Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate

320 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Frank Merton

There's no point in arguing with this guy. From his point of view, we should all be sheep and do what the government tell us to.

I kinda like this idea of equating being sheep to doing what the government says. We should be strong he-men with hairy chests resisting the government and never obeying the law.

If the government creates a law against guns, it should be obeyed, whether you agree with it or not. That is why we have government. No one exists who approves of everything the government decides; fine -- we still obey it.

What if the government does something illegal? That is a contradiction in terms; it is the law. One is provided provision to protest, to petition, generally to appeal to the courts, and of course to vote, but not do disobey. Without rule of law you have rule of tyrants, because when law breaks down the most brutal will prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

But I don't think having such a dialogue is reason to become paranoid and overly emotional.

Right, will it be ok to show some humanity when the swat team busts down your door to "inspect your weapons". There is no need for this dialogue. Its long been established that no one has a right to enter my home with out a warrent stating what they are looking for and why they feel I have it, signed by a judge.

Rational minds will steer this nation. If you want to be part of the conversation loosen some of the mistrust and deepen your partnership to dialogue.

Yea right. We have been rational. We have went along with the program. Its gotten us no where with the white house. You people just act like these long established laws dont exist. My ideas have already been poured into the foundation. And at least half this country feels the same. So good luck erasing this from the black board, cause you have no ability to push anyone out of the conversation. In fact your main stream is losing ground by the day.

Dropping out of it all will only insure others who do participate in discussion get to make up the rules for all of us.

Getting mad isnt dropping out. In fact, its all the government understands. We are talking about people who enforce thier laws with loaded guns.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Just because a government makes laws doesn't mean everything it does is lawful. Government is not "the law".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

First, let's not mischaracterize anyone's position by making ridiculous analogies that do not reflect (even remotely) the reality at hand. Doing this only serves to inflame the discussion.

Next, when talking about the United States it's The Constitution that's "the law", not "the government".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

If the government creates a law against guns, it should be obeyed, whether you agree with it or not. That is why we have government. No one exists who approves of everything the government decides; fine -- we still obey it.

In the United States it will take a Constitutional Amendment to completely ban ownerships of guns. Control and licensing of guns is another thing though.

What if the government does something illegal? That is a contradiction in terms; it is the law. One is provided provision to protest, to petition, generally to appeal to the courts, and of course to vote, but not do disobey. Without rule of law you have rule of tyrants, because when law breaks down the most brutal will prevail.

No, not in the US, the government can (and has) engaged in illegal activities (Iran/Contra and Watergate come to my mind). When caught these folks are as amenable to trial as anyone else. Everyone from the President on down is bound by The Constitution.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

In the United States it will take a Constitutional Amendment to completely ban ownerships of guns. Control and licensing of guns is another thing though.

No, not in the US, the government can (and has) engaged in illegal activities (Iran/Contra and Watergate come to my mind). When caught these folks are as amenable to trial as anyone else. Everyone from the President on down is bound by The Constitution.

No it isnt Lilly. The right to keep arms isnt to be infringed, in any way. By law this isnt a subject that the federal government has the authority to concern themselfs with at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

No it isnt Lilly. The right to keep arms isnt to be infringed, in any way. By law this isnt a subject that the federal government has the authority to concern themselfs with at all.

Tell that to the Supreme Court (they've concerned themselves with the 2nd Amendment many times)

For example: (quote from our friends at Wikipedia)

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.
Edited by Lilly
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Tell that to the Supreme Court (they've concerned themselve with the 2nd Amendment many times)

For example: (quote from our friends at Wikipedia)

Oh Im more then aware of the SC's distain for the constitution. There is a very clear pattern of that in every branch of government. But the term "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

The Bill of Rights itself is a collection of Amendments to The Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch of government that is charged with the interpretation of Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court decides what is, or is not "infringement" and what is, or is not amenable to change. You can't say that your interpretation of The Constitution is correct and supecedes The Supreme Court. I guess you can say it as being your personal opinion, but be advised such holds no validity (none/zip/zero/nada) from a legal perspective.

BTW, it's highly, highly unlikely that there will ever be any Amendment that will serve to somehow supercede The Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is indeed a 'right' in the United States. However, the interpretation of such can (and has) changed over time. This is why it is frequently said that The Constitution is a 'living' document.

