The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

He isn't intersted in an honest conversation. Cut your losses now.

He isn't intersted in an honest conversation. Cut your losses now.

He's too stupid to talk to anyway.

Says the guy who likes to insult to the guy who likes to insult about the guy who doesn't.

Also says the guy who likes to tell others what they have said when they clearly haven't said it, and likes to use quotes on their own and then claims it's proof of something when they've hardly made a claim.

Jeez, standards are a slack as hell here, you just expect me to take what you say without backing anything up. You say you've been debating this for decades, really? I'd expect you to have your argument nailed down, be able to back it up with all that evidence you should have collected in the past decades and be able to whip off evidence and use it correctly.

But all i get are INSULTS. Well done. Decades well spent, learning to insult.

As for the other one, well, he's just insults. Seems to think he's intelligent because he once went to Europe........

 

[Iceweasel]

Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal

The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes.

I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what?

I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write.

So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.

I didn't insult you, I was pointing out an unfortunate fact. The context is there for any functioning mind. The founders believed an armed population was critical for freedom. They put the words "the people..." in the 2nd. You don't get it but that isn't anyone else's problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

So, any of you guys instead of insulting want to take a look at this? I've only presented it 100 times already, and only seen it ignored 100 times already.

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

This is the amendment they were talking about, in an unfinished state.

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

Not intended to protect self defence, not for carrying arms, but against the mal-administration of the govt.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would taking away the carrying of arms destroy the constitution?

"What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Why mention the militia if the 2A has nothing to do with the militia, as is being claimed here?

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. "

Why talk about the destruction of the militia if this amendment isn't designed to protect the militia?

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

Why would Mr Gerry say this, and replace "bear arms" in the proposed amendment with "militia duty" if he meant "carry arms"???

He continued with "For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms.", clearly here "bear arms" and "militia duty" are being used synonymously.

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

Why would Mr Jackson use "bearing arms" and "render military service" synonymously if he wanted to say "carry arms"?

"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. "

Why would Mr Sherman think that if people were religiously scrupulous of carrying arms that they would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms? Who thinks the founding fathers were going to make people pay who didn't carry arms?

And the big question is, why would the founders discuss a part to the amendment that discussed whether religiously scrupulous people should be allowed not to bear arms if the term "bear arms" meant "carry arms"?

I'd really like it if some of you tried to answer some of these questions instead of insulting people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't insult you, I was pointing out an unfortunate fact. The context is there for any functioning mind. The founders believed an armed population was critical for freedom. They put the words "the people..." in the 2nd. You don't get it but that isn't anyone else's problem.

Oh please, this isn't primary school where you can claim you didn't insult.

you're a fucking retard

Let's see who doesn't think this isn't an insult. It clearly is. You claim an "unfortunate fact", well prove it then, prove I'm a retard.

retard definition of retard in Oxford dictionary American English US

NOUN
Pronunciation: /ˈrēˌtärd /
INFORMAL , OFFENSIVEBack to top
A mentally handicapped person (often used as a general term of abuse).

Oh, so either I'm mentally handicapped, if so prove it, or more likely it's what's in brackets.

The founders believed a lot of things. So what? That doesn't mean they made an amendment out of it.
The founders probably believed that human beings needed to breath air in order to survive. They also probably believed that people needed to drink water and eat food.

Does the 2A protect all of these things? No it does not. Just because the founders believed in something does not equate to the protection of the 2A. Do you follow me?

So, you're posting quotes saying the founders believe this and that, and then you're saying that clearly the 2A protects these things because......

I'd have to suppose because the 2A says "arms" and some of the stuff you're talking about involved guns, that someone how you've just decided there is clearly a massive link here and that it MUST protect arms.

It goes like this. Stool. It's a word right?

stool
Syllabification: stool
Pronunciation: /sto͞ol /

A piece of feces.

Okay, it can mean "A piece of feces".

So, "John sat on the wooden stool", because stool can mean feces, are we going to assume that it does mean feces? I doubt it. Yet, under the logic you're using, we'd have to assume that it does mean this, right? Or do you think we can be intelligent enough about all of this to demand a little more?

You said the founders had concerns about things. I don't want concerns, I want actual evidence that there is a link between the two. Quotes are fine as evidence of something if used properly, you didn't use the quotes, you merely presented them. Great, and what?
Then the next post you made a slight attempt at saying what the quotes were for, and quite frankly it wasn't up to any standard I am willing to accept.

As for the words "the people..." so what? If you were arguing against someone who said there was a collective right, then you might have a point, had you read a single word of what I have written on the matter you'd see one thing. The 2A protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

So what's your point? Are you even debating with me or with someone else?

 

[Ernie S.]

It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.

Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal?

The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes.

I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what?

I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write.

So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.

And SCOTUS says differently.

The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.

 

[Iceweasel]

And SCOTUS says differently.

The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.

I think he expects to see the quotes in the second or something. Odd.

 

[hunarcy]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

I don't think anyone believes that your rights can't be curtailed by due process based on your actions. The fact that you're reduced to arguing that shows you've actually lost the argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And SCOTUS says differently.

The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.

