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 117 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1767107115116117118119127 ... LastLast
Results 1,161 to 1,170 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1161
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    Just to come at your position from a different angle, I would like for you to tell us your sentiments on the authenticity / enforceability of many state constitutions.

    You dismiss the thought that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights can be constitutionally recognized and enforced but plainly by their construction, state constitutions demand this concept to be recognized and enforced.

    Like many others, my state, Pennsylvania, calls out the rights that the people possess in Article I, and declares them inviolate before a single power is conferred and before any branch of the government is created or established and before any governmental acts and duties are authorized, structured and assigned.

    Are these state constitutions invalid because they are based on the concepts of inherent, pre-existing, retained rights that are excepted out of all subsequent grants of power?

    Just in case you want to see what I'm talking about -- PA State Constitution -- Art. I, 21 is how the right to arms is expressed and secured . . .
    Is this the language you want me to look at?

    Right to Bear Arms
    Section 21.


    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1162
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    That is what he has said in the past. He also has said that if you own one firearm and thus can enjoy your rights under the 2A it is hard to conceive of the government doing anything that would infringe that right. SO the answer to your question is YES
    He asked me a question and I answered it very early this morning Turtle. I am an adult and can speak for myself - even when the subject is about guns.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  3. #1163
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Is this the language you want me to look at?

    Right to Bear Arms
    Section 21.


    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
    Not specifically, just as a component of the whole of Article I.

    Again, Article I calls out rights that the people possessed before the government is created and that they shall fully retain after the government (being established by later articles in the constitution) becomes active.

    Only after these rights are declared and held out are powers granted which is an impossible flight of fancy if your premise is correct, that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights must be discarded as mystical fantasy and not to be considered as having any influence on the actions of government.

    I'm just asking you whether you feel that state constitutions that follow this structure and that are premised on these principles are void.

    If yes then I guess no further explanation is necessary; if no, I would love to hear the rationalization for your equivocation.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  4. #1164
    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 haymarket View Post
    lets review what you have been taught .... what did I say about the Second Amendment and it evolving into an individual right in our discussion on Heller?
    please tell me and the rest of the class what exactly you claim to have taught us? debate evasion tactics-101?

    changing standards 202?

    Your own words-THE Exact WORDS of the 2A say nothing about infringements (assuming that one buys into the utter garbage that "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with preventing infringements) but when we use your EXACT LANGUAGE STANDARD that you apply when you think it helps you narrow and limit the restrictions placed on your beloved Government of the people etc, on the language of Sec. 8 we cannot find any authority whatsoever for federal gun regulations

    So what exactly are you teaching us? to change standards when its convenient

    or more likely-do as I say and not as I do



  5. #1165
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    Not specifically, just as a component of the whole of Article I.

    Again, Article I calls out rights that the people possessed before the government is created and that they shall fully retain after the government (being established by later articles in the constitution) becomes active.

    Only after these rights are declared and held out are powers granted which is an impossible flight of fancy if your premise is correct, that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights must be discarded as mystical fantasy and not to be considered as having any influence on the actions of government.

    I'm just asking you whether you feel that state constitutions that follow this structure and that are premised on these principles are void.

    If yes then I guess no further explanation is necessary; if no, I would love to hear the rationalization for your equivocation.
    I am not sure I totally follow you but I will give you an answer - state constitutions can profess belief in anything they want to profess belief in. However, that statement of belief does not confer any rights with it. It is the creation of the right through the people and the government of the people and their subsequent establishment of that right that the right is actual and real and can be exercised.

    Why would it be necessary to void a mere statement of faith which by itself does nothing?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  6. #1166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    please tell me and the rest of the class what exactly you claim to have taught us? debate evasion tactics-101?

    changing standards 202?

    Your own words-THE Exact WORDS of the 2A say nothing about infringements (assuming that one buys into the utter garbage that "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with preventing infringements) but when we use your EXACT LANGUAGE STANDARD that you apply when you think it helps you narrow and limit the restrictions placed on your beloved Government of the people etc, on the language of Sec. 8 we cannot find any authority whatsoever for federal gun regulations

    So what exactly are you teaching us? to change standards when its convenient

    or more likely-do as I say and not as I do
    Is there some fundamental obstacle which prevents you from presenting my statements as I made them rather than you attempting to tell me what I was suppose to have said?

    As to what was already discussed - you and I exchanged views on this just last week. I told you that Scalia in Heller could have easily admitted the obvious connection between militia service and bearing arms and acknowledged the parts of Article I which give Congress authority to pass laws for it. Scalia then could have made a case that over the last two centuries many things in the Amendment have evolved and changed as the nation has changed. So we are now to the point where the right is really no longer a militia connected right but is now an individual right. But what has also evolved is the government end of it and he simply could have also said that Congress may still pass reasonable regulations over firearms since Congress intended the right to be regulated from the start.

    The basic error of Scalia was in serving a political and ideological master - the right and their 25 year crusade to get this done - while ignoring the other end of the Amendment.

    The right party won the case but the wrong reasoning was used and a great opportunity to settle many of these perpetual arguments was blown.

    Do you remember that conversation Turtle?
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-22-14 at 08:22 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  7. #1167
    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 haymarket View Post
    Is there some fundamental obstacle which prevents you from presenting my statements as I made them rather than you attempting to tell me what I was suppose to have said?

    As to what was already discussed - you and I exchanged views on this just last week. I told you that Scalia in Heller could have easily admitted the obvious connection between militia service and bearing arms and acknowledged the parts of Article I which give Congress authority to pass laws for it. Scalia then could have made a case that over the last two centuries many things in the Amendment have evolved and changed as the nation has changed. So we are now to the point where the right is really no longer a militia connected right but is now an individual right. But what has also evolved is the government end of it and he simply could have also said that Congress may still pass reasonable regulations over firearms since Congress intended the right to be regulated from the start.

    The basic error of Scalia was in serving a political and ideological master - the right and their 25 year crusade to get this done - while ignoring the other end of the Amendment.

    The right party won the case but the wrong reasoning was used and a great opportunity to settle many of these perpetual arguments was blown.

    Do you remember that conversation Turtle?
    why in God's name would Scalia admit something that is false-that being "militia service" given that serving the federal government clearly is not a right of a free man that pre-exists the formation of the very state that would demand militia service?

    and since Congress was never given any proper authority to regulate private arms, he soul have say that too

    That is why your argument is so silly and why you spend SO MUCH TIME pretending that natural rights neither exist or matter.

    ANYONE WHO BELIEVED IN THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL RIGHTS would not have authored a RECOGNITION of a RIGHT THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT to be exercised.

    Serving in the militia-as you claim the 2A is tied to is contrary to the entire premise that the founders operated under.

    AND FINALLY, HOW can CONGRESS HAVE INTENDED a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO BE REGULATED FROM THE START

    that again demonstrates a COMPLETE AND UTTER Failure to understand the entire context of the Bill of Rights



  8. #1168
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    why in God's name would Scalia admit something that is false-that being "militia service" given that serving the federal government clearly is not a right of a free man that pre-exists the formation of the very state that would demand militia service?
    Because the entire line about rights pre-existing is worth less that a bag of garden manure.

    ANYONE WHO BELIEVED IN THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL RIGHTS would not have authored a RECOGNITION of a RIGHT THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT to be exercised.
    Again - you invoke your second favorite fallacy - the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    AND FINALLY, HOW can CONGRESS HAVE INTENDED a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO BE REGULATED FROM THE START
    There are no pre-existing rights. If you think there are simply tell me where to have found them before law made the rights we have.

    Serving in the militia-as you claim the 2A is tied to is contrary to the entire premise that the founders operated under.
    That is false. Militia service is the reason for the Amendment as an alternative to an expensive standing army. The linguistic experts cited by Scalia in Heller confirm this. Here it is for you


    The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-22-14 at 11:09 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #1169
    Sage



    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,703
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    There are no pre-existing rights. If you think there are simply tell me where to have found them before law made the rights we have.
    On a purely philosophical level I would argue that the fact that you were born is evidence of a pre-existing right to life.

  10. #1170
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Fabulous View Post
    On a purely philosophical level I would argue that the fact that you were born is evidence of a pre-existing right to life.
    right to life? You are born - you are alive - so is any other creature who is born..... what does that have to do with any right?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Posting Permissions

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