View Poll Results: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 20.00%
  • No

    59 78.67%
  • Not sure

    1 1.33%
Page 115 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1565105113114115116117125 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,150 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1141
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,616

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    LOL you started using Broken and violated

    the fact is-the government does not have any proper powers in this area so your disingenuous attempts to pretend the 2A allows all sorts of infringements are without any merit whatsoever
    What raped woman is said to have been INFRINGED? That is the term we are defining - remember? Get real Turtle - that was a real overreach - not to mention just plain not applicable.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #1142
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Read any introduction to a good dictionary and you will find that is how they work. The first definition listed is the most common. And so on down the line.

    As to the VIOLATED - if a right is being exercised or can be exercised it - by the very nature of the ability to exercise it - has not been violated. That is just reality.
    Do they say that only the most common applies when a word is used? I doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't even list the less common ones.

    You seem for some reason to not want to use the 3rd given definition, that of transgression, which would so far as I can tell include any and all laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

    Not that I necessarily disagree with all of those laws, you understand...
    I'm just saying that arguing the 2nd A does not conflict with various gun restrictions as originally written...is an untenable position.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #1143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,616

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Do they say that only the most common applies when a word is used? I doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't even list the less common ones.

    You seem for some reason to not want to use the 3rd given definition, that of transgression, which would so far as I can tell include any and all laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

    Not that I necessarily disagree with all of those laws, you understand...
    I'm just saying that arguing the 2nd A does not conflict with various gun restrictions as originally written...is an untenable position.
    Explain to me then why you would skip over the first most common usage.... then skip over the second most common usage .... only to fixate upon the last one which is a minor usage?

    You say it is an untenable position. Not so. And I have lots of company in that regard. The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.





    Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

    That is a whole lot of people from both political parties who seem to hold that same "entenable position". I guess they felt they were on solid ground as I do.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #1144
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    again for the 23rd time, we get the actions of what politicians have done after FDR pissed on the Tenth amendment as some sort of claim of what the founders intended. its completely dishonest and without ANY merit.



  5. #1145
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Explain to me then why you would skip over the first most common usage.... then skip over the second most common usage .... only to fixate upon the last one which is a minor usage?

    You say it is an untenable position. Not so. And I have lots of company in that regard. The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.
    I'm not skipping over anything, I'm looking for what applies.

    Obviously the first two words do not apply (unless you're exaggerating things for political reasons) to gun restrictions such as requiring licenses, mag size limits, etc.
    None of that actually means the right to keep and bear is broken or violated (although perhaps the last MIGHT apply if you stretched things a bit).
    However, we then reach the 3rd meaning listed, "transgressed", and that word quite definitely applies to the situation.

    Depending on how you view things, of course, you might say that anything less than absolutely unfettered access to any and all "arms" counts as "infringed".

    Personally I don't think that would be accurate. And personally I don't know that gun restrictions are all inherently bad.


    But I won't kid myself about whether they're infringing, cause they damn well are.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #1146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Well, for the government to stay Constitutionally sound, yeah, Congress needs to amend the 2nd to reflect all of the bull**** hoops they make people jump through nowadays.

  7. #1147
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I'm not skipping over anything, I'm looking for what applies.

    Obviously the first two words do not apply (unless you're exaggerating things for political reasons) to gun restrictions such as requiring licenses, mag size limits, etc.
    None of that actually means the right to keep and bear is broken or violated (although perhaps the last MIGHT apply if you stretched things a bit).
    However, we then reach the 3rd meaning listed, "transgressed", and that word quite definitely applies to the situation.

    Depending on how you view things, of course, you might say that anything less than absolutely unfettered access to any and all "arms" counts as "infringed".

    Personally I don't think that would be accurate. And personally I don't know that gun restrictions are all inherently bad.


    But I won't kid myself about whether they're infringing, cause they damn well are.
    MOre importantly, there is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to even act is area. Trying to claim that me buying a 30 round magazine is covered by the Commerce Clause is beyond pathetic.



  8. #1148
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    Well, for the government to stay Constitutionally sound, yeah, Congress needs to amend the 2nd to reflect all of the bull**** hoops they make people jump through nowadays.
    they have to do more than that. they would actually have to amend the constitution to give themselves the proper power to do so

    no one can honestly (read HONESTLY) read the Commerce clause and claim it was intended to allow gun control or anything to do with retail sales to individuals of guns



  9. #1149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    they have to do more than that. they would actually have to amend the constitution to give themselves the proper power to do so

    no one can honestly (read HONESTLY) read the Commerce clause and claim it was intended to allow gun control or anything to do with retail sales to individuals of guns
    Right. I'm surprised that cases are not being brought to SCOTUS over firearms and the hoops we must jump through to legally purchase one, as it is in direct confrontation with the 2nd Amendment.

  10. #1150
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    Right. I'm surprised that cases are not being brought to SCOTUS over firearms and the hoops we must jump through to legally purchase one, as it is in direct confrontation with the 2nd Amendment.
    lots of judges are dishonest and they avoid, like the plague, the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause. Scalia basically argues that the commerce clause mutation is unconstitutional but he's afraid to strike down on all the crap that Dem justices allowed to stand in the 30s and 40s (remember for a 20 year period-EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE WAS A DEMOCRAT APPOINTEE-1933-1953) because it was allowed for 20 years and by the time the GOP got some semblance of balance on the federal courts, most of the ND crap had been affirmed or supported by Dem courts for at least 15 years



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •