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

[ding]

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.

Wrong.

Background checks and prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional, because the Supreme Court makes it so:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Ibid

Conditions and qualifications such as background checks, consistently upheld as not violating the Second Amendment by the courts.

And save the lame, ignorant references to Dred Scott, Plessey v. Fergusson, the inane ‘argument’ that sometimes the Supreme Court is ‘wrong’ – that fails as a false comparison fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I saw where you thought it was funny that the Democrats lynched black people. You are messed up.

 

[ding]

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.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

 

[ding]

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.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

Really? What did he do and how did he do it exactly?

 

[rightwinger]

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

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

Really? What did he do and how did he do it exactly?

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress

LBJ signed it

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?

 

[ding]

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.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Lyndon Johnson

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, By Robert A. Caro, p662

 

[ding]

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

Really? What did he do and how did he do it exactly?

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress

LBJ signed it

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?

It seems you don't know the whole story. It seems all you can say is that he signed a piece of paper. Surely you can tell me more, right?

 

[rightwinger]

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

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Lyndon Johnson

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, By Robert A. Caro, p662

LBJ was a master manipulator

He spoke the language that the other legislator needed to hear. He would say whatever needed to be said to get the vote he needed. He talked fear of God to the bible thumpers, social justice to liberals and racial accommodation to the racists

In the end, LBJ got the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed. I doubt if JFK could have gotten it done

 

[rightwinger]

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

Really? What did he do and how did he do it exactly?

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress

LBJ signed it

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?

It seems you don't know the whole story. It seems all you can say is that he signed a piece of paper. Surely you can tell me more, right?

He did more than sign a piece of paper. He fought to keep that bill from getting watered down, he bullied Congressmen, called in favors......it never would have passed without LBJ

 

[ding]

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln

Really? What did he do and how did he do it exactly?

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress

LBJ signed it

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?

It seems you don't know the whole story. It seems all you can say is that he signed a piece of paper. Surely you can tell me more, right?

He did more than sign a piece of paper. He fought to keep that bill from getting watered down, he bullied Congressmen, called in favors......it never would have passed without LBJ

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

 

[ding]

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134] Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

 

[ding]

 

[rightwinger]

How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act

Days after Kennedy’s murder, Johnson displayed the type of leadership on civil rights that his predecessor lacked and that the other branches could not possibly match. He made the bold and exceedingly risky decision to champion the stalled civil-rights bill. It was a pivotal moment: without Johnson, a strong bill would not have passed. Caro writes that during a searching late-night conversation that lasted into the morning of November 27, when somebody tried to persuade Johnson not to waste his time or capital on the lost cause of civil rights, the president replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” He grasped the unique possibilities of the moment and saw how to leverage the nation’s grief by tying Kennedy’s legacy to the fight against inequality. Addressing Congress later that day, Johnson showed that he would replace his predecessor’s eloquence with concrete action. He resolutely announced: “We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for 100 years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law.”

 

[Coyote]

Folks...the topic is the 2nd Amendment and this thread is getting significantly derailed, let's adjust the course a bit please.

 

[ding]

How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act

Days after Kennedy’s murder, Johnson displayed the type of leadership on civil rights that his predecessor lacked and that the other branches could not possibly match. He made the bold and exceedingly risky decision to champion the stalled civil-rights bill. It was a pivotal moment: without Johnson, a strong bill would not have passed. Caro writes that during a searching late-night conversation that lasted into the morning of November 27, when somebody tried to persuade Johnson not to waste his time or capital on the lost cause of civil rights, the president replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” He grasped the unique possibilities of the moment and saw how to leverage the nation’s grief by tying Kennedy’s legacy to the fight against inequality. Addressing Congress later that day, Johnson showed that he would replace his predecessor’s eloquence with concrete action. He resolutely announced: “We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for 100 years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law.”

President Lyndon Johnson Was Not A Civil Rights Advocate
Democrats (like yourself) ignore the pivotal role played by Senator Dirksen in obtaining passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, while heralding President Johnson as a civil rights advocate for signing the bill.

Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson’s anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the “Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson,” 1965, vol.1, p.1-9.

In their campaign to unfairly paint the Republican Party today as racists, Democrats point to President Johnson’s prediction that there would be an exodus from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction. Johnson’s statement was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks. Instead, Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor (later Governor of Georgia) Lester Maddox.

 

[ding]

Folks...the topic is the 2nd Amendment and this thread is getting significantly derailed, let's adjust the course a bit please.

Roger that.

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[ding]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from interfering with our right to own and possess guns, especially guns that a modern day light infantry militia ought to possess.

 

[rightwinger]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.