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

[Skull Pilot]

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

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides. A sure sign of too much estrogen. You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.

Dead is dead.....Boom
Brains all over the place

Thank God for the second amendment

The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns

Suicide is a choice not a crime

 

[Skull Pilot]

According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.

OK. Let's just ban handguns

Let's just put violent criminals away for a long time and leave law abiding people alone

 

[rightwinger]

According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.

OK. Let's just ban handguns

I thought you said you didn't want to ban guns at all?

You convinced me otherwise

 

[rightwinger]

RW,
Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.

Why should I give up? That makes no sense at all. I'm winning. Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up. Sure, that makes total sense. Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny. That the people are the militia. That the people have the right to own and possess guns. That well regulated does not mean regulations. That well regulated means to be in proper working order. And that we won't need to rebel against our government because the mere act of an armed populace acts as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.

Again with the self proclaimed victories.....I'm winning
You sound like Charlie Sheen

You parrot the same tired NRA propaganda while you stockpile ammunition and dream of the day you can fight the evil Gubmint

 

[rightwinger]

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

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides. A sure sign of too much estrogen. You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.

Dead is dead.....Boom
Brains all over the place

Thank God for the second amendment

The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns

Suicide is a choice not a crime

Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides. A sure sign of too much estrogen. You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.

Dead is dead.....Boom
Brains all over the place

Thank God for the second amendment

The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns

Suicide is a choice not a crime

Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second

So what?

Suicide is a choice not a crime

 

[Vandalshandle]

...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.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

 

[rightwinger]

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

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides. A sure sign of too much estrogen. You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.

Dead is dead.....Boom
Brains all over the place

Thank God for the second amendment

The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns

Suicide is a choice not a crime

Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second

So what?

Suicide is a choice not a crime

So there is no reason to encourage it

 

[rightwinger]

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.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

British, perhaps??

Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- "minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"

There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The Revolutionary War concerned a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people, as opposed to today where the Federal government is acting with the consent of the people, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And consensus is in fact needed.

There must be agreement as to the criteria and conditions that render a government ‘tyrannical,’ not the subjective beliefs and perceptions of a frightened, reactionary minority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and then the judicial process; that right cannot be abridged or superseded by the Second Amendment.

Last, the issue has nothing to do with ‘taking sides,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ as some sort of entity separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government and the people are one in the same: the government is the creation of the people, the government is acting at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, consistent with our Republican form of government and the rule of law.

To seek to oppose the government of the people, created by the people, absent a just and legitimate cause, predicated solely on partisan, ideological opposition to the government, is to oppose the people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

No one said it did, but that also works the other way too. Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms. One right does not trump another. Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.

One amendment does not "trump" another amendment.

But, it is a safe observation that it is the Second Amendment that protects all the others.

It's an incorrect observation.

The wrongheaded notion that the people have the right to 'take up arms' against a legitimate, lawfully installed government functioning consistent with the Constitution and its case law seeks only to destroy the First Amendment, along with the other rights and protected liberties of the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Spare_change]

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.

In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.

 

[Spare_change]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

No one said it did, but that also works the other way too. Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms. One right does not trump another. Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.

One amendment does not "trump" another amendment.

But, it is a safe observation that it is the Second Amendment that protects all the others.

It's an incorrect observation.

The wrongheaded notion that the people have the right to 'take up arms' against a legitimate, lawfully installed government functioning consistent with the Constitution and its case law seeks only to destroy the First Amendment, along with the other rights and protected liberties of the people.

The last time I checked .... revolution is not conducted within the framework of unjust laws. It is a reaction TO unjust laws. It is nonsensical to think that those who revolt against the current bastardization of the Constitution are somehow restricted by that bastardization.

Your logic defies ... uhhh .... well ... logic.

 

[Tennyson]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

British, perhaps??

Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- "minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"

There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The Revolutionary War concerned a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people, as opposed to today where the Federal government is acting with the consent of the people, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And consensus is in fact needed.

There must be agreement as to the criteria and conditions that render a government ‘tyrannical,’ not the subjective beliefs and perceptions of a frightened, reactionary minority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and then the judicial process; that right cannot be abridged or superseded by the Second Amendment.

Last, the issue has nothing to do with ‘taking sides,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ as some sort of entity separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government and the people are one in the same: the government is the creation of the people, the government is acting at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, consistent with our Republican form of government and the rule of law.

To seek to oppose the government of the people, created by the people, absent a just and legitimate cause, predicated solely on partisan, ideological opposition to the government, is to oppose the people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

The Revolutionary War did not concern “a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people.” Britain was not a foreign government. The British government and the American colonies were one and the same. The colonies had British government on site governing the colonies. The consent of the people did not exist to be violated. The situation that caused the Revolutionary War was the same situation that had caused empires and nations to collapse throughout recorded history and is the same situation between the states and the federal government today. The federal government is not operating under the consent of the people, or our country would not be so bitterly divided today. If the government was operating under the consent of the people, then the Supreme Court would be nationally elected due to their self-imposed power over the states and the people.

The government is operating as a separate entity. That is why this country is divided beyond repair today.

The government is not the people, and that is the problem. The people did not create a Supreme Court with power over the states or people, and the people did not create the executive branch’s cabinet of entities that make and create laws that affect the people in the stead or the House. The rule of law precludes executive orders that create law, cabinet entities that create and enforce laws, Supreme Court jurisdiction over states or people, etc. That is not the rule of law; that is the rule of man.

 

[Tennyson]

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

 

[rightwinger]

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

 

[Tennyson]

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?