keep, is being misunderstood? It doesn't say " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there are people like Reid, Obama, and Piers Morgan; there will be people in powerful position to challenge our constitution.

As long as there is a congress and the american people there will be those in powerful position to do what ever we want with the constitution.

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 keepand bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    .. maybe i'm dense... but what part of People , and Keep, is being misunderstood? It doesn't say " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And as with all laws, they are valid unless they infringe on a superior law, which in the case of the second amendment is the right to life put in the constitution. Laws follow a priority scheme, the top law is the constitution, after that come the amendments and after that the normal laws, all have to conform to the law on top of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as there is a congress and the american people there will be those in powerful position to do what ever we want with the constitution.

If only it were that simple. If you want to talk about the Constitution and changing it you need to figure in how it will impact future generations. Or leave it alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as with all laws, they are valid unless they infringe on a superior law, which in the case of the second amendment is the right to life put in the constitution. Laws follow a priority scheme, the top law is the constitution, after that come the amendments and after that the normal laws, all have to conform to the law on top of them.

You 2 are talking apples and oranges. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with ones right to life. But I agree thats a founding principle of this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You 2 are talking apples and oranges. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with ones right to life. But I agree thats a founding principle of this country.

No, we are not. The right to life takes precedence over the right to bear arms, which is why the government can limit the right to all who pose a risk (i.e. felons and brain damaged).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which is why the government can limit the right to all who pose a risk (i.e. felons and brain damaged).

Only on an individual basis which they gave up for the opportunity to blanket exclude groups. Which is not what was intended. The only reason I think they got away with it is because they listed those convicted of banking fraud are not considered bound by the felon cannot own a firearm rule. Thus by making an exception to there blanket rule they prevented from violating peoples rights. Im not saying felons and mentally ill should have guns what I am saying is that right should be taken away on an individual basis based on the situation. Same with mentally ill as we are just opening this door what sort of draconian laws are going to come out about mentally ill and firearm rights. Will anyone ever prescribed Paxil be included or only those that have been committed. Its a slippery slope we are walking down and the original way of removing this right on an individual basis is the only one that ensures people do not have there 2nd Amendment Rights violated.

And yes Im well aware this is pointless position to take but it is the correct one IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we are not. The right to life takes precedence over the right to bear arms, which is why the government can limit the right to all who pose a risk (i.e. felons and brain damaged).

I forefathers gave up their lives to protect this constitution, even secure rights for everyone, even the right to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrants. A few guns deaths vs. tyrant government who will kill scores of Americans to keep in power? Which one do you choose?

Drones able to attack Americans?

Pretty transparent? Not really, no define rules. They can kill any American who decides to revolt against the government, by labeling them as a terrorist if they want, if they threaten the standing government.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only on an individual basis which they gave up for the opportunity to blanket exclude groups. Which is not what was intended. The only reason I think they got away with it is because they listed those convicted of banking fraud are not considered bound by the felon cannot own a firearm rule. Thus by making an exception to there blanket rule they prevented from violating peoples rights. Im not saying felons and mentally ill should have guns what I am saying is that right should be taken away on an individual basis based on the situation. Same with mentally ill as we are just opening this door what sort of draconian laws are going to come out about mentally ill and firearm rights. Will anyone ever prescribed Paxil be included or only those that have been committed. Its a slippery slope we are walking down and the original way of removing this right on an individual basis is the only one that ensures people do not have there 2nd Amendment Rights violated.

And yes Im well aware this is pointless position to take but it is the correct one IMO.

Nobody says anything about blanket because the right to self defense, and the possession of weapons therefore, has always been upheld by the court. And that based on the same principle that the right to life takes precedence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forefathers gave up their lives to protect this constitution, even secure rights for everyone, even the right to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrants. A few guns deaths vs. tyrant government who will kill scores of Americans to keep in power? Which one do you choose?

I choose the rule of law because in any country with a democratic government the laws can be changed by the people if they so choose (by petition and by voting), if they don't choose to do so that is the tough luck of those who want something else and certainly not a cause to come shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I choose the rule of law because in any country with a democratic government the laws can be changed by the people if they so choose (by petition and by voting), if they don't choose to do so that is the tough luck of those who want something else and certainly not a cause to come shooting.

That is just it, it is not the people of America is choosing this, it is the government that is. We have NO say what laws or things they do after they are elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just it, it is not the people of America is choosing this, it is the government that is. We have NO say what laws or things they do after they are elected.

Start a petition and if enough people care about it it will pass. Your problem is, when it comes to arms, the majority could not care less as long as they get to keep their six shooter (no matter what the laws to keep it are).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start a petition and if enough people care about it it will pass. Your problem is, when it comes to arms, the majority could not care less as long as they get to keep their six shooter (no matter what the laws to keep it are).

How dense can you be? A government that is willing to kill it's own citizens, a government who is incompetent with spending, who know our nation is on a verge of civil war or revolution is willing to listen to a petition by the American citizens regarding the policies they deploy? Obama already has shown he won't listen to American citizens, the congress is irrelevant in his eyes. His own words he stated he can get away with anything. Seriously...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dense can you be? A government that is willing to kill it's own citizens, a government who is incompetent with spending, who know our nation is on a verge of civil war or revolution is willing to listen to a petition by the American citizens regarding the policies they deploy? Obama already has shown he won't listen to American citizens, the congress is irrelevant in his eyes. His own words he stated he can get away with anything. Seriously...

Make a paranoia check, it might help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a paranoia check, it might help you.

Google all of it, it is true. True to the fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama already has shown he won't listen to American citizens, the congress is irrelevant in his eyes

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This

And if he does anything illegal anybody can sue against it, if nobody does nobody cares. Then the checks and balances cease to work because of nobody caring. Still no reason to come shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason to live under a Tyrannical Government. It is only when that line is crossed that we are to come shooting. Having the opportunity to sue the president >? Or a Law ? are you really smoking that much ? lets be real. We depend on responsible government to not get us into these situations to begin with. Not to begin a multi year multi million dollar journey to repel an constitutional abuse. Thats called lining the pockets of lawyers the same group of people that enacted that wacked out laws to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason to live under a Tyrannical Government. It is only when that line is crossed that we are to come shooting. Having the opportunity to sue the president >? Or a Law ? are you really smoking that much ? lets be real. We depend on responsible government to not get us into these situations to begin with. Not to begin a multi year multi million dollar journey to repel an constitutional abuse. Thats called lining the pockets of lawyers the same group of people that enacted that wacked out laws to begin with.

If it bothers you, you have the right to use the law to stop them. And as long as you have the law you have no right to use violence, regardless of how important you think you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess thats where we disagree. In many places across the Globe.

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.