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
RavenHawk

A History Lesson on the Second Amendment

84 posts in this topic

With the Las Vegas thread going, it should be more about all the other aspects other than the 2nd Amendment.  So I skimmed old threads to bring up (renew) but wasn’t really happy with any of them.  But I’m really not creating a new thread, just continuing the thought in a fresh one.  But today, I caught a part of Rush’s program and I was very impressed with it a segment.  It is very good.  I wanted to listen to the full segment so I searched for it and it has its own page.  You can take a gander at it here: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/10/06/a-history-lesson-on-the-second-amendment/ .  This is perhaps the best counter to the Left I have seen.  One of the main concepts is that even though the first 10 Amendments (which is the Bill of Rights) really aren’t Amendments.  They weren’t changes or fixes to something like the other 17 Amendments are.  They are enumerated accepted natural rights.  We have to remember that the Constitution is not a charter of what government can do but what it can’t.  That is what it has always been.  James Madison had said “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty.”  The Constitution doesn’t work if the government grants powers to the people.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

With the Las Vegas thread going, it should be more about all the other aspects other than the 2nd Amendment.  So I skimmed old threads to bring up (renew) but wasn’t really happy with any of them.  But I’m really not creating a new thread, just continuing the thought in a fresh one.  But today, I caught a part of Rush’s program and I was very impressed with it a segment.  It is very good.  I wanted to listen to the full segment so I searched for it and it has its own page.  You can take a gander at it here: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/10/06/a-history-lesson-on-the-second-amendment/ .  This is perhaps the best counter to the Left I have seen.  One of the main concepts is that even though the first 10 Amendments (which is the Bill of Rights) really aren’t Amendments.  They weren’t changes or fixes to something like the other 17 Amendments are.  They are enumerated accepted natural rights.  We have to remember that the Constitution is not a charter of what government can do but what it can’t.  That is what it has always been.  James Madison had said “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty.”  The Constitution doesn’t work if the government grants powers to the people.

 

The constitution was always designed to limit the government and protect the citizens rights. For decades the democratic party has been trying to chip away at these rights, lately they been succeeding in many avenues with the introduction of Obama as the president of United States. Now that we have Trump as president, he is rescinding many of those erosions on the constitution which many left feel is a threat to their stranglehold that established. Instead of rejoicing at the return of our rights, the left instead call those who try to protect it traitors or use tragedies to paint them as cruel people. They use emotions to tear down the constitution while those who oppose this use logic and reasoning. I also have a sneaky suspicion, might not be true, but they want open borders and voting rights to non-citizens so they can easily tear them down. Non-citizens don't have a firm understanding why the constitution is important and they would easily vote it away if they are offered something in exchange.

The government shouldn't be able rescind amendments, only the citizens should, yet we see a large increase of non-citizen voters in these so call sanctuary cities or states with large population centers that far outnumber the rest of the nation. This whole year they campaign to have the electoral college that protect other citizens from the tyranny of the majority. Look at california as a prime example, it has became so oppressive that conservative and independent voters are leaving in droves, leaving on the liberals who are in charge anyway. The major population centers are becoming oppressive while states with less populations push back in attempt to preserve their rights. We are also seeing a large push by the liberal left with the hollywood elites, democratic mayors, and liberal activists attacking the opposition while collectively dehumanizing and demonizing large swaths of United States citizens. It is so much easier on the mind for you to remove the rights of those you feel are evil and not humans, that is a very well worn strategy used by military forces so our soldiers will shoot without hesitation. If we do not fight the lies with truth, we will be considered secondary citizens in our own nation with our rights stripped away while government is controlled by one party, that party would most definitely be the Democratic party.

Edited by Uncle Sam
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, extremism on both sides of the spectrum is dangerous; both liberal and conservative.  I lie in the middle for the most part, but I feel that liberal extremism is becoming a hidden dangerous force.  I think extremism on the conservative side is obvious and most people see how stupid it is.  On the liberal side it blends more in with most of the media and such .

Edited by Spirit Ninja
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spirit Ninja said:

Yes, extremism on both sides of the spectrum is dangerous; both liberal and conservative.  I lie in the middle for the most part, but I feel that liberal extremism is becoming a hidden dangerous force.  I think extremism on the conservative side is obvious and most people see how stupid it is.  On the liberal side it blends more in with most of the media and such .

Extremism on the right side is in the open and is slowly dying, while extremism in the left is hidden behind emotions and fake good intentions. They claim they are for you, but they are clearly there for themselves and want to control every aspect of your lives. Their ideology is mostly rooted around communism which is thief of private property. Everything is government controlled, even your life is controlled by the government. You are nothing but tools to that government and if you are defect, you will be put down and replaced by someone who will fall in line. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

Extremism on the right side is in the open and is slowly dying

Incredibly disingenuous statement. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Incredibly disingenuous statement. 

How so?  The extreme Right does stay out in the open.  And as long as they do, they are just like any other American expressing their opinion.  As far as them dying out, I think their numbers ebb and flow.  They are a minor part of us as is the extreme Left and as long as they stay in the open, will just be a minority opinion.  What the extreme Right does is bait the other side to take them on.  Charlottesville was a good example.  Charlottesville drew out the extreme Left.  And you see the MSM trying to sweep that fact under the rug.  In the other thread, I stated in reference to antifa, “Every five minutes there seems to be a new group/new name, same ideology.  It's kind of like frequency-hopping on the internet so that nobody but the right people get the message.”  For the general populace, this frequency-hopping keeps them hidden.  They can always deny – we’re not that group, we’re the real anti-fascists.  Kind a like al-Qaeda saying they are not ISIS.

 

The other prong is BLM.  If you bring up that all lives matter or Blue lives matter then you are labeled a racist and insensitive to the Black and not understanding what they are saying.  Believe me, we know what they are saying.  They are playing the victim card and creating a straw man villain with White Supremacy.  The fact of the matter is that throughout all of history, every race has experienced slavery.  This is just a tool to cause division between the races to attack the Constitution.  And it was enabled by Obama.  These people go under the false premise that everything in this country was established by the White and for the White.  And if you are not White, then you are sub-human and do not belong.  That is demonstratively false.  Our Founding Fathers were so politically more advanced than the times in which they lived that it is just too easy to point out the inconsistencies in their lives.  That becomes the perfect foil for those that wish to repeal and nullify the Constitution.

 

They came for the Confederate statues and people stood up against that.  Then they came for the statues of Columbus.  People stood up against that.  But that doesn’t seem to really help.  What’s next?  Darwin was a racist so do we tear down his statues?  Remove the Theory of Evolution from the schools?  Ford was a racist so do we remove all Ford vehicles?  Eventually, we can remove the one impediment to equality and true democracy – the Constitution, because only old White racists came up with that.  It’s not really the removing of statues, but the divisiveness that it causes.  And this instability brings out the crazies to use guns in the commission of mass murders and terrorism in order to elicit opinion to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  This is what they are doing to create anarchy and sacrifice perhaps thousands of lives for political ends.  What’s more dangerous, Antifa that hide in anonymity or the Progressives in Congress that have legislative power over us?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

 

Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Cruikshank 1875

Edited by Alaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Alaric said:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

 

Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Cruikshank 1875

I've always gotten a kick out of this.  Basically bearing arms is an inherent right and the second amendment merely vocalizes and protects that inherent right.  A right that all people have.   

But then we freak out and sanction places like Iran and North Korea because they are developing arms we don't like.  (Nukes, long range missiles, etc.)  Even though having arms is an inherent right to all people.......  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I've always gotten a kick out of this.  Basically bearing arms is an inherent right and the second amendment merely vocalizes and protects that inherent right.  A right that all people have.   

But then we freak out and sanction places like Iran and North Korea because they are developing arms we don't like.  (Nukes, long range missiles, etc.)  Even though having arms is an inherent right to all people.......  

And you don’t see the difference?  The majority of individuals that want to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right are usually stable people.  Those like Paddock are the exception.  Iran and NK are unstable.  If they were individuals wanting a gun, they wouldn’t be able to pass the background check.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And you don’t see the difference?  The majority of individuals that want to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right are usually stable people.  Those like Paddock are the exception.  Iran and NK are unstable.  If they were individuals wanting a gun, they wouldn’t be able to pass the background check.

Well, Paddock didn't fail the background checks did he?  I am not an opponent of owning firearms, I am just not sure if background checks can spot unstable people.

Personally, I do not know individuals who buy guns to assert their second amendment rights.   I know people who buy guns to hunt or protect their homes or persons.  There are also gun collectors.  And just like there are fast car enthusiasts, there are those who just like to go to the range and light up the target.Lets say all of those people are stable individuals in the mainstream of our society, good citizens. 

There are also a lot of home grown crazy, unbalanced sociopaths in our society.  Was Paddock one in a million?  If so, there are 300 just like him out there on American streets.  It is really time for an adult discussion about that, not just a cop out that there is nothing that can be done. You best believe that Paddock will not be the last.  Sadly, other sociopaths  will be inspired by him, they will try to do it more effectively or increase the fatalities.  I would almost guarantee that there are some people sitting around somewhere today saying, "You know if Paddock had only thought to use a ..., then he could have..."   Most will only talk about it.  But a few will do more.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

And you don’t see the difference?  The majority of individuals that want to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right are usually stable people.  Those like Paddock are the exception.  Iran and NK are unstable.  If they were individuals wanting a gun, they wouldn’t be able to pass the background check.

 

Oh, I see the difference.  The second amendment applies to everyone except people we don't like.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what if every time ISIS successfully recruited a terrorist online... I came to you and said, “It’s time to have a reasonable and common sense discussion about this First Amendment thing”...”our Founding Fathers could never have possibly conceived of a communications tool as powerful as the internet, it allows any nefarious loon access to millions of people at once”...”we need to limit your free speech, not because of something you did, but because of something somebody else did”...”yes, I realize taking away your rights will not stop ISIS from recruiting now or in the future”...”but doing something is better than doing nothing, and it makes me feel better”... would that be “reasonable” or “common sense”?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have never been a gun person.  My parents weren't gun people.  But I believe that the second amendment should stand.  I took the time to read John Adams by David McCullough and it gave me insight into why things are, the way things are....

The bottom line to me is that there are so many guns already within the American population, you will never confiscate them all.  This idea that people don't need them anymore is premature and untrue.  99% of gun owners  are responsible people, who'd never in a million years think of shooting up innocent people.  Had the Vegas shooter not had guns, he would of used bombs (which he tried.....and failed, thank god) or some other 'thing' to kill and injure as many people as possible.

The second amendment was written with the idea in mind that the people would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.  People that want to choke out that right have no idea what they are really saying...you are basically trusting that you'll never need one to protect yourself or your family.

There's a saying where I come from..."Better to have it and not need it, than to need it, and not have it."

Just my 2 cents.

 

lol.jpg

Edited by MamaMia1981

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, I see the difference.  The second amendment applies to everyone except people we don't like.  

No, you don’t.  And let me show you why.  There are several reasons.  For one, The Constitution and hence the 2nd Amendment only applies to US citizens and wards.  Now the 2nd is only an administrative protection for citizens.  It restricts what government can do in the lives of the people.  Many on the Left will call this negative liberty (to indicate an undesirable position), but that is good for the people.  Anything that restricts the government from infringing on the people is very desirable.  I think what you want to imply is that all people have this Natural Right (to bear arms) but it is up to the non-citizen to protect their Rights without aid from our Constitution.  One way that all people can use to protect their Rights is with Responsibilities.  Rights are paired with their Responsibilities.  We don’t usually talk about the Responsibilities because they are assumed to be rolled into our Rights.  For example, our Rights end where another’s begin.  Not over stepping these boundaries protects our Rights.  Another Responsibility would be to not abuse our Rights like yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.  Likewise, using our Rights to indiscriminately shoot into a crowd is irresponsible and threatens all our Rights.  As long as we all abide by these common-sense rules, our Rights are better protected.  In fact, holding a good balance between positive and negative liberties helps to protect our Rights.  There is debate as to if nations hold the same Rights.  If we go with the argument that they do, then Iran and NK are not being Responsible with their Rights.  And we don’t like nations that aren’t being Responsible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Well, Paddock didn't fail the background checks did he?  I am not an opponent of owning firearms, I am just not sure if background checks can spot unstable people.

