Gun Grabbers, Riddle Me This...

[frigidweirdo]

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

Humans use their brains, where other species use what they are born with.

Saying something as stupid as "What's natural about a gun?" Is as dumb as saying, "What's natural about clothing?"

Humans use our intelligence to manipulate our environment to serve us. We need to create things to cloth, house, feed and protect us.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT.

Nice try, but owning a gun is not a natural right. It's pretty obvious why.

The Second Amendment IS NOT about self defense. It's about the militia.

It protected the right of individuals to own weapons in case the militia ever needed them.
It also protected the right of individuals to be in the militia, in case the militia ever needed them.

Not personnel self defense.

Now, you can claim a personnel self defense from other parts of the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

Humans use their brains, where other species use what they are born with.

Saying something as stupid as "What's natural about a gun?" Is as dumb as saying, "What's natural about clothing?"

Humans use our intelligence to manipulate our environment to serve us. We need to create things to cloth, house, feed and protect us.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT.

Nice try, but owning a gun is not a natural right. It's pretty obvious why.

The Second Amendment IS NOT about self defense. It's about the militia.

It protected the right of individuals to own weapons in case the militia ever needed them.
It also protected the right of individuals to be in the militia, in case the militia ever needed them.

Not personnel self defense.

Now, you can claim a personnel self defense from other parts of the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

I agree that the 2nd is not about self defense.

It is not about the miliria either.

It is about the extent of Congressional power.

Finally, the right to self defence is a narural right, including the right to the means of doing so, like owning a gun.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

Humans use their brains, where other species use what they are born with.

Saying something as stupid as "What's natural about a gun?" Is as dumb as saying, "What's natural about clothing?"

Humans use our intelligence to manipulate our environment to serve us. We need to create things to cloth, house, feed and protect us.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT.

Nice try, but owning a gun is not a natural right. It's pretty obvious why.

The Second Amendment IS NOT about self defense. It's about the militia.

It protected the right of individuals to own weapons in case the militia ever needed them.
It also protected the right of individuals to be in the militia, in case the militia ever needed them.

Not personnel self defense.

Now, you can claim a personnel self defense from other parts of the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

I agree that the 2nd is not about self defense.

It is not about the miliria either.

It is about the extent of Congressional power.

Finally, the right to self defence is a narural right, including the right to the means of doing so, like owning a gun.

Well... all of the Constitution is about the power of the govt.

The 2A prevents the US govt from doing things in order to protect the militia.

No, the right to self defense is not a natural right. It's a man made right.

That doesn't really change very much at all, it's a label, but it clearly can't be natural, unless you have a gun sticking out of, let's say, I don't know, your crotch.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, the right to self defense is not a natural right. It's a man made right.

What is your source? Surely not John Locke.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That doesn't really change very much at all, it's a label, but it clearly can't be natural, unless you have a gun sticking out of, let's say, I don't know, your crotch.

That is a warped understanding of natural rights, and not based on an academic understanding of the concept.

Humans have evolved the ability to make and use tools.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2A prevents the US govt from doing things in order to protect the militia.

You are almost there. Keep going.

If the 2nd prevents the fed gov/Congress from acting.......



(think "unconstitutional")

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, the right to self defense is not a natural right. It's a man made right.

What is your source? Surely not John Locke.

No, The US House of Representatives.

George Washington.

The US Supreme Court.

You know, no one interesting.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

First up is the US House of Representatives. Unfortunately the Senate hearings were private, didn't want the plebs to know what they were talking about.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

This is what they were discussing. It didn't make it into the final amendment.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Basically Mr Gerry's saying that this amendment is about protecting the militia. With this clause, he worries that the feds could make the militia worthless.

Mr Gerry also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

See he said "militia duty". In the clause he was talking about they use "bear arms". They're synonyms.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson used "bear arms" and "render military service" as synonyms, and actually in the next version of the Amendment they did use that.

George Washington, in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 said:

"and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,""

"
"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“"

The US Supreme Court in the Heller Case upheld the Presser case which said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Such things show that "bear arms" is "render military service" and "militia duty". They were protecting the individual's right to be in the militia.

