2nd Amendment "Fraud"

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

There is one very easy way to end all this debate. If the majority of Americans agree with Justice Burger then all we have to do is demand our representatives draft a repeal or clarification to the 2nd amendment and then it can go out to the states for ratification. No fuss no muss. Easy as Pie.

If there truly is a consensus among Americans then this is a no brainier. If not well.. go pound sand.

None of that is necessary, repeal, clarification, amendment, ratification----none of it. The words are already there and they are resoundingly clear....well to those who aren't drowning in denial, anyhow. Your refusal to accept them doesn't make you right. It just makes you closed minded and intransigent. Some people would say you're an "ass". But, that would upset your delicate psychological constitution, so I won't go there.

Cordially,
Dave

[mpholland]

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

You don't actually think this current bunch of Republicans are conservatives, do you? And nobody's sanctifying Burger.

What's going on here? Are you unable to counter his argument or the others in this thread? Are you reduced to ad hominem jibes directed at the liberals on the board?

I'm pretty sure that's it but I welcome you to try to change my mind.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

to at least 1/2 the country it is not so clear.. so if the vast majority believe it says what they think then clarifying it would shut them all up right? We can get onto debating abortion or something.

Because they don't want to be.

"Huh, what? I can't hear you........!"

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mpholland

What I find most interesting is that after months and months of constantly trashing conservatives, all of the sudden ONE says something that perks a liberal ear and he is now Saint Burger?

Yeah, so. Post one JFK quote about "excessive taxation" and watch Conservatives become instant Kennedy fans.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Regards,
Dave

[mpholland]

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

Locke idea's is only valid in political science survey courses and philosophy. You cannot apply them to our nation today...this is the real world, and in the late 18th century his ideas had to be adapted to the real world at the time.

See how well John Locke's ideas are working out in Egypt.....

out government is not tyrannical

boy I am sounding conservative....

[icenine]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

There is one very easy way to end all this debate. If the majority of Americans agree with Justice Burger then all we have to do is demand our representatives draft a repeal or clarification to the 2nd amendment and then it can go out to the states for ratification. No fuss no muss. Easy as Pie.

If there truly is a consensus among Americans then this is a no brainier. If not well.. go pound sand.

Of course it would not be successful...your argument is evidence that we are correct in pointing out that private gun ownership is not at risk. We are only talking regulation of semi automatic assault weapons and magazine size.

[mpholland]

I suppose if I am to be enticed to counter, I could quote Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley from his Principles of constitutional law circa 1898.

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision, undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose, but this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

It is really kind of futile to try and settle the argument. As I have stated before, the commentary on the Constitution and Bill of Rights is filled with enough arguments on both sides to back up any twist you want to come up with.

Marc

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I have no objective or desire to change any minds here. Mom used to say if two people always agreed one of them was unnecessary. People just seem to forget that the Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to anyone. We already had the rights as American citizens. All the BOR did was deny the federal government means to take the rights away. I have already stated my opinions on the second amendment. I have the right to own arms. I don't have to defend it anymore than you have to defend your right to type whatever you want in this sight. Pretty simple really. I just have a sickness that involves trying to figure people out. Watching them debate gives pretty good insight. I must say that I like the recent tendencies to document cites that back arguments. I hope it continues. It can be very enlightening and substance always holds my interest better than raw statements only based on emotion.

Then what is your objective and your desire and how did your most recent post serve those ends?

Nobody is "unnecessary" and nobody is forgetting anything about the Bill of Rights. It seems, however, that some people with a case to be made regarding the 2nd Amendment believe it's the only thing that matters or, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the final third of it is all that matters.

There are other documents that outline our rights and responsibilities as well as the rights and responsibilities of government. Some of those have been mentioned in this thread. Taken together, they paint a clear picture of the framers' intent regarding the possession of arms by the populace. The 2nd Amendment doesn't negate Article 1 and it doesn't nullify later legislation like the Militia Acts.

Next, nobody here is arguing that you don't have the right to own firearms. That right, however, has ALWAYS been a qualified right. There have always been individuals who for one reason or another could own none and there were types of weapons that were outside the bounds of what was permitted in private hands.

When the Bill of Rights was written ownership of a field gun wasn't allowed. Then, when machine guns were invented, they became off limits to civilians except under very narrowly defined circumstances. So we see that, as time moves on and new weapons appear, the qualified right to bear arms needs to be tweaked. I think it's clear that a tweak regarding assault weapons and high capacity magazines is in order - overdue, in fact.

John