And I agree.  One must already have a history.  The only way to do this is to expand the list.  They were going to use Obamacare as the way to do it.  Every aliment had its very own unique code and if you were seeing your doctor about migraines and you discussed wanting to just punch a coworker for aggravating that migraine, the doctor was forced to enter that code into your record.  Then computers would cull new lists of people having “violent tendencies”.  Before long, most people would end up on this list because people get frustrated and they see their doctor as a confidant.  And when society takes away more of your Responsibilities, the more frustrated one becomes.  This is a very insidious means to deprive us of our unalienable Rights.  The Left is telling us that it is not the shooter’s fault.  That it is the fault of the gun.  This takes the individual’s Responsibility out of the picture.  They are no longer held accountable.  We need to return Responsibility back to the individual.  No, this won’t prevent such events from happening but it will reduce them significantly.  If you make the individual Responsible and hold them accountable, they will think twice.  They will think twice because they are once more included in the process of controlling their own life.  Government is not mother and father.

 

Personally, I do not know individuals who buy guns to assert their second amendment rights.   I know people who buy guns to hunt or protect their homes or persons.  There are also gun collectors.  And just like there are fast car enthusiasts, there are those who just like to go to the range and light up the target.Lets say all of those people are stable individuals in the mainstream of our society, good citizens. 

Most everyone that owns even just one gun is asserting their 2nd Amendment Rights.  Let’s be clear, the main intent of the 2nd is to defend the individual from intruders and tyrants, especially our own government.  Hunting, sporting, and collecting are all ancillary.  And every gun owner is just as sane and stable as anybody else.

 

There are also a lot of home grown crazy, unbalanced sociopaths in our society.  Was Paddock one in a million?  If so, there are 300 just like him out there on American streets.  It is really time for an adult discussion about that, not just a cop out that there is nothing that can be done. You best believe that Paddock will not be the last.  Sadly, other sociopaths  will be inspired by him, they will try to do it more effectively or increase the fatalities. 

And most are harmless.  Yes, the actions of Paddock will encourage more.  Islamic terrorists are also taking notes.  No Paddock was not one in a million.  That’s not to say there are a million like him out there either.  But this is what happens when you take away expecting the individual to be Responsible and accountable.  If the attitude of Responsibility and accountability were instilled in the psyche of people, there would be fewer sociopaths.  What is going on in the population is evidence of a lack of understanding the nature of Man and the results of Social Engineering.

 

I would almost guarantee that there are some people sitting around somewhere today saying, "You know if Paddock had only thought to use a ..., then he could have..."   Most will only talk about it.  But a few will do more. 

I’ll guarantee that it is much more than some.  I would say almost everyone will ponder on this.  We have it in us to devise the perfect murder.  That doesn’t make anyone murderers.  The Balloon Fiesta is going on here in Albuquerque this week.  During a mass ascension, we have a pattern called the ‘Box’.  You rise to catch the upper level winds and they take you north of the city.  Then descend to grab the drainage winds coming back over the field.  Then repeat.  A terrorist group could find a secluded area north of the field, inflate and pack the basket with high explosives and nails/ball bearings or even a dirty nuke.  Lift off and catch the drainage wind back to the field.  This bypasses security and when it detonates, there will be 10s of thousands of casualties.  This just shows you that no place is safe.  If people aren’t killed by guns then it just gives the wheels of bureaucracy more excuses to spin and plot ways to curtail our freedoms.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

