The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[ding]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

My goodness. One statistic. You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro. It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data. The bottom line is that American's are not violent. Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data. Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.

Blaming poverty is an excuse.

No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.

The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.

You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.

It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo. You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people? Get real. There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing. For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers. If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly. I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.

 

[ding]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

 

[rightwinger]

Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.

Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed. It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side.... well, the facts are what they are

The Armenian Genocide of 1915


World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows
The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase

 

[rightwinger]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead

You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?

 

[ding]

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase

I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.

 

[ding]

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead

You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?

For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You keep making a logical fallacy argument. Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?

 

[rightwinger]

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase

I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.

Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe

 

[rightwinger]

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead

You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?

For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You keep making a logical fallacy argument. Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?

Repeating that nonsense does not make it true

Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

Dear Boss
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.

Really? which candidate is calling for disarming US citizens and rounding them up?

None.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

You didn't answer it once.

Look, Ding, I am sure that in your fantasy world, someone is going to come in the middle of the night and take your guns away from you, but that you will fight off their tyranny with crossbows and Desert Eagles until the bitter end, until you run out of toilet paper in your redoubt, or they take your gun from your cold, dead hands, whichever comes first; but, I live in the real world, and all I want is to stop private sales of firearms to Bubba, who's wife, Hattie May has a restraining order on him, from buying a Saturday Night special to off her.

 

[Vandalshandle]

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.

An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.

deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....

To be fair... it does have pearl handles. Besides I like MY chance better with a gun rather than without a gun. Guns aren't for everyone. A gun may not be for you. Some women and effeminate men don't have the hand strength to work the slide. Some women and effeminate men are scared of loud noises. At the end of the day, I fully respect your right to go into battle unarmed and unable to protect any of your loved ones. I won't look at you as any less of a man. I promise.

Common, Ding, no way you can be 55 years old. Are you going to beat me up at recess?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....

Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.

Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.

Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed. It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side.... well, the facts are what they are

The Armenian Genocide of 1915


World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows
The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.

Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed. It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side.... well, the facts are what they are

The Armenian Genocide of 1915


World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows
The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike

I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.

Silly me.

 

[Tennyson]

It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

Dear Boss
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.

Emilynghiem,

Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc.

James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:

All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.

Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​

 

[Yarddog]

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead

You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?

For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You keep making a logical fallacy argument. Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?

Yep, i've basically stated that but they just don't understand. people don't want a fight. they want peace but what these guys don't understand is that to keep that peace a government needs barriers against it, to prevent the ruling class from just rolling along doing whatever they want. Seperation of powers, individual states rights and the bill of rights and amendments, all barriers to a central government that the founders knew inevitably would become corrupt to a degree if simply allowed

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

Dear Boss
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.

Emilynghiem,

Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc.

James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:

All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.

Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​

Thank you Tennyson
Again, this source already comes from the bias that
* God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
vs
* secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose

The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
not excluded or discriminated against.

I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.

But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
beliefs of starting with Govt as the default. That's how they set up their priorities,
and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.

Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?

Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
but is the default truth?

 

[emilynghiem]

Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.

Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed. It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side.... well, the facts are what they are

The Armenian Genocide of 1915


World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows
The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

Dear Skull Pilot and Vandalshandle
The same way I would not take the 2nd Amendment out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights,
but interpret "right of people to bear arms" as "law abiding citizens" (meaning within the CONTEXT of
defending laws not violating them, with respect to due process and not depriving anyone of rights
to life liberty or property or other principles)

Why not enforce this condition with nuclear arms as well:
that countries must also pledge to enforce those same basic rights and due process of laws,
and in order to proactively interact with other countries,
show a record of having diplomatically resolved conflicts and enforced laws by consensus,
before using armed forces to police threats by other countries.

If all they have is a record of aggression and complaints of coercion or abuse,
they'd have to go back and resolve those and restore good faith relations first,
in order to establish a record of diplomatic peacekeeping to justify using arms for policing.

 

[Boss]

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

The problem is, our country is not established on a secular belief system. God is essential for "inalienable" rights, otherwise, man can alienate those rights at will. So the entire premise we are founded upon rests on the belief in a God who endowed us with rights. You are not obligated to believe in God but that doesn't mean you can change our system to fit your beliefs.