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

ninjadude

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.

where are you reading that? says no such thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It would appear that there are people in the US who have little if any real understanding of its nature and seem to show even less respect for its laws. They cite the Constitution when it suits them but ignore the fact that the Supreme Court is given the final say on what the Constitution means, by the very same Constitution -- and the Congress with the President is given the power to enact and enforce laws. These are not things individuals can pick and chose what to obey and what not to obey.

Therefore if a law banning guns (say of some particular type of in some particular location) were to be passed, no doubt there would be a court challenge. If said law were to be sustained, those who refused to obey it would be criminals, regardless of what they think the Constitution says.

The wording of the Second Amendment is such that there are many ways such a law that would be constitutional could be constructed. An amendment to the Constitution could also happen. No right is without the possibility of limitation -- not even free speech -- you can still be sued for libel or arrested for inciting a riot, and so on.

Disregard for law if the end of civilization. This history of mankind shows time after time that when law breaks down the most violent, the most ruthless, are the ones who tend to prevail, at least at first. That warning of history is something Americans should not ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter

ninjadude are you honestly suggesting that an amendment in the constitution is alienable, if you are does this alienability extend to all the other amendments or is it just the second amendment.

I do not have time to go threw every post made here but one thing people who seems to want to remove or limit the second amendment and those defending it seem to forget is that this goes beyond just the second amendment. If we allow the second amendment to be limited or removed then we are allowing a very dangerous precedent, a precedent where any of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights can now be removed or limited. How long does anyone here honestly think it would take before the other amendments in the Bill of Rights would be attacked. This just isn't about protecting one amendment or trying to remove an amendment that some think is outdated but about protecting the whole.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

where are you reading that? says no such thing

"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"

Ironically, I'm "pro-infringing" a la strict background checks and so forth, but the wording there is clear - noone has the right to restrict the bearance of arms of the formation of militia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

but the wording there is clear - noone has the right to restrict the bearance of arms of the formation of militia.

Except the Supreme Court. Where is "privacy" a Constitutional right? Re-read the Commerce Clause. What the Supreme Court says is what the Constitution says. I do not criticize this: it permits a flexibility that would be impossible if the strict constructionists always had their way. I think the founders had exactly this flexibility and independence in mind or they would not have given them life terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

It would appear that there are people in the US who have little if any real understanding of its nature and seem to show even less respect for its laws. They cite the Constitution when it suits them but ignore the fact that the Supreme Court is given the final say on what the Constitution means, by the very same Constitution --

Sorry but that is wrong. The final say is reserved to the people. "Should the government become destructive of these ends its by the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to form a new government..........................

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

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.

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court "the Judicial power of the United States."

If the judicial power does not include the power to interpret written law, then where IS the power to interpret the law?

Further, the courts interpret the law, then the Executive Branch, US Marshals and such, enforces the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

I do not have time to go threw every post made here but one thing people who seems to want to remove or limit the second amendment and those defending it seem to forget is that this goes beyond just the second amendment. If we allow the second amendment to be limited or removed then we are allowing a very dangerous precedent, a precedent where any of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights can now be removed or limited. How long does anyone here honestly think it would take before the other amendments in the Bill of Rights would be attacked. This just isn't about protecting one amendment or trying to remove an amendment that some think is outdated but about protecting the whole.

:clap: :clap:

Very well said.

We must give the second amendment the same considerations we do the first, third, or fourth amendments.

If we think the second amendment is outdated or antiquated how long before the government decides the first is antiquated also?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

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

Technically, you are correct and you still are clueless. Pull your head out of your a-rse and use it for something other than a stump.

The roots of unalienable rights go back to the writings of those like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone called unalienable rights as absolute rights and defined them as "those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it." He categorized them as Life, Liberty, and Property. Of which later, Jefferson changed it to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And Franklin changed absolute to unalienable. These natural rights are not granted by governments to the people. They are GOD given rights that can never be taken away by the government. Government will try as that is what government does. This concept became a primary cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution then was just a continuation of thought. The Constitution enumerates the limitations of government. The Founding Fathers assumed that the limitation of government had nothing to do with infringing on absolute rights. In hindsight, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers thought better and added an enumeration of the more important rights that government cannot infringe upon, hence, the Bill of Rights; the two most important ones being listed first.

So no, “unalienable” does not appear in the text of the Constitution but the Constitution goes beyond some writing on a piece of paper.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution and as such has no legal force. It is sometimes cited in legal opinions, but Shakespeare is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution and as such has no legal force. It is sometimes cited in legal opinions, but Shakespeare is too.

Seriously? I thought you were better than that Frank, baiting individuals to start insulting you or posting in anger.

