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 130 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3080120128129130131132 ... LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,300 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1291
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I am not going to answer that stupid dilatory question yet again.
    I am not surprised since you have never answered it before and even admitted your precious natural rights were nowhere to be found.

    At least we settled that.

    You apparently understand that no one who believes in a natural right would ever write the 2A to allow all sorts of infringements. But you cannot get around the fact that your interpretation of the 2A and the clauses of Sec. 8 are completely contrary to the belief system of the founders and thus your interpretation is without any merit whatsoever
    People who judge others by their professed beliefs are the gullible and naive. You judge people by their actions. And the Founders - when they had the responsibility of government directly upon them - took actions that flushed those professed beliefs and flushed them where they rightly belonged.

    So when do you stop judging people by their beliefs Turtle and start judging them by 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

  2. #1292
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    But you cannot get around the fact that your interpretation of the 2A and the clauses of Sec. 8 are completely contrary to the belief system of the founders and thus your interpretation is without any merit whatsoever
    You sound a whole like the early deniers of priest pedophilia accusations when they proclaimed that such actions were inconsistent with the beliefs the priests held.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1293
    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
    YOu tell me. Its your interest - not mine. Where in the decision did the Court say that the Bill of Rights does not apply to American citizens? it seems to be a decision that did previous little other than save Baltimore some money and was ignored by many during the short 35 years that it was around before it was made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment.
    you says the bill of rights GIVES us OUR rights when it was created....if that were so the 5th would have applied to Mr. Barron, in the Barron vs Baltimore case......however the court [john Marshall] stated the 5th didn't apply to Mr. Barron.

  4. #1294
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    you says the bill of rights GIVES us OUR rights when it was created....if that were so the 5th would have applied to Mr. Barron, in the Barron vs Baltimore case......however the court [john Marshall] stated the 5th didn't apply to Mr. Barron.
    Really? Perhaps you can provide a quote for us from Marshall saying that?

    That case did not happen until five decades later after the Bill of Rights gave us our rights. And then it was largely ignored to the point that when Congress was debating the 124th Amendment - and the ruling was read to them - it was news to many because it was largely ignored and then forgotten.

    It was a brief blip that had no real lasting impact on the nation or our rights as Americans.

    You have challenged me previously to show a right and that it comes from the Constitution. Okay - 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; 10-24-14 at 05:11 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

  5. #1295
    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
    Really? Perhaps you can provide a quote for us from Marshall saying that?
    dont need to do that read just the summary of the case.

  6. #1296
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    dont need to do that read just the summary of the case.
    Oh but you do. You made a statement of fact that the 5th Amendment did not apply to a citizen of the USA. You claimed it came from Marshall.

    So please produce it. In fact EB - since we are such good friends - I will save you the trouble.

    We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [32 U.S. 243, 251] government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.
    It is not binding on the government of states. That is NOT what you reported. Here is your statement

    however the court [john Marshall] stated the 5th didn't apply to Mr. Barron.
    A bit of a difference there.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-24-14 at 05:20 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

  7. #1297
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    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.
    That may be.

    Doesn't make them or you correct, however.
    Education.

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

  8. #1298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    YOu tell me. Its your interest - not mine. Where in the decision did the Court say that the Bill of Rights does not apply to American citizens? it seems to be a decision that did previous little other than save Baltimore some money and was ignored by many during the short 35 years that it was around before it was made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment.
    That is false. Barron v. Baltimore stands for the proposition that the Bill of Rights, as written, applied only to the United States government. It is black-letter law today. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in no way made the decision irrelevant, as you assert. Three decades later, in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment made Barron v. Baltimore very relevant.

    It was exactly the fact that nothing in the Bill of Rights applied to the states that prompted a long series of Supreme Court decisions that started about 1900--the most recent one being McDonald v. Chicago several years ago. In these decisions, which developed the Court's "incorporation doctrine," it held that first one part of the Bill of Rights and then another was incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and through it applied to the states.

  9. #1299
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    the Bill of Rights gave us our rights.
    Repeating plainly false statements over and over on these threads doesn't make them any less false. It just teaches more and more people about your credibility.

    No one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a public trial in a state court until 1948, when the Supreme Court extended that part of the Sixth Amendment to the states in In Re Oliver. And no one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a speedy trial in a state court until 1967, when the Court extended that part of the same amendment to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina.

    The body of the Constitution specifically guaranteed only a few personal rights. The Anti-Federalists objected to this, making the ratification of the Constitution doubtful. To assure that it was ratified, the Federalists had to agree to add more specific guarantees as soon as the First Congress came into session. James Madison, who before 1788 had opposed any Bill of Rights, became convinced one should be added to the Constitution and agreed to draft a set of amendments. After some were rejected, others were substantially modified, and one failed ratification, they became the first eight amendments to the Constitution--the Bill of Rights.

    Some members of Congress at the time thought it was a waste of time to list rights in this way, because all the listed rights belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave Congress power to take them away. Some went as far as to suggest a Bill of Rights might harm liberty, by tending to support an argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. It was partly out of this concern that the Ninth Amendment was included.

    The Bill is not a grant of power to the government of the United States but a limitation on its power. It did not authorize the new government to give any rights to anyone. Just the opposite--it guaranteed certain rights against the new government that most people at the time believed it must not take away. That fact frustrates the thoroughly undemocratic and un-American desire some people have for an all-powerful national government that dispenses and withdraws individual rights at its pleasure--but it is fact just the same.

    Your false claim also ignores the fact, which the Court stated in Heller, that the Court considers the rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments in particular to predate the Constitution. As I pointed out in a post not long ago, the Court has said the same about the right to habeas. The Framers did not grant it in the Constitution, but simply said it could only be suspended under certain conditions. No need to grant a right that was already long established by the time the Constitution was written. You couldn't refute what I wrote about these pre-existing rights in that post, so you pretended to agree with it. Now, though, when you think that's been forgotten, you go back to singing your old tune again.

  10. #1300
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:27 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,680

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    You are not being truthful or you are merely ignorant of history.

    the governments in the south tried to disarm freed slaves

    the NYC elite tried to disarm "papist immigrants" in the early 1900s. CLinton tried to disarm American citizens.


    and numerous Democrats have called for more extensive gun bans
    The south was a different country in thise days; remember? Papist immigrants disarmed? You mean Irish Catholics: you're going to have to prove that one.

    And Clinton tried to disarm citizens: right.

    Oh, and BTW I reported you for saying that I'm not being truthful. That's BS dude; I wish you'd stop 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
  •