No, you don’t.  And let me show you why.  There are several reasons.  For one, The Constitution and hence the 2nd Amendment only applies to US citizens and wards.  Now the 2nd is only an administrative protection for citizens.  It restricts what government can do in the lives of the people.  Many on the Left will call this negative liberty (to indicate an undesirable position), but that is good for the people.  Anything that restricts the government from infringing on the people is very desirable.  I think what you want to imply is that all people have this Natural Right (to bear arms) but it is up to the non-citizen to protect their Rights without aid from our Constitution.  One way that all people can use to protect their Rights is with Responsibilities.  Rights are paired with their Responsibilities.  We don’t usually talk about the Responsibilities because they are assumed to be rolled into our Rights.  For example, our Rights end where another’s begin.  Not over stepping these boundaries protects our Rights.  Another Responsibility would be to not abuse our Rights like yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.  Likewise, using our Rights to indiscriminately shoot into a crowd is irresponsible and threatens all our Rights.  As long as we all abide by these common-sense rules, our Rights are better protected.  In fact, holding a good balance between positive and negative liberties helps to protect our Rights.  There is debate as to if nations hold the same Rights.  If we go with the argument that they do, then Iran and NK are not being Responsible with their Rights.  And we don’t like nations that aren’t being Responsible.

 

The Constitution only applies to American citizens and wards eh?  Sound like you are saying that the rights it guarantees are granted by the State solely for members for that state.  Your view is completely opposite of Alaric's.

So if the Constitution and the State grants this right to Americans, it can take them away, eh?   You and the gun control liberals have more in common than you think.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Before long, most people would end up on this list because people get frustrated and they see their doctor as a confidant.  And when society takes away more of your Responsibilities, the more frustrated one becomes.  This is a very insidious means to deprive us of our unalienable Rights.  The Left is telling us that it is not the shooter’s fault.  That it is the fault of the gun.  This takes the individual’s Responsibility out of the picture.  They are no longer held accountable.  We need to return Responsibility back to the individual.  No, this won’t prevent such events from happening but it will reduce them significantly.  If you make the individual Responsible and hold them accountable, they will think twice.  They will think twice because they are once more included in the process of controlling their own life.  Government is not mother and father.

I don't associate with that kind of left, I can't say if you are right or not.  But I totally agree that  individual responsibility is sadly lacking across society on both sides of the political aisle.

And are you telling me that personal frustration is not you fault but the fault of the system?  If someone murders one or more people out of frustration, is insanity a defense that should be allowed or not?

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Most everyone that owns even just one gun is asserting their 2nd Amendment Rights.  Let’s be clear, the main intent of the 2nd is to defend the individual from intruders and tyrants, especially our own government.  Hunting, sporting, and collecting are all ancillary.  And every gun owner is just as sane and stable as anybody els

I am not on board with this.  Most people own guns to use them, not to prove a political point. 

Go back to the Revolution and before.  Why do you think every frontier household had a musket or two?  Protection yes, but most people we also dependent on hunting wild game.  Taking away a person's musket would not only limit their ability to defend their family, but could also lead to winter starvation.  When the Constitution was written these folks were a large part of the population. For those people I don't think hunting was ancillary.  Also, freedom to roam and hunt across public land was a necessity.  Splitting hairs maybe.  It is not the same in today's world.

That certainly leaves protection of home and property on solid ground.   

Overthrowing the government might not go so well with guns against drones, nerve agents, the ability to freeze bank accounts and a lot of soldiers that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.  They might view an insurgency as treasonous. How many people does it take to decide the government is tyrannical and the citizens have a right to overthrow it?    I am unclear on this point.  I guess it depends on who wins, as the Loyalists during the Revolution found out.  I don't think there is anybody wise enough today to improve on our form of government.  people want the now, they don't plan for stability lasting for 200 years for more. Just my opinion.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The Constitution only applies to American citizens and wards eh?  Sound like you are saying that the rights it guarantees are granted by the State solely for members for that state....

Well no ****, Sherlock!

Anything else is called Imperialism, plain and simple, and you can call it cultural or societal or whatever other kind, it is still Imperialism.