The Militia Acts also represent this. The Dick Act of 1902 made the unorganized militia. For what purpose would you make a militia, throw EVERYONE into it, and then ignore it for 100 years?

The purpose of having everyone unable to claim they're not being allowed in the militia. Ie, the National Guard.

You can't have the National Guard with everyone saying "I have a right to be in the National Guard, let me in." So, they got around it easily.

Now, if the right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel, then the right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2A prevents the US govt from doing things in order to protect the militia.

You are almost there. Keep going.

If the 2nd prevents the fed gov/Congress from acting.......



(think "unconstitutional")

Here's the deal.

The 2A prevents the US govt from stopping individuals from having arms.

If the US govt prevents an individual from owning a nuclear bomb (which comes under the term "arms"), are they limiting the freedoms of individuals?

No.

If the US govt prevents individuals from owning semi-automatic rifles, is it limiting the freedoms of individuals?

Let's take this further, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, as I've proven (and as 99.99% of people on forums ignore like crazy) then individuals have the right to OWN WEAPONS, but NOT the right to walk around with them.

Think Switzerland. You want to carry your gun from A to B, you have to separate the ammo from the weapons, you have to store it correctly.

Whether the US govt has the power to impose these things is a different matter here. We're discussing the 2A, compartmentalizing for theoretical purposes at the moment in order to get an understanding of what the 2A does and does not do.

So, based ONLY on the 2A the govt can't prevent you from owning a gun. It can prevent you from owning certain types of arms, certain types of guns. It can ban certain makers of guns, it just can't make it so it's too hard to buy a gun.

Ammo, well.... that's debatable but I'm going more on the side that ammo is important for the gun so it's just as protected.

But carrying a gun isn't protected, unless it's to or from buying or selling or taking it to the militia or back. Beyond that, there's nothing in the 2A to stop the govt preventing you from taking your guns places.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That doesn't really change very much at all, it's a label, but it clearly can't be natural, unless you have a gun sticking out of, let's say, I don't know, your crotch.

That is a warped understanding of natural rights, and not based on an academic understanding of the concept.

Humans have evolved the ability to make and use tools.

Yes, they have.

Okay, if a gun is natural, then EVERYTHING a human can make is natural too..... so what's the point in having the word natural is everything is natural?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Okay, if a gun is natural, then EVERYTHING a human can make is natural too..... so what's the point in having the word natural is everything is natural

You misunderstand the concept of natural rights. It is not what you think and not worth discussing for the purpose of this thread.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, based ONLY on the 2A the govt can't prevent you from owning a gun. It can prevent you from owning certain types of arms, certain types of guns. It can ban certain makers of guns, it just can't make it so it's too hard to buy a gun.

The FEDERAL government has no power on the subject of guns. That's what I am saying. That power is reserved to the States. States can (or could) do what they want.

So, if the FEDERAL government cannot pass laws regarding guns......

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the Federal government has no power to enact laws concerning arms....


ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

This all came about because New Yorkers wanted to tell Texas or other State citizens what they could and could not possess within their own state.

IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER!!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, if a gun is natural, then EVERYTHING a human can make is natural too..... so what's the point in having the word natural is everything is natural

You misunderstand the concept of natural rights. It is not what you think and not worth discussing for the purpose of this thread.

Well I think you misunderstand the concept of natural rights. So we're about equal then.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, based ONLY on the 2A the govt can't prevent you from owning a gun. It can prevent you from owning certain types of arms, certain types of guns. It can ban certain makers of guns, it just can't make it so it's too hard to buy a gun.

The FEDERAL government has no power on the subject of guns. That's what I am saying. That power is reserved to the States. States can (or could) do what they want.

So, if the FEDERAL government cannot pass laws regarding guns......

Well, that's debatable, isn't it?

I mean, they've basically got that power now. That's the reality we live in.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, that's debatable, isn't it?

I mean, they've basically got that power now. That's the reality we live in.

They shouldn't, should they?

It's okay now because they did it many years ago? Is that the standard?

All this bullshit confusion about the 2nd Amendment arose because the Supreme Court has failed to do it's fucking job for decades. Even Scalia refused to do his job when he had the opportunity to do so in Heller.

I see both side throwing around the 2nd like it is a grant of rights or the establishment of a militia.

Let California's goose-stepping ass limit its people to bb guns. Also, let Texans have AA guns. Let states make the call. We will learn quickly what way is best.

That's all I am saying. Get the Fed Gov out of it. Let States take care of it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, that's debatable, isn't it?

I mean, they've basically got that power now. That's the reality we live in.

They shouldn't, should they?

It's okay now because they did it many years ago? Is that the standard?

All this bullshit confusion about the 2nd Amendment arose because the Supreme Court has failed to do it's fucking job for decades. Even Scalia refused to do his job when he had the opportunity to do so in Heller.

I see both side throwing around the 2nd like it is a grant of rights or the establishment of a militia.

Let California's goose-stepping ass limit its people to bb guns. Also, let Texans have AA guns. Let states make the call. We will learn quickly what way is best.

That's all I am saying. Get the Fed Gov out of it. Let States take care of it.

No, they shouldn't. But again, reality is something quite different.

But then again states shouldn't be infringing on the rights of gay people, or preventing abortions and the like. But it happens.

Partisan politics shouldn't be happening, the rich shouldn't be controlling the country, Trump should never have been president and the people shouldn't have had a choice between only Hillary and Trump.

But it happens.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, they shouldn't. But again, reality is something quite different.

But then again states shouldn't be infringing on the rights of gay people, or preventing abortions and the like. But it happens.

Partisan politics shouldn't be happening, the rich shouldn't be controlling the country, Trump should never have been president and the people shouldn't have had a choice between only Hillary and Trump.

But it happens.

And, if we let the rich globalist elites win on the guns issue, we can't protect gay rights or reproductive rights. That's what this is all about.

I am a liberty guy. I want liberty for ALL. If everyone focused on liberty first, the elite shits would not have power. They wouldn't be allowed to manipulate the process that gives us a choice between a jackass and she-bitch.

I pledge LIBERTY FIRST. I will fight for your liberty if you fight for mine. But, we need the ultimate power of arms to ensure our voices can still be heard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they shouldn't. But again, reality is something quite different.

But then again states shouldn't be infringing on the rights of gay people, or preventing abortions and the like. But it happens.

Partisan politics shouldn't be happening, the rich shouldn't be controlling the country, Trump should never have been president and the people shouldn't have had a choice between only Hillary and Trump.

But it happens.

And, if we let the rich globalist elites win on the guns issue, we can't protect gay rights or reproductive rights. That's what this is all about.

I am a liberty guy. I want liberty for ALL. If everyone focused on liberty first, the elite shits would not have power. They wouldn't be allowed to manipulate the process that gives us a choice between a jackass and she-bitch.

I pledge LIBERTY FIRST. I will fight for your liberty if you fight for mine. But, we need the ultimate power of arms to ensure our voices can still be heard.

And back to the same point. Liberty comes with choices. Choices come with different political parties to choose from, different policies to choose from, DEMOCRACY.

I disagree with arms being at the forefront of liberty. I'd say there is more liberty in some European countries than in the US.

Back to the anarchy thing. If you and everyone else has TOTAL freedom, then someone will take away that freedom without your consent.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And back to the same point. Liberty comes with choices. Choices come with different political parties to choose from, different policies to choose from, DEMOCRACY.

No argument here. It's when we no longer are allowed to have choices that I am concern about. It is a mistake to think it cannot happen here.

I will fight for your liberty, whatever it might be. Fight for mine.

I disagree with arms being at the forefront of liberty. I'd say there is more liberty in some European countries than in the US.

They are not. Arms are a LAST resort. European countries may have more liberty, but that's because we have a bunch of authoritarians on both sides, be it Marxist or Jesus Nazis.

Back to the anarchy thing. If you and everyone else has TOTAL freedom, then someone will take away that freedom without your consent.

...which is the end of anarchy. That's what I am saying. Anarchy is a temporary state of existence.

I am not advocating for anarchy. I am advocating for liberty. Limited government power, not an absence of government.