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 124 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2474114122123124125126134 ... LastLast
Results 1,231 to 1,240 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1231
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,691

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    All that stuff is from your own fears and over active imagination. Infantry weapons... police weapons ..... you and I are neither Turtle.
    that is a really stupid argument. those weapons are arms. Many of them were not made specifically for the police but were adopted as such.

    The 2A was about citizens having weapons suitable for various uses including militia use

    so your argument, again, is completely wrong



  2. #1232
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that is a really stupid argument. those weapons are arms. Many of them were not made specifically for the police but were adopted as such.
    yeah - any argument you cannot refute is a "stupid argument" in your opinion.

    Read this

    11 Shocking Facts About America's Militarized Police Forces | Alternet

    Not only were many of the weapons the far drools over NOT produced for the police, they were actually produced as weapons of the military in war!!!!!

    And you are NOT a solider nore are you a cop - but you want them just the same. They do NOT have those weapons because of the Second Amendment and any right to have them. They have them as tools of their profession.

    The 2A was about citizens having weapons suitable for various uses including militia use
    Terrific. Glad to see you have come around on that issue Turtle. So now that the militia system is dead and gone for all practical purposes , one must then logically conclude that you also no longer see a need for the Second AMendment.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1233
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,691

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    yeah - any argument you cannot refute is a "stupid argument" in your opinion.

    Read this

    11 Shocking Facts About America's Militarized Police Forces | Alternet

    Not only were many of the weapons the far drools over NOT produced for the police, they were actually produced as weapons of the military in war!!!!!

    And you are NOT a solider nore are you a cop - but you want them just the same. They do NOT have those weapons because of the Second Amendment and any right to have them. They have them as tools of their profession.



    Terrific. Glad to see you have come around on that issue Turtle. So now that the militia system is dead and gone for all practical purposes , one must then logically conclude that you also no longer see a need for the Second AMendment.
    what are you claiming now?

    the Federal government was never given PROPER AUTHORITY to regulate arms owned by citizens

    Remember, we are using your EXACT WORD TEST

    and we see YET ANOTHER HAYMARKET POSITION ON THE 2A

    first it was-it only applies to those in the militia

    then it protects an individual right but only to some extent-the limit of course you won't tell us but you claim HELLER was correct in striking down a gun ban that prevented the citizens of DC from "exercising" their rights

    now you claim the 2A is not needed

    when you can resolve all the contradictions in your posts then maybe the rest of us might answer your silly questions. But right now, you cannot even supply us a consistent position on the 2A



  4. #1234
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,722

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    one of the purposes of the 2A was to make sure good honest citizens had the tools necessary to overcome those scumbags that would try to strip Americans of their constitutional rights. At some point, that may require good Americans using firearms or other weapons to kill or defeat power hungry would be tyrants. . I suppose there are some people out there who are so enamored with government that they cannot possibly imagine a situation where government leaders could ever become so malignant that surgical removal might be necessary. But the history of the world has proven how destructive government can be
    But what about the history of this country? The 2nd A. was written for US.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  5. #1235
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,691

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    But what about the history of this country? The 2nd A. was written for US.
    I have no clue what your post is supposed to do. Is it an attempt to rebut what I have said? Is it an oblique agreement?



  6. #1236
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    what are you claiming now?

    the Federal government was never given PROPER AUTHORITY to regulate arms owned by citizens

    Remember, we are using your EXACT WORD TEST
    What exact word test was that?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1237
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,691

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    What exact word test was that?
    you claim that the EXACT WORDS of the 2A do not contain "infringement" and thus the 2A cannot be read as preventing "infringements"



  8. #1238
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    nope - being born only gets you alive and no rights come with it.

    The Bill of Rights gives us our rights. I read it right there in print. I can see it.

    Your so called "humanity" gives us nothing except our first breath.

    THIS IS A MAJOR FAILURE FROM YOU......MAJOR



    1...the anti-federalist would not help ratify the Constitution if a bill of rights was not created, because...they stated the Constitution did not protect the rights of the people, Madison and Hamilton both argued that the Constitution because it limited the federal government in such a way, that it could not be involved in the life's liberty and property of the people, that rights were secure. however in order to get the anti-federalist to ratify the Constitution Madison promised to write a bill of rights.


    The Federalist Papers Summary No 84: Hamilton
    May 28, 1788

    This paper covers a few subjects which did not fall under previous heading or were forgotten. They include the Bill of Rights, issues regarding the location of the seat of government, and issues related to expenses. He begins by trying to defend the fact that a Bill of Rights is not included in the draft constitution.

    He claims that many of the rights contained in a Bill of Rights are already in the plan of the convention. He sites the article and section number for many such provisions and repeats the words of the plan and compares this to the New York Constitution which also does not have a Bill of Rights. In particular the plan contains the establishment of a writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post factor laws and of titles of nobility which are not contained in the New York constitution. He states what he believes is the purpose of the Constitution “which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns”. It does not need a detailed right for every liberty for every citizen.

    Perhaps more interesting is his belief that including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would be dangerous. It would claim various exceptions to powers that were not delegated and this would provide a pretext for the Federal Government to claim more than was granted. For example why should it say the the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? This statement if included affords a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. And Hamilton says what is the liberty of the press? What definition would not leave room for evasion? As an aside, this same argument was made regarding the tenth amendment which gave powers not delegated to the national government to the states. The question was should they enumerate the state powers or leave the wording general. It was left general because if enumerated then anything left out was not a state power and it was feared even the enumerated powers could be regulated.

    The next objection is that the seat of government is so far removed from many of the people that they cannot have adequate knowledge of the conduct of the representative body. In any seat of government only those people close by will have knowledge of the personable behavior of the officials, all others will obtain their information from the public press, correspondence with the representatives, or people who live nearby. It is state legislatures that will closely monitor the national representatives and they will be certain to report any ill behavior to the population.

    Another objection is that there is no provision respecting the debts due to the union. To answer this he quotes a doctrine of political law “States neither lose any of their rights nor are discharged from any of their obligations by a change in the form of their civil government”.

    The last objection turns upon the article of expense which some claim will be increased by the adoption of the plan. The new government will have very few members in either the house or the senate and many of the departments are the same as those that already exist under the articles. Tax collectors are new but that will be in many cases just and exchange to federal from state personnel. So where is there going to be an additional expense? Judges, yes but much of the new functions of government have the same people as in the articles but now doing different functions. Also in the previous government the state legislatures did much of the work for the United States and now the federal congress will do that function so the total cost will not increase significantly.


    - See more at: Federalist Papers Summary 84

    2.if the bill of rights gave us our rights, when American's would have had no rights until the USSC applied them to the states after the civil war..........IE...[BARRON VS BALTIMORE]......SO AMERICANS WOULD HAVE HAD NO RIGHTS FOR 77 PLUS YEARS!




    3 NO WHERE in Constitutional law, are the STATES or THE PEOPLE GRANTED ANYTHING.

  9. #1239
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you claim that the EXACT WORDS of the 2A do not contain "infringement" and thus the 2A cannot be read as preventing "infringements"
    ... and .........
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #1240
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post

    THIS IS A MAJOR FAILURE FROM YOU......MAJOR



    1...the anti-federalist would not help ratify the Constitution if a bill of rights was not created, because...they stated the Constitution did not protect the rights of the people, Madison and Hamilton both argued that the Constitution because it limited the federal government in such a way, that it could not be involved in the life's liberty and property of the people, that rights were secure. however in order to get the anti-federalist to ratify the Constitution Madison promised to write a bill of rights.
    Allow me to explain something to you EB that I hope enlightens you to the ways of the real world we all live in. Politicians deal in BS. It is their stock in trade. It is their currency. The say all sorts of things depending on which way the wind is blowing. I know from personal experience as I have written speeches for politicians, written literature for them, written press releases for them , and literally put the words into their mouths.

    They will say anything if they thing it helps them.

    That is true of all sides of the aisle.

    So there are two kinds of people in this world: the wised-up and the hopelessly naive.

    The wised up generally flush the crap that comes out of a politicians mouth and disregards it as self serving BS. They look at the ACTIONS of the politician.

    The hopelessly naive looks at the words - the speeches - the beliefs the politician claims to hold and forms their opinion about them through that. In doing so they become spas and suckers and chumps because they have fallen for the hype while ignoring the real actions.

    The sooner you and everybody else gets rid of this quaint childish notion that "they did not believe in that so they would not have done that" - you will be far far better off as the rose colored glasses come off and you quit being in the wrong column.

    An excellent example is the idea that the Founders actually believed the nonsense they wrote in the Declaration of Independence which was a blatant lie the moment they put pen to parchment and they live the lie continuously.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote those words, was a slave owner who treated human beings - the very men he claimed were endowed by their Creator with rights - as property giving them no rights or liberty and their happiness was totally and completely dependent on himself as their owner. That was also true for many of the men who signed the document.

    I could not care less what politicians say. I look at what they actually did or do.

    I could not care less about what any federalist or anti-federalist said. they did what they did and what they did was write a series of Amendments which gave us our rights as Americans.

    But enough for my friendly advice to you..... lets look at a real right and see where it comes from.

    If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to a speedy and public trial. How do I know I have this right? Because it says so right there in Amendment 6.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    Now if you tell me I have the right but it does not come from Amendment 6 - fine. Just then show me where it can be found.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-23-14 at 02:39 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •