The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

I'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.

oh bullshit you lying sack of shit.....your fucking posts sure dont back that up.....how come in the other gun threads you started you STATED to posters there.....you do not need or should have guns........and dont tell me you did not say these things.....when me and a few other posters called you on this.....you did what you do best.....ignored everybody......your a fucking phony LaKota......its called CHARACTER....try getting some....

Prove it. Let's see some proof...

Also, keep in mind that it's a no-no to alter other's quotes.

 

[Harry Dresden]

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have. This is what we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not me. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volitile is that it is a right that people will fight and die for.

An interesting debate.

you sir....do not know this jerk yet.....go read his other gun threads.....when someone states......no one should have guns.....and then says he is a gun lover....but yet wants them banned.....and wont answer when called on it......yea he is a gun lover....

 

[Lakhota]

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not me. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.

An interesting debate.

Amen! I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut. Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.

 

[Lakhota]

Harry Dresden, I'm still waiting on your proof (Post #34)...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in today's constitutional interpretations.

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me guess, you think Congress should be able to make a law and then throw people who violated the law before it existed in prison.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not me. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.

An interesting debate.

Amen! I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut. Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.

Bull fucking shit you lying shack of shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's strange that obama comes out and says he loves shooting skeet and now shitting bull claims to be a gun nut. and in the same day.

 

[bayoubill]

I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in today's constitutional interpretations.

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well... ummm... mebbe because they were written by the same folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... and, since said Framers wanted to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights within only a coupla pages, they wrote and left us the Federal Papers so that we may know the intent of their work...

 

[Lakhota]

I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in today's constitutional interpretations.

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well... ummm... mebbe because they were written by the same folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... and, since said Framers wanted to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights within only a coupla pages, they wrote and left us the Federal Papers so that we may know the intent of their work...

Did the founders vote to "ratify" their "Federalist Papers"...? Were their "Federalist Papers" ever ratified?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.

Which weapons are those?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not me. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.

An interesting debate.

I wish politicians had your integrity. Unfortunately they dont.
When you brought up "seeing your own hypocrisy" the first thing that popped into my head is the hypocrisy of the left regarding gun control.
Protection for me but not for thee.

I see our second amendment problem as a break down of society that cant be dealt with because of our PC culture.
And the dems are more than happy to take advantage.
It's going to come back and bite us all in the ass eventually.....or more likely our children and grandchildren.

Oh and Willie. This would be one of the reasons why bigreb doesn't care for Lackota.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ne-aka-mrs-bill-ayers-is-for-gun-control.html

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry Dresden, I'm still waiting on your proof (Post #34)...

go read your other threads .....you know what you posted and so does anyone else in that thread LaKota......and i told you in that thread that what you originally posted was ok......but why are you saying now you are against guns?......you were asked a couple of times and not just by me......you did what you usually do.....ignored everyone instead of explaining why you say one thing and then say another.....you created your own bullshit here....not me....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not me. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.

An interesting debate.

Amen! I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut. Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.

Bull fucking shit you lying shack of shit.

see.....Reb knows he has seen your other threads.....

 

[Unkotare]

so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????

That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.

there were very few

Ok, what were their names?

 

[Lakhota]

It's easy to accuse someone of being a liar without providing any proof. Where's the proof?

 

[Harry Dresden]

right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html

do you not have this written in every post?....

Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Lakhota]

right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html

post 154.....

Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

Post 154 in your link is a picture. The statement you reference is in my signature. Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned. I don't want guns banned. I simply want sensible gun control. The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world. The NRA is crazy.

 

[Hum Dinger]

" The second amendment doesn't provide us with the right to keep and bear arms - that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man - but the second amendment was put in place to say that it was a right that the federal government had no power to touch and must defend and protect."

Their is a huge difference between "The Right to Bear Arms" and all other inalienable rights:

As you stated: "that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man".

Guns are manufactured items, they are NOT "given by the creator" and therefore are NOT an inalienable right.

Though it is clear that the constitution does give SOME right to bear arms, it is neither an inalienable right, nor an unlimited right.

The limits on the right to bear arms are determined by the court.

First the court must determine what level of arms is "Reasonable".

Second the court should look at the conflict between the right to bear arms (a non-inalienable right) and the greatest of all inalienable rights: The Right to Life.

 

[Lakhota]

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...

The Declaration of Independence is NOT a governing document. I repeat - NOT a governing document.

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

More: The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

 

[Harry Dresden]

right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html

post 154.....

Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

Post 154 in your link is a picture. The statement you reference is in my signature. Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned. I don't want guns banned. I simply want sensible gun control. The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world. The NRA is crazy.

your posts are pretty dam anti-gun Lakota.....i suggest you might want to start expressing yourself somewhat better......no one who is for gun rights would want the only thing protecting those rights to be abolished.......and YOU HAVE called for the 2nd to be shit canned.....i dont see how its confusing if you understand English.....there is a difference between the words MILITIA and PEOPLE.....and i am quite sure the guys who put it together and put it in the Bill understood this.....otherwise why would they have not put Militia instead of People in the second part?.....