By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

the2real4mafol said:

The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

Where does it say about self defense? especially against the government?

? I just cited it for you. I'll do it again.

dsgrue3 said:

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

 

Held: 

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(Source: Here)

I made the entire precedence bolded so you can see it more clearly. Not sure how you missed it the first time.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 said:

the2real4mafol said:

The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

Where does it say about self defense? especially against the government?

? I just cited it for you. I'll do it again.

dsgrue3 said:

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

 

Held: 

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(Source: Here)

 

I made the entire precedence bolded so you can see it more clearly. Not sure how you missed it the first time.

 

I don't know how i didn't see it either lol



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

arcane_chaos said:
killerzX said:
arcane_chaos said:
killerzX said:


nobody but the OP suggested that the presidents executive orders alone would take peoples guns... and he linked us to infowar's Alex Jones, hardly part of the "right wing media", but you can go ahead with your strawman. 

though those executive order will do nothing, they also dont really "stomp on the 2nd Amendment" either. the one about releasing health records borders on it though.


and this is what Obama is trying to get through people like you(and I mean people like you with no offense)

he has clearly stated that "There is no law or set of laws that will curve all violence"; are we to sit here and when events like Sandy Hook happen and say to the parents; "Hey sorry for your lost but hey, what can you do?" Obama went on to say "If these laws can save even one life, why not try?" this debate is not an attack on guns but a way to increase saftey for the public.

the only gun laws im in favor of, and ones that will do something, arent these knee-jerk reactions of "we have to do something".

im in favor of better background checks, meaning getting more up to date infor on the person, updating records, etc. better mental health screening for the backround check. making sure people dont slip through that shouldnt own a gun, making sure felons dont get guns.

and the law that will save the most lives, ban "gun free zones"

that's basically what obama's 23 executive actions are based on.

as for the ban "gun free zones" that is a very slippery slope, many people coming from all ends of the security field say that we shouldn't let people walk around we guns thinking that they can take the law into their own hands,(it could lead to cases like trayvon martin) it can very well lead to the wrong people getting shot at or the person getting shot at a police when arriving at the scene.

police and other authoritative figures who have been trained probably more than your regular gun owner have sometimes have had people caught in the crosshairs. I believe their was an armed civilain at the Tuscon, AZ shooting but he couldn't get a shot because of the mass amount of people running around, now picture that same scenario with a handful of gun owners.

i never said i was against all of the 23 executive orders. some yes, all no.

anyway, unlessthe the "gun free zone" provides armed security, then i think the gun free zone should be banned. they should at least give the faculty the choice of whether or not they want to be able to protect themselves.

the trayvon martin thing, isnt anything. the media, lied, spun, twisted, and manipulated what happened. Racist race-baiters like AL sharpton, and jesse Jackson did what they always do: lie and race bait. the media, lied, edited tapes, etc. having observed the actual facts of the case, i am all but certain Zimmerman will be found innocent.

your last paragragh kind of goes against your argument, lawful gun owners, especially the ones that conceal/open carry, arent gung ho on having some shootouts. they have discipline. they dont just shoot wildly into crowds of people, as shown in the example you provided, and also a much more recent example would be the gun owner who stopped the mall shooting, he pulled out his gun, but didnt fire becuase he saw someone behind the shooter, and didnt want to hit them, though the shooter saw the gun pointed at him, and new his rampage was over, and killed himself.

Conceal carriers statistically have much better accuracy/ hit percentage than the police do. the Police have an awful hit percentage. which i think is largely do to the civilian gun owner, knowing there will be significantly more consequences if there miss and hit someone else, than if a police officer did the same. the police have a lot more legal protection in such cases. Gun owners arent stupid, they are very safe. 



Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
spaceguy said:

So true. LOL


no it just has no relevance to the operative part of the amendment.

also regulated in the time and context it was written means organized or maintained as in a state of preparedness, not government controlled. even so, it matters not as it clearly states the people have the right to have firearms, not the militia.

is english really that hard for you statist to understand.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

it clearly says the right of the people, not the right of the militia

If we're going to stick to the context of their time, the right to bear arms was about muskets not assault rifles and automatic weapons...