Ranking of Our Rights

Bill of Rights > Constitution Law > State Law/Government Law

The Bill of Rights is our unalienable rights that can't be superseded by the government or constitutional law regardless of what others feel. While on the other hand, the constitutional law was created to limited or control the government which is designed to protect our nation. The Government can't and will never be able to supersede the constitution. If the government decides our rights are not worth anything to us, the constitution blocks the government from passing a law to take away our rights and keeps the government forever in check. Our government has one role and one role only, to make sure our nation is never invaded by an outside force that wants to impended their rule upon us. The government was never designed to pass laws that will force its will upon the states which is therefore the people. States have all control of the laws that are passed, but their laws never supersede the Bill of Rights either.

This is why we are a Republic instead of a Democracy created as a illusion by the Government. There for the Bill of Rights and Constitution is the basic laws of the land, the laws that can't be altered or taken away by government or states. Democracy allows for our citizens to be lead astray, to be sheep to slaughter by politicians, allowing for removal of our constitution which will thus allow for the government to take away our bill of rights if they want. Without the constitution in place, the citizens of United States can end up under tyrant rule real easily due to the government not being in check.

As for the Declaration of Independence, it is a declaration of sovereign nation. It is a legal document declaring we are free of Great Britain's Rule and that we are an sovereign nation.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I always got a kick out of the fact that our founding fathers scrapped the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states and did not give the government enough power collect taxes and run its business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

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

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

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glorfindel

It would appear that there are people in the US who have little if any real understanding of its nature and seem to show even less respect for its laws. They cite the Constitution when it suits them but ignore the fact that the Supreme Court is given the final say on what the Constitution means, by the very same Constitution -- and the Congress with the President is given the power to enact and enforce laws. These are not things individuals can pick and chose what to obey and what not to obey.

Therefore if a law banning guns (say of some particular type of in some particular location) were to be passed, no doubt there would be a court challenge. If said law were to be sustained, those who refused to obey it would be criminals, regardless of what they think the Constitution says.

The wording of the Second Amendment is such that there are many ways such a law that would be constitutional could be constructed. An amendment to the Constitution could also happen. No right is without the possibility of limitation -- not even free speech -- you can still be sued for libel or arrested for inciting a riot, and so on.

Disregard for law if the end of civilization. This history of mankind shows time after time that when law breaks down the most violent, the most ruthless, are the ones who tend to prevail, at least at first. That warning of history is something Americans should not ignore.

Well, at least your last sentence was right.

Edited by Glorfindel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

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

Maybe we need to publish a Cliff's Notes version of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

Maybe we need to publish a Cliff's Notes version of it.

I think so....And a Constitution for Dummies book too. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution and as such has no legal force. It is sometimes cited in legal opinions, but Shakespeare is too.

The declaration of independence is the legel form which out lines our grevances against the king of england and thus against the british empire. Thus it is as important as the constitution.

the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I always got a kick out of the fact that our founding fathers scrapped the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states and did not give the government enough power collect taxes and run its business.

This is true. But the constitutuon makes the states equal with the federal government not subserviant to it.

Let's try this again. The states are supposed to be equal in power with each other and the federal government.

The senaters represent the states. The house represent the people. The presdent represents the nation in the international areana.

None of these people, rule the people.

They made so hard to pass laws to keep the government out of our daily lives. Also so wwe dn't end up with a bunch of feel good laws that would to be over turned later. Likr prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

The right to bear arms is given to us so we can protect ourselves. The job of the cops is to clean up afterwards. As they did in bosten. They couldn't stop those bombers and the place was on lock down. /

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The "gun's are an inalienable right" types ignore history and law. It is really hard to believe how it can be that a foreigner like myself understands their law better than they do. Of course the reality is they don't want to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

times have changed. the original meaning of tne second amendment is IMO lost, but maybe it's gotten a new meaning - one that represents the American ideal of freedom - or at least the American conxeption of freedom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I don't know what guns and militias have to do with freedom except if you want freedom to kill. They are instruments of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

the freedom to possess them is a sign of a lack of oppression by the government.

that said, I agree that possessing assault rifles, machine guns etc is a bit overkill-y and unnecessary for any reason beyond slaughter of ones fellow human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

the freedom to possess them is a sign of a lack of oppression by the government.

that said, I agree that possessing assault rifles, machine guns etc is a bit overkill-y and unnecessary for any reason beyond slaughter of ones fellow human beings.

But it's "possessing assault rifles, machine guns etc" that is the reason for a "sign of a lack of oppression by the government".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I don't know what guns and militias have to do with freedom except if you want freedom to kill. They are instruments of death.

That is why we at least have an *illusion of freedom*, because they are instruments of death.

  • Like 1

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.