Altho, you folks on the Left call it "Internationalism" today, and make it sound all warm & fuzzy with all this m********ory language that the talking heads on TV spew out 24/7.

YES, our laws only apply to those people within our own borders, as it should be. We cannot assume control over the rest of the world, making one nation alone work right is clearly beyond our Govt in the first damned place, so just what the hell are you talking about, really?

 

North Korea and Iran having nukes was dealt with very well by Ravenhawk :D and I will only add; BOTH those nations gather crowds under Govt sponsorship to chant "Death to America" and both constantly tell us in lurid details how they intend to roast ALL OF US TO DEATH with those nukes. Now, if you went back in time and had a chance to kill Hitler before WW2, and did it, how can you say that keeping nukes away from lunatics like that is a bad thing?

Because that is exactly where you are headed with that; another disgusting search for moral equivalence in the world's most toxic sewers. 

Edited by AnchorSteam
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The Constitution only applies to American citizens and wards eh?  Sound like you are saying that the rights it guarantees are granted by the State solely for members for that state.

Firstly, yes of course the US Constitution only applies to American citizens.  I really doubt that the Supreme Leader of Iran or the Parliament of England have been informed of this fact that our Constitution applies to them.  Did you read the op or the link?  I guess that is a loaded statement because if you had, you wouldn’t have responded the way you did.  No, I am not saying that our Rights are granted by the state.  Never have and never will.  I’m saying that the state is charged with protecting the Rights of its citizens (solely for).  Namely by not infringing on them or allowing others to do so.  Non-citizens can fend for themselves.  That’s the way it works.  That’s why there are different countries.  Now if you had read the link, it does say that the state can deprive an individual of their rights.  Legally, that should be through due process, however if it becomes oppressive, then it is the Right and duty of the people to remove such government and replace it.  A people without a 2nd Amendment cannot do that and the state can then dictate the Rights it sees fit.

 

Your view is completely opposite of Alaric's.

As far as the comments he’s added here, I would say we are hand-in-hand.  But why should that matter?  What was the point of your comment in the first place?

 

So if the Constitution and the State grants this right to Americans, it can take them away, eh?

Again, the state does not grant Rights to Americans.  It can deprive us of them (it can never take them away).  Governments will come and go but the people will always be here.

 

You and the gun control liberals have more in common than you think.

I don’t think you’ve been comprehending what is going on in this thread.  The whole point of this thread is anti-liberal & anti-gun control.  Someone better go tell Rush that he is pro-liberal gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Well no ****, Sherlock!

Anything else is called Imperialism, plain and simple, and you can call it cultural or societal or whatever other kind, it is still Imperialism.

Altho, you folks on the Left call it "Internationalism" today, and make it sound all warm & fuzzy with all this m********ory language that the talking heads on TV spew out 24/7.

YES, our laws only apply to those people within our own borders, as it should be. We cannot assume control over the rest of the world, making one nation alone work right is clearly beyond our Govt in the first damned place, so just what the hell are you talking about, really?

 

North Korea and Iran having nukes was dealt with very well by Ravenhawk :D and I will only add; BOTH those nations gather crowds under Govt sponsorship to chant "Death to America" and both constantly tell us in lurid details how they intend to roast ALL OF US TO DEATH with those nukes. Now, if you went back in time and had a chance to kill Hitler before WW2, and did it, how can you say that keeping nukes away from lunatics like that is a bad thing?

Because that is exactly where you are headed with that; another disgusting search for moral equivalence in the world's most toxic sewers. 

Eh, so the second amendment is a law and not a right?  Good to know.  You guys are making it easier and easier to justify gun control.

  I think you guys are responding to each post instead of the entire thread.  If you read what Alaric originally posted and followed it through, you would realize that he said that we have universal rights and that the constitution merely vocalizes these rights.  You and Raven seem to be taking the path that these rights only apply to Americans in America.  Rights that only a select few have are not rights, they are privileges.  And rights that only exist in a state and are granted by the state can be taken away by the state, because their source is not greater than the state or inherent in all men. 

Edited by Gromdor
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some info for proponents of “universal” background checks. A criminal (or by extension, any other prohibited class) cannot be charged with a crime for failing to register a firearm or to undergo a background check when acquiring one because of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. In plain language, you would be making a law which requires a criminal to “tell” on themselves.

See Haynes v. US

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, so the second amendment is a law and not a right?  Good to know.

It’s both.  It’s two mints in one.  The Bill of Rights are an enumerated list of Rights codified as law.  Not as being something granted by the state but as a reminder to the state of what it can’t infringe upon.

 

You guys are making it easier and easier to justify gun control.

No…, you simply don’t understand.  I don’t know where your difficulty is??

 

  I think you guys are responding to each post instead of the entire thread.

No…, We have been responding to the entire thread.  Hell, I started the threat for just that reason.  I think you’re the one that has been responding to each post and going off on some tangent.

 

  If you read what Alaric originally posted and followed it through, you would realize that he said that we have universal rights and that the constitution merely vocalizes these rights. 

The term is unalienable, not universal.  There is a big difference.  What you haven’t figured out yet is that Alaric, AS, and myself have been saying the same thing.  We are not debating the unalienable Rights of everyone.  Only those under the protections of the US Constitution.  Let these non-citizens seek those protections from their countries and governments.

 

You and Raven seem to be taking the path that these rights only apply to Americans in America. 

Considering that the OP is about the 2nd Amendment, that would be a good guess.  Once again, our 2nd Amendment does not apply to the population of the nation of Tokelau.

 

Rights that only a select few have are not rights, they are privileges.  And rights that only exist in a state and are granted by the state can be taken away by the state, because their source is not greater than the state or inherent in all men. 

Not saying they are so you are wrong there.  Firstly, you need to learn the difference between grant and protect.  Once again, the Constitution does not grant Rights to its people, but any government can certainly deprive the people of them.  That is why the 2nd Amendment is vital because it allows the people to retake those Rights back and remove an oppressive government.  Other Documents like “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” and “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” do not contain a Right to bear arms.  Therefore, they are incomplete and offer no protections from the government.  In the former, the Right to free speech and religion are article X and XI and article 18 and 19 in the latter.  Do you understand the significance of that?  Our Founding Fathers determined that our first two Amendments were the most important unalienable Rights we possess and therefore listed them first.  The former is based closely on our Constitution but it is simply not the same.  The latter was developed by the UN.  The first thing to note about that is that it is thus non-binding.  Secondly, it begins to read like a list of government subsidies, which are never unalienable Rights.  So, the latter is really a feel-good joke.  Just this past weekend, TBS was airing the Star Wars franchise.  What was it that Senator Palpatine sought?  It was Peace right?  Just as long as in was under his control.  That’s what the latter more sounds like; a bit of Social Engineering to control the populace.  This is why the US Constitution is not umbrella coverage for all people.  If other peoples are oppressed by their governments, then let them rise up in revolution.  Let them learn what Rights are and let them earn them for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Considering that the OP is about the 2nd Amendment, that would be a good guess.  Once again, our 2nd Amendment does not apply to the population of the nation of Tokelau.

Does the Second Amendment apply to  resident aliens and non-citizens residing within the US borders?  For example gang members that have not been convicted of a crime in the US?  Asking for clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Does the Second Amendment apply to  resident aliens and non-citizens residing within the US borders?  For example gang members that have not been convicted of a crime in the US?  Asking for clarification.

Well what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the limits of this right?  For example why are fully automatic weapons and  rocket propelled grenades illegal and semi-automatic weapons permissible?  How does the dividing line get set?  Are weaponized drones legal? 

The thing I can't wrap my head around is this basis of being able to overthrow tyranny even with assault rifles.  In the days when standing armies were small and everybody had a musket, maybe the government had cannons, but that was their only advantage.  It is so different today. How is it possible to seriously think about overthrowing the government when the weapons available are so mismatched?

 

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.