Edit: It says the right of people to bear arms within a well regulated militia. 

at bold: no, not even close. it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

for your first part, thats just stupid. definitions of words matter. so knowing the defintiion is very important, that doesnt change what weapons we can have. if that were the case, the 1st amendment only applies to spoken word (and only words that existed at that time, they could never invision the types of words we have come up with), writing with a quil pen, and an old printing press. also any religion that the founders didnt know of isnt protected either, nor any newspaper that didnt exist at the time.



killerzX said:

i never said i was against all of the 23 executive orders. some yes, all no.

anyway, unlessthe the "gun free zone" provides armed security, then i think the gun free zone should be banned. they should at least give the faculty the choice of whether or not they want to be able to protect themselves.

the trayvon martin thing, isnt anything. the media, lied, spun, twisted, and manipulated what happened. Racist race-baiters like AL sharpton, and jesse Jackson did what they always do: lie and race bait. the media, lied, edited tapes, etc. having observed the actual facts of the case, i am all but certain Zimmerman will be found innocent.

your last paragragh kind of goes against your argument, lawful gun owners, especially the ones that conceal/open carry, arent gung ho on having some shootouts. they have discipline. they dont just shoot wildly into crowds of people, as shown in the example you provided, and also a much more recent example would be the gun owner who stopped the mall shooting, he pulled out his gun, but didnt fire becuase he saw someone behind the shooter, and didnt want to hit them, though the shooter saw the gun pointed at him, and new his rampage was over, and killed himself.

Conceal carriers statistically have much better accuracy/ hit percentage than the police do. the Police have an awful hit percentage. which i think is largely do to the civilian gun owner, knowing there will be significantly more consequences if there miss and hit someone else, than if a police officer did the same. the police have a lot more legal protection in such cases. Gun owners arent stupid, they are very safe. 


what problems do you have with the 23 executives actions?(just curious)

as for the trayvon martin case, it is not about race it's the principle to how things went down; a man percieved another person as suspicous based on how he looked and as a result a person was killed after trying to take the law into his own hands; then claimed "stand you ground law" I don't think you want to be approached by a gun owner because he deemed you any way as suspicious and the result was you getting into a fight.

what I was alluding to in my last paragraph is #1 having an armed civilain might not have changed the outcome if something of that magnitude were to go down, #2 if police aren't able to successfully ensure public saftey in a event like this the likelihood of an a concealed gun owner doing any greater is slim. I'd gladly take the option of a group of authorites like S.W.A.T/S.T.R. Since Columbine it's become a routine thing for police to train for an event like this, they'd be geared better to the situation than your average concealed gun owner.

I hope I'm not coming across as someones who against someone who carries a concealed weapon, but have faith in how the goverment works; the same one who has given you the right to bear that particular firearm



Around the Network
the2real4mafol said:
sc94597 said:
fordy said:
dsgrue3 said:
fordy said:

If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!

Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.

 

 


Let's not discriminate here....

You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.

The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on. 

I though the second amendment was so the Americans could set up a militia against any invaders (the french and british at the time). Where does it say you can use guns for personal protection? it just say citizens have the right to have arms, thats all

It is based on the philosophy of the founders. They all explicitly stated a multitude of reasons for the second amendment, but the primary reason was a matter of defending ones sovereignty (in the U.S it was the "people" the people who were sovereign.) That is particularly why you never see the mention of "citizens" in the constitution with th exception of voting. The second amendment was meant for the protection of liberty, life, and property: the fundamental rights declared by men like Thomas Paine and the contributing philosophy for the U.S governmental system. It was implicit, as should be the right to bear arms and many founding fathers opposed the explicit declaration of rights derived from the fundamental rights, because A. It would triviliaze them and make it seem like the government is giving these rights to the people and B. It will trivialize all other rights that might be derived from the three fundamental ones: life, liberty, and property. 



killerzX said:
Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
spaceguy said:

So true. LOL



If we're going to stick to the context of their time, the right to bear arms was about muskets not assault rifles and automatic weapons...

Edit: It says the right of people to bear arms within a well regulated militia. 

at bold: no, not even close. it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

for your first part, thats just stupid. definitions of words matter. so knowing the defintiion is very important, that doesnt change what weapons we can have. if that were the case, the 1st amendment only applies to spoken word (and only words that existed at that time, they could never invision the types of words we have come up with), writing with a quil pen, and an old printing press. also any religion that the founders didnt know of isnt protected either, nor any newspaper that didnt exist at the time.

Why do you nitpick what they meant at the time when it came to what they meant by regulated but can't nitpick what they meant by arms? You're picking and choosing what's convenient for your argument.



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
spaceguy said:

So true. LOL



If we're going to stick to the context of their time, the right to bear arms was about muskets not assault rifles and automatic weapons...

Edit: It says the right of people to bear arms within a well regulated militia. 

at bold: no, not even close. it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

for your first part, thats just stupid. definitions of words matter. so knowing the defintiion is very important, that doesnt change what weapons we can have. if that were the case, the 1st amendment only applies to spoken word (and only words that existed at that time, they could never invision the types of words we have come up with), writing with a quil pen, and an old printing press. also any religion that the founders didnt know of isnt protected either, nor any newspaper that didnt exist at the time.

Why do you nitpick what they meant at the time when it came to what they meant by regulated but can't nitpick what they meant by arms? You're picking and choosing what's convenient for your argument.

It's not nitpicking though. It's substantiated by other writings of theirs. One can't construe what is written in the constitution to mean anything else when their other rightings explicitly state otherwise. Furthermore, the second amendment is based on inherent rights, hence it is not "permission" to the people, but a recognition of what's already there and should not be taken. It makes sense considering how the constitution is a document meant to establish the federal government.



killerzX said:
spaceguy said:

So true. LOL


no it just has no relevance to the operative part of the amendment.

also regulated in the time and context it was written means organized or maintained as in a state of preparedness, not government controlled. even so, it matters not as it clearly states the people have the right to have firearms, not the militia.

is english really that hard for you statist to understand.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

it clearly says the right of the people, not the right of the militia

Yep just cut out the parts you like and run with it. Supreme court ruled you can regulate but not take away, unless your a threat to others rights. It's not just about your rights buddy, it's about mine to. I have nothing against guns, it's who owns them . So your scared over what, If your a good citizen you have no reason to worry.

Also they had Muskets and Rifle bayonets. Yea I'm sure they wanted everyone to own sub-machine gun.  See the guns that are semi-automatic are military weapons and shouldn't even be considered for sale to the public.

If you want a semi-automatic should have to have a higher class of classification. Like you have to be trained, have a perfect record and have psych background and yearly checks.



sc94597 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
spaceguy said:

So true. LOL



If we're going to stick to the context of their time, the right to bear arms was about muskets not assault rifles and automatic weapons...

Edit: It says the right of people to bear arms within a well regulated militia. 

at bold: no, not even close. it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

for your first part, thats just stupid. definitions of words matter. so knowing the defintiion is very important, that doesnt change what weapons we can have. if that were the case, the 1st amendment only applies to spoken word (and only words that existed at that time, they could never invision the types of words we have come up with), writing with a quil pen, and an old printing press. also any religion that the founders didnt know of isnt protected either, nor any newspaper that didnt exist at the time.

Why do you nitpick what they meant at the time when it came to what they meant by regulated but can't nitpick what they meant by arms? You're picking and choosing what's convenient for your argument.

It's not nitpicking though. It's substantiated by other writings of theirs. One can't construe what is written in the constitution to mean anything else when their other rightings explicitly state otherwise. Furthermore, the second amendment is based on inherent rights, hence it is not "permission" to the people, but a recognition of what's already there and should not be taken. It makes sense considering how the constitution is a document meant to establish the federal government.

They had no idea at the time what kind of arms we would have now and if you are saying the second amendment gives the rights to Americans to own any arms they choose then why can't I buy a tank if I have the money and equip my car with rocket launchers? 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb