Your interpretation, not the interpretation of many others, and not the intent of our founders.
He is confusing or doesn't recognize the difference between unalienable rights and statute law. Lawmakers are forever attempting to obscure or deny rights with law, and the Supreme Court almost always overturns those unconstitutional laws. The rights exist (and always have existed) in spite of law--"endowed by our/the creator". They can pass any law they wish, but it doesn't change the fact that the right is still there--unalienable means exactly what it appears to mean. It's why the writers of the constitution spent so little time and effort saying what the citizen could do and so much time and effort stating what govt could NOT do. This is mostly 6th grade stuff, but it is further expounded upon in any number of places readily available to anyone who wants to bother taking the time to educate and inform themselves.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-23-2014).]
Maryjane, I am not debating inalienable rights. None of that matters in this debate. This debate from my perspective is from the legal point of view. You can not own WMD. end of legal debate. To that end the courts have considered Constitutional interpretation. Evidence of this is the continued illegality of WMD. You have absolutely nothing to prove you point of view out side of just having an opinion. Talk all kinds of fancy words, about what it ment at the time or how you think it should be translated now, means nothing to me in this debate. This is VERY SIMPLY about what is legal to possess as granted us by interpretation of current 2nd amendment rights.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-23-2014).]
That *IS* the debate here. We are discussing rights, and why we have them, you are discussing unconstitutional laws. I still suggest you read up on what the rest of us are talking about here, so you can participate.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-23-2014).]
That *IS* the debate here. We are discussing rights, and why we have them, you are discussing unconstitutional laws. I still suggest you read up on what the rest of us are talking about here, so you can participate.
You dont get it. I am not debating HOW or WHY THE 2nd is translated the way it is. I am saying it is the way it is because courts have made rulings on it that narrowed down the possibility of further misinterpretations. THAT IS IT. You can chalange this ruling all the way to the US Supreme Court if you want. You have that right. To continue to vent frustration at me is pointless. I as a person cant change it. And you as a person subject to the law cant ignore it just because you dont like it. WMD are not legal to own. The 2nd amendment has an official interpretation handed down by the highest Court in America. The Court has narrowed the rights we have and within those guidelines the States have formulated laws.
Funny. That is what most of us are saying about you. But that is ok, there is room for people like you here too.
I know, LOL but here we are debating. Seems like you summed it up in your previous comment by saying that I am arguing unconstitutional laws. IF the laws are unconstitutional WHY ARE THEY STILL IN EFFECT? The answere is as simple as they get. Under current 2nd amendment interpretation they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. It is sad that people argue what they hope the law says while attempting to belittle me for simply stating the reality of the laws.
You keep saying that these things can only by used for mass murder, but they can also be used to protect yourself.
Think this through for a second please.
The United States has nuclear weapons. They could easily be used to kill a LOT of people. However They are used as a deterrent, they keep people from attacking because we could use them.
So, having a nuclear warhead/serin gas/herpes is a useful device to use for protection.
By using your way of thinking, the US is an evil mass murdering nation because it has WMD's available. Also, all men are rapists, and all women are hookers.
Brad
If an individual had a WMD NUKE or Bio I would shoot them. Not a very good deterent for an individual.
If I had to guess, what political group stresses " freedom" so much that they are blind to reality? How many who have argued against me are Libritarians?
Damned, asking a lot from them now aren't you Brad?
I think it is funny to come here from time to time and see the anti's arguing about something they seem to know little about or at least act like they don't, and others having the time to waste trying to change their minds. They anti's think they are right even though they are not so why bother? One would have better luck pissin' up a rope.
Damned, asking a lot from them now aren't you Brad?
I think it is funny to come here from time to time and see the anti's arguing about something they seem to know little about or at least act like they don't, and others having the time to waste trying to change their minds. They anti's think they are right even though they are not so why bother? One would have better luck pissin' up a rope.
Not really, I just brought it up because some in this thread seem to think that the US constitution is somehow god-given and not a temporal document made by men. It's a good document and in its time it was no doubt an outstanding achievement given the general state of the world. IMO, it's not the alpha and omega for today's world, though.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 06-23-2014).]
Not really, I just brought it up because some in this thread seem to think that the US constitution is somehow god-given and not a temporal document made by men. It's a good document and in its time it was no doubt an outstanding achievement given the general state of the world. IMO, it's not the alpha and omega for today's world, though.
Fair enough,... I disagree with your opinion, ...but I guess to some degree you have a valid opinion in this thread just as anyone else.
Not really, I just brought it up because some in this thread seem to think that the US constitution is somehow god-given and not a temporal document made by men. It's a good document and in its time it was no doubt an outstanding achievement given the general state of the world. IMO, it's not the alpha and omega for today's world, though.
The Constitution is just a man made document, and as such it can be changed. That's why it does NOT grant rights. Some of the rights it refers to are considered "natural" or "God given." The very foundation of our nation is based on the idea of an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The philosophy is that all people have these rights the moment they draw their first breath, and the Constitution is a tool to prevent government from abridging or infringing upon those rights.
Any right granted by man can be taken away by man. A natural right cannot be revoked. It may be violated, but you have the right to preserve your life (among other things) no matter what the letter of the law may say.
The Constitution has within it a method for it to be updated. Legislation that dances around or circumvents the wording of the Constitution isn't it. If the Second Amendment should be abolished or amended, then there should be a Constitutional Convention to propose the amendment to do just that.
It's a good document and in its time it was no doubt an outstanding achievement given the general state of the world. IMO, it's not the alpha and omega for today's world, though.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: IF the laws are unconstitutional WHY ARE THEY STILL IN EFFECT? The answere is as simple as they get. Under current 2nd amendment interpretation they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. I get the feeling this is not about what the law actually says? If I had to guess, what political group stresses " freedom" so much that they are blind to reality?
Sort of, like you said the law is based on current interpretation. I went over how yes, there are penalties.
Its all about constant battle to keep the country we each live in what we want it to be, and for some a constant battle to change it in to what they want it to be. That is the reality.
In the context of this thread what comes to mind first is outdated and highly ambiguous wording. To me, much of the US constitution sounds rather Shakespearean.
I guess the 2nd amendment would be written differently today, maybe like that:
A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The purpose and composition of said militia shall be [insert here]. The regulation of said militia is the responsibility of [insert here] and must include [insert here].
The people of the United States of America shall have the right to freely acquire firearms, to keep them in their homes in a safe manner and to carry them in public. The purpose of this right is [insert here]. The definition of "firearms' for the purpose of this article is [insert here]. The following groups shall be excluded from said right: [insert here]. While the basic right shall not be infringed, any additional regulation that may become necessary in the public interest is the responsibility of [insert here] and must be approved by [insert here].
Of course I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I think that would make things much easier already...
A natural right cannot be revoked. It may be violated, but you have the right to preserve your life (among other things) no matter what the letter of the law may say.
Can you hunt to feed yourself (the most basic of preservation of life) without interference?
Its all about constant battle to keep the country we each live in what we want it to be, and for some a constant battle to change it in to what they want it to be. That is the reality.
Of course it is. And what would be wrong with that? The only constant is change, that's true for people, companies, communities, countries...
I'm referring to you would change our constitution.
If I was in such a position, yes, there are parts that I would change. But that's true for the German constitution, as well, and probably any other out there. You just can't have 100% of what you want in life...
Or if one said from the constitution, yet the government can change the constitution to say what they want, then...
Exactly. The people vote in the politicians who have made changes possible and then systematically made changes. My point from the start of this debate has been this very thing. The Constitution has been chnged and the 2nd is more defined.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-24-2014).]
Other than living in a society of one (e.g. you on a desert island), that's either delusional or sociopathic.
Looks like we misuinderstood eachother? I was saying I agree with you on that, that you cant have 100% what you want... and referencing that I had said it a few posts up too.
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
Nothing wrong with it. [But] Be prepared for conflict. .
Exactly. The people vote in the politicians who have made changes possible and then systematically made changes. My point from the start of this debate has been this very thing. The Constitution has been chnged and the 2ndracists is more defined.
?
Though that bold part needs clarifying, typo? Alot of politicians dont do what their constituents would like, also corruption, and some judges arent elected. Its a great system, arguably the best at keeping oursleves in check.
The thing is this too, from Ben Frankiln:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. "
Sorry, yes not intentional I have not posted from my computer in months. All my posts have been from my phone and it has some sort of auto correction thing going on? Say for example I use quotes this automatically gets added to my text "freedom". I have no idea why? But every time I make post I have to make changes to edit out this crap.
I know, LOL but here we are debating. Seems like you summed it up in your previous comment by saying that I am arguing unconstitutional laws. IF the laws are unconstitutional WHY ARE THEY STILL IN EFFECT? The answere is as simple as they get. Under current 2nd amendment interpretation they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. It is sad that people argue what they hope the law says while attempting to belittle me for simply stating the reality of the laws.
While it would be nice, laws do not magically vanish because they are unconstitutional. its a long, difficult, and horribly expensive journey to be struck down by the Supreme Court. Even if you get someone to accept the case, stick with it, and get to the SCOTUS, they still have the option to just ignore you if they dont feel like dealing with it ( one of the few flaws ).
And i'm breaking my rules slightly about trying to be nice for when i came back after my break.. ( and this will be my only exception ), but you are a f-ing idiot. Your 'simple answer' excuse just demonstrates how brain dead you are, and you really need to just go away. Far away. Our founders should have included a intelligence requirement for free speech ( and citizenship in the first place ). You would fail any such requirement.
Though that bold part needs clarifying, typo? Alot of politicians dont do what their constituents would like, also corruption, and some judges arent elected. Its a great system, arguably the best at keeping oursleves in check.
The thing is this too, from Ben Frankiln:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. "
OK, so now again we are back to square #1 I understand that what we have now may not be what they intended at that time BUT it does not change the fact that we are still bound to this interpretation of the Constitution, it's amendments and the laws that have been made under them. I am not sure we EVER had a right to own WMD, but I am sure we dont have that right now. It is undeniable they are against the law to have. This law could have been challenged by now, may have been challenged by now, I dont know. I do know that IF this ban of WMD is unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. Simple deduction of these facts proves the ban is Constitutional.
While it would be nice, laws do not magically vanish because they are unconstitutional. its a long, difficult, and horribly expensive journey to be struck down by the Supreme Court. Even if you get someone to accept the case, stick with it, and get to the SCOTUS, they still have the option to just ignore you if they dont feel like dealing with it ( one of the few flaws ).
And i'm breaking my rules slightly about trying to be nice for when i came back after my break.. ( and this will be my only exception ), but you are a f-ing idiot. Your 'simple answer' excuse just demonstrates how brain dead you are, and you really need to just go away. Far away. Our founders should have included a intelligence requirement for free speech ( and citizenship in the first place ). You would fail any such requirement.
You should try again to prove your point? You have not proved me wrong. Venting does not equal debating. Thanks for using your "brake my own rules card" on my behalf, it should be an honor on my part.....I think?
