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 128 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2878118126127128129130 ... LastLast
Results 1,271 to 1,280 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1271
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,719

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    wrong, more dishonest twisting. YOU CAN read them to allow that if

    1) you ignore the "exact language"

    2) you ignore the plain meaning

    3) you make up stuff that is not even HINTED in the language

    4) you complete ignore the entire premise underlying the Constitution

    5) you ignore the founders' main assumptions and beliefs

    6) and most pathetically, you work backwards and use a system of interpretation that is completely opposite of how you interpret the 2A.

    In other words, in over to use those clauses, you have to reject reality, reject an honest reading and make stuff up

    and other than the commerce clause, no one in 80 years has pretended that the other clauses work
    nope. All I have done is refer to the US Constitution as it is written.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1272
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    What the hell?

    When you're trying to determine whether a word applies, you look through the various definitions to find the one that applies.

    You don't dismiss it just because the first two do not apply.

    Seriously, what the ****?
    one also looks at the context. the founders believed in natural rights. the definition used by the anti gun poster is designed to further anti gun laws being "constitutional" yet the definitional choice is completely hostile to the entire foundation upon which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is premised upon.



  3. #1273
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    nope. All I have done is refer to the US Constitution as it is written.
    no that is not true. You try to claim that the words in the 2A use definitions that completely undercut what the founders clearly intended. TO say that their definition of infringed would allow all sorts of actions by the government is unmitigated nonsense.

    and even worse is pretending that Sec 8 can be twisted to say it intended federal gun control



  4. #1274
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I did just what you suggest. The first one applies perfectly.
    To the situation in question, for ****s sake.

    Obviously the first two definitions apply to the amendment, if a question arises that fits said definition(s) (as in, banning of the right to bear, which has happened and been overturned).
    But so does the third definition, for example if you question whether it is infringement to limit specific types of weapons and/or accessories.
    To determine whether that is the case, you examine the definitions, dismissing the first two because they obviously do not apply to the question at hand.
    Then you reach the third definition, and see that it DOES apply to the situation at hand.
    Thus you conclude that the term "infringement" does indeed apply to such laws.


    That said, we have "acceptable infringement", these days - I don't think that more than a small minority of persons would support absolutely unfettered arms ownership rights.
    Last edited by The Mark; 10-23-14 at 11:41 PM.
    Education.

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

  5. #1275
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    then why are you pushing them?
    because anyone who understands the constitution also understands the belief system of the men who wrote it. when you do that, you cannot possibly claim that they intended what you claim they did nor can you possibly HONESTLY claim that their choice of words would mean what you claim



  6. #1276
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,719

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    no that is not true. You try to claim that the words in the 2A use definitions that completely undercut what the founders clearly intended. TO say that their definition of infringed would allow all sorts of actions by the government is unmitigated nonsense.

    and even worse is pretending that Sec 8 can be twisted to say it intended federal gun control
    Nope. The Founders did what they did and agve the Congress the powers they gave them.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1277
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,719

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    because anyone who understands the constitution also understands the belief system of the men who wrote it. when you do that, you cannot possibly claim that they intended what you claim they did nor can you possibly HONESTLY claim that their choice of words would mean what you claim
    Their so called belief system is irrelevant as many of them did not even the beliefs the moment they stated them. They are merely lipstick on the pig to try and fool the gullible.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  8. #1278
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,719

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    To the situation in question, for ****s sake.

    Obviously the first two definitions apply to the amendment, if a question arises that fits said definition(s) (as in, banning of the right to bear, which has happened and been overturned).
    But so does the third definition, for example if you question whether it is infringement to limit specific types of weapons and/or accessories.
    To determine whether that is the case, you examine the definitions, dismissing the first two because they obviously do not apply to the question at hand.
    Then you reach the third definition, and see that it DOES apply to the situation at hand.
    Thus you conclude that the term "infringement" does indeed apply to such laws.


    That said, we have "acceptable infringement", these days - I don't think that more than a small minority of persons would support absolutely unfettered arms ownership rights.
    Sorry but I do not see it that way. I applied the most common use of the term and apparently so has every legislator, every President and every judge who has ever supported gun control legislation.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1279
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,719

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    because anyone who understands the constitution also understands the belief system of the men who wrote it. when you do that, you cannot possibly claim that they intended what you claim they did nor can you possibly HONESTLY claim that their choice of words would mean what you claim
    When you do that you fall for the hype. Politicians lie. Politicians will say nearly anything if it is in their own current self interest. Politicians are more than happy to use anything they have to use to get where they want to be or achieve what they want to achieve. And when the next cause comes along they have no trouble shifting gears and adopting new positions that may be contrary to the previous ones.

    I learned long long ago that you do NOT dwell too long about what people claim they believe as it is just window dressing. Look at what they do. Look at their actions. Ignore the words.

    And we know that the Founders did not even believe their statements of self professed belief when they said them.

    So this idea that the Founders could not have intended to give the government the power to do those things because their belief system said the opposite is simply the No True Scotsman Fallacy on speed.

    The fact is that they did give the federal goverenment via the Congress the powers and high fallutin' beliefs be damned in the process.

    Focusing on beliefs and what somebody said is for the gullible who are fooled by such meaningless pap. Look at action. hey tell you much much more.

    Jefferson and his co-signers to the Declaration said that they believed all men were created equal and they all had inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness while they willingly and freely owned other human beings as slaves with all the abuse and denial of life and liberty and pursuit of happiness that goes with the practice.

    So spare us all their pompous personal pontifications which were obvious lies the moment the quill was placed to parchment.

    What they said the believed in means nothing compared to their actions.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1280
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,681

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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?
    At no time in the history of this country has the government attempted to disarm it's citizens and the 2A has very little if anything to do with that.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

Posting Permissions

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