Edited by Lilly
addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

The Bill of Rights itself is a collection of Amendments to The Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch of government that is charged with the interpretation of Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court decides what is, or is not "infringement" and what is, or is not amenable to change. You can't say that your interpretation of The Constitution is correct and supecedes The Supreme Court. I guess you can say it as being your personal opinion, but be advised such holds no validity (none/zip/zero/nada) from a legal perspective.

Thats the thing though, they are not there to interprete constitutional law. They are there to uphold it, and protect it. The only time one decides something need to be interpreted, is when said document says something they dont want it to. The definition of infringe is very clear, and has long been established.

in·fringedin·fring·ing

Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb

1

: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

No it isnt Lilly. The right to keep arms isnt to be infringed, in any way. By law this isnt a subject that the federal government has the authority to concern themselfs with at all.

As much as I hate to agree with someone who has *Moderator* next to their name, I have to agree with Lilly. The Constitution was setup so that anything could be amended or changed. However, I don’t see it as being that easy. The Constitution is a recorded interpretation of the intentions of the Founding Fathers. So if anything, that intention is the only thing above the Constitution. So if changes are made, they should preserve those original intentions. With that said, I don’t see how one could make any changes to the 2nd and not change its original meaning.

Quote

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

Unalienable Rights are unlimited. It is our right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. That is the purpose of the 2nd. To clarify that the 2nd is an Unalienable Right. The primary reason of the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Unalienable Rights are unlimited. It is our right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. That is the purpose of the 2nd. To clarify that the 2nd is an Unalienable Right. The primary reason of the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

The "right" may be unlimited in one sense, but not in another. The "whatever manner" and "whatever purpose" is indeed limited. For example, in order to own and/or carry firearms one needs to obtain the appropriate licenses to do so. Also, I do believe owning certain assault weapons is not allowed (?).

I do agree that the 2nd Amendment was indeed added to place the power of defense into the hands of citizens so that government could not ultimately abuse power. Also, the military is ultimately controlled by a civilian...The President is The Commander and Chief of all branches of the military.

Edited by Lilly
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The "right" may be unlimited in one sense, but not in another. The "whatever manner" and "whatever purpose" is indeed limited.

It is unlimited – PERIOD! Unalienable Rights is only half of the equation. What you and the SC have forgotten or are looking for is the other half. And that is Personal Responsibility. The two go hand-in-hand.

For example, in order to own and/or carry firearms one needs to obtain the appropriate licenses to do so.

I have really nothing against being licensed as long as it is not abused. It shouldn’t be used to restrict anyone or be used to create a gun list. A license should only be a means of assurance that the gun owner can demonstrate Personal Responsibility. I.e. Personal Responsibility is what limits Unalienable Rights, not an artificial construct of a transient government.

Also, I do believe owning certain assault weapons is not allowed (?).

Why? If an individual can properly protect and maintain a nuclear device, he should do so. However, I don’t think such an individual exists. So getting a license would be almost impossible. Perhaps everyone should apply for an arms license. Grade weapons into classes. Have everyone work at familiarizing themselves with the different classes. They are under no obligation to own a weapon but at least they will know how to use them. Create a level of public interaction would help to lessen the atmosphere of fear around guns.

I do agree that the 2nd Amendment was indeed added to place the power of defense into the hands of citizens so that government could not ultimately abuse power.

The only way to do that is to assure that the people are as equally armed as the government. I’ve shown that there is a system here that will work without government infringement. And in turn leaving the 2nd and the Constitution and BoR alone.

Also, the military is ultimately controlled by a civilian...The President is The Commander and Chief of all branches of the military.

That civilian could possibly lose control or even abuse it. If that civilian tries to use the military against the people, I think you’ll find that the majority of the military will side with the people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glorfindel

I kinda like this idea of equating being sheep to doing what the government says. We should be strong he-men with hairy chests resisting the government and never obeying the law.

If the government creates a law against guns, it should be obeyed, whether you agree with it or not. That is why we have government. No one exists who approves of everything the government decides; fine -- we still obey it.

What if the government does something illegal? That is a contradiction in terms; it is the law. One is provided provision to protest, to petition, generally to appeal to the courts, and of course to vote, but not do disobey. Without rule of law you have rule of tyrants, because when law breaks down the most brutal will prevail.