So, where did I say that membership in the militia is necessary to be able to have the right to keep and the right to bear arms?

Oh wait, I didn't.

Another person who doesn't read what I write and just assumes I'm saying something when clearly I'm not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And SCOTUS says differently.

The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.

I think he expects to see the quotes in the second or something. Odd.

No, you expect me to say something I didn't say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

I don't think anyone believes that your rights can't be curtailed by due process based on your actions. The fact that you're reduced to arguing that shows you've actually lost the argument.

There is a big difference, which is the point I'm making, between infringing on the rights of someone after due process, and the taking away of rights.

The first implies you still have the rights, but because of due process of the law, you have had this right infringed upon.
The second implies you don't actually have the right, it's not there.

The theory of rights says that all humans have their rights no matter what happens (barring death of course), but that merely govts and others can just infringe on them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

I don't think anyone believes that your rights can't be curtailed by due process based on your actions. The fact that you're reduced to arguing that shows you've actually lost the argument.

The 5th amendment states very clearly that, through due process, all rights may be taken away.
There's no real reason to take seriously anyone who believes otherwise.

 

[konradv]

Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.

ted Kennedy was a good example of not allowing democrats access to a car.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.

Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal?

The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes.

I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what?

I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write.

So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.

And SCOTUS says differently.

The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.

Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members

 

[konradv]

Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.

ted Kennedy was a good example of not allowing democrats access to a car.

So that's about 385,000-1, since it happened. What explains your being allowed to access a computer?

 

[turtledude]

Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members

But Miiller-who was not represented by counsel before the USSC, did not have his position rejected for STANDING

in other words, if militia membership was necessary to exercise 2A rights, and since MILLER was not a member of the organized (i.e. well regulated militia), he would have had his position rejected on STANDING

it was not

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members

But Miiller-who was not represented by counsel before the USSC, did not have his position rejected for STANDING

in other words, if militia membership was necessary to exercise 2A rights, and since MILLER was not a member of the organized (i.e. well regulated militia), he would have had his position rejected on STANDING

it was not

The subject wasn't about being in a militia but what was accepted firearms for a militia protected by the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.

ted Kennedy was a good example of not allowing democrats access to a car.

So that's about 385,000-1, since it happened. What explains your being allowed to access a computer?

Your count is high and to low for democrats.
Luckily Lehmberg didn't kill anyone that night she was caught.
Or at least it hasn't been reported yet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 5th amendment states very clearly that, through due process, all rights may be taken away.
There's no real reason to take seriously anyone who believes otherwise.

"No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

You mean this? Because nothing else gets close.

The only one where you can see rights being taken away is when deprived of life.

The first issue to look at here is with prisoners. Can a prisoner have all their rights taken away? The 8th Amendment would be almost redundant if this were the case.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

So, once convicted, a prisoner could be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Is this the case? Clearly not. Even when it comes to the death penalty, it cannot be considered cruel or unusual.

The term "deprive" also seems to suggest two things.

deprive - definition of deprive by The Free Dictionary

"
de·prive
tr.v. de·prived, de·priv·ing, de·prives
1. To take something away from: The court ruling deprived us of any share in the inheritance."

Which means to take away.

"2. To keep from possessing or enjoying;deny:They were deprived of a normal childhood by the war."

Which seems to mean a possible temporary taking away, such as what I'm talking about with infringement.

The theory of rights at the time was going strong

Amendment V Virginia Declaration of Rights sec. 1

Virginia declaration of rights

"1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Men have certain inherent rights, ie, ones which cannot be taken away. The enjoyment of life and liberty were those. Of course there are limits to all rights though.

Amendment V Delaware Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules

Delaware's is interesting, because it combines the notion of bearing arms (as in the right to be in the militia) as being the protection of other rights.

"10. That every Member of Society hath a Right to be protected in the Enjoyment of Life, Liberty and Property; and therefore is bound to contribute his Proportion towards the Expense of that Protection, and yield his personal Service when necessary, or an Equivalent thereto; but no Part of a Man's Property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public Uses without his own Consent or that of his legal Representatives; Nor can any Man that is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing Arms in any Case be justly compelled thereto if he will pay such Equivalent."


The declaration of independence would be the starting point, I guess

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

They say that rights are "endowed by their creator" and these are "unalienable rights", ie, can't be taken away.

So my argument is this. You can't take away someone's rights, and the founding fathers and their theory of rights makes this quite clear, which must mean that "deprive" as a right merely means to withhold for a time rather than permanently take away, as this was considered impossible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 5th amendment states very clearly that, through due process, all rights may be taken away.
There's no real reason to take seriously anyone who believes otherwise.

You mean, like the founding fathers with the declaration of independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

If rights are unalienable, that they are endowed by their creator, doesn't this suggest they can't be taken away?

I think you're completely missing the point. If a person goes to prison, they're having their rights infringed upon. They don't have their right to liberty taken away, because perhaps at some point they will be free. In which case the govt can't simply say "you don't have any rights any more", the rights are assumed to still be the rights of this person, they merely do not have them infringed any more.

Do you think you could take someone seriously who would say that anyone convicted of an offence, anyone who has been found wanting through due process can be tortured?