If the law violates the Constitution, it was illegally passed to begin with. This is really quite simple, unconstitutional laws are void. You can't claim to support the "rule of law" by supporting illegal laws... The Bill of Rights is "inalienable", meaning an amendment to the Constitution that violates the first 10, is void and illegal. Come on guys, Im not even American and I understand this. This goes for democratic processes too, you can not vote to violate the Bill of Rights, that is anything but following the "rule of law".

Edited by Glorfindel
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

If the law violates the Constitution, it was illegally passed to begin with. This is really quite simple, unconstitutional laws are void. You can't claim to support the "rule of law" by supporting illegal laws... The Bill of Rights is "inalienable", meaning an amendment to the Constitution that violates the first 10, is void and illegal. Come on guys, Im not even American and I understand this. This goes for democratic processes too, you can not vote to violate the Bill of Rights, that is anything but following the "rule of law".

:clap: :clap:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glorfindel

And really, for the most part the Bill of Rights is quite clear and succinct. Unless youre reading conprehension is so bad that you can't understand English from a couple hundred years back. It seems talk of "interpretation" mainly comes up when someone in government is interested in violating the BoR.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Technically the 2nd Amendment reads as follows: "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." Being able to form a "well regulated militia" doesn't really address the issue of licensing guns, or the concept of assault weapons (which did not even exist at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted).

Edited by Lilly
oops!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Technically the 2nd Amendment reads as follows: "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." Being able to form a "well regulated militia" doesn't really address the issue of licensing guns, or the concept of assault weapons (which did not even exist at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted).

In fact, it did not even address uncontrolled gun ownership until some NRA lawyers decided that it should be that in the 1970s... what 200 years can do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Being able to form a "well regulated militia" doesn't really address the issue of licensing guns, or the concept of assault weapons (which did not even exist at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted).

A well regulated militia and muskets were the assault weapons of the day.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

And really, for the most part the Bill of Rights is quite clear and succinct. Unless youre reading conprehension is so bad that you can't understand English from a couple hundred years back. It seems talk of "interpretation" mainly comes up when someone in government is interested in violating the BoR.

Cheers to you and preacherman. I've been saying that same thing for a long time. A few years back I kept hearing all this talk of interpretation, probably when obamacare was initially being debated. Anyways, I decided to read the constitution and the BoR for a refresher and to take a closer look at the language. My conclusion: It's quite clear and your last sentence couldn't ring truer.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

In the United States it will take a Constitutional Amendment to completely ban ownerships of guns. Control and licensing of guns is another thing though.

No, not in the US, the government can (and has) engaged in illegal activities (Iran/Contra and Watergate come to my mind). When caught these folks are as amenable to trial as anyone else. Everyone from the President on down is bound by The Constitution.

And the latest irs and doj.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

The Bill of Rights itself is a collection of Amendments to The Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch of government that is charged with the interpretation of Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court decides what is, or is not "infringement" and what is, or is not amenable to change. You can't say that your interpretation of The Constitution is correct and supecedes The Supreme Court. I guess you can say it as being your personal opinion, but be advised such holds no validity (none/zip/zero/nada) from a legal perspective.

BTW, it's highly, highly unlikely that there will ever be any Amendment that will serve to somehow supercede The Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is indeed a 'right' in the United States. However, the interpretation of such can (and has) changed over time. This is why it is frequently said that The Constitution is a 'living' document.

L

The constitution does not give the supreme court the power to interpet. The first head justice took the right. Stating along this line. The government can pass any law they want, but it won't do any good if the courts won't inforce them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

I am very glad some people outside of America understand the constitution. Getting tired of explaining it to people who will not even take the time to try to understand or even listen, all they want to do is force their ideology onto me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Unalienable Rights are unlimited. It is our right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. That is the purpose of the 2nd. To clarify that the 2nd is an Unalienable Right. The primary reason of the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

We've had this argument before. Where in the constitution does it say the 2nd amendment is "unalienable"?

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

We've had this argument before. Where in the constitution does it say the 2nd amendment is "unalienable"?

Well the bit about "Congress shall not create laws limiting militias etc etc" seems to be fairly concrete that it's a right that shan't be infringed.

  • Like 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.