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 132 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132133134 ... LastLast
Results 1,311 to 1,320 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1311
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right
    can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1312
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,626

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
    Well lets see. some Democrat scum bag politician says LETS BAN all SEMI AUTOS" and a wise man says-NO WAY that violates the natural right of self defense and of free men to be armed. and if enough people agree with the wise man, the scum bag Democrat gets thrown out of office

    as it should be



  3. #1313
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,626

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    That would be the mythical right that even you cannot locate and admit that it is nowhere to be found.
    that's crap and you know it. Its a belief. I believe free citizens should be armed and the scumbag Democrat politicians should not interfere with that. And I will vote against any scumbag who tries to pass federal gun laws. That sounds a bit more than MYTHICAL to me.

    is everything you believe in MYTHICAL Haymarket?



  4. #1314
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,573

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
    By getting an "activist" judge to back them up.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #1315
    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
    And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling?
    I wouldn't put it quite like that. It was already clear in the debate over Madison's proposed Bill of Rights that most states did not want certain limitations on Congress' power to apply to them also. For example, they decided not to adopt Madison's proposal to extend free speech protections to the states. But even in the Bill of Rights as finally ratified, some question remained whether all the guarantees in it were specifically limited to the federal government. They were not all phrased like the First Amendment, e.g., which says plainly that "Congress shall make no law . . ." The Court settled the issue in Barron v. Baltimore, making clear that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights did not protect citizens from actions by state governments.

    And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment.
    That is false. If the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had "supplanted" the principle that the Bill of Rights applied only to the United States, there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to make all those decisions in which it applied first one bit of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states through the much-debated "doctrine of incorporation."

    For anyone who's interested, Adamson v. California, from 1947, is a good place to see some of the justices arguing different theories of what kinds of guarantees in the Bill of Rights should or should not be incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and through it, applied to the states.

    And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?

    Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.
    You may imagine that using a snide tone will cover up your ignorance, but I doubt it. I think it only points it up.

    Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did

    The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS
    First, I just made clear that some state constitutions may have provided some of the same guarantees as the Bill of Rights. And yet now--once again-- you try to misstate my position. Second, I don't accept your Jiify-Law "evidence." Using sloppy wording is a way of making false statements. Obviously not all "state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments." If they had, the Supreme Court's massive, century-long project of applying most of the Bill of Rights to the states never would have been necessary.

    The Establishment Clause never applied to the states until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. Before that, any state could have chosen not to include a ban in its constitution on declaring an official state religion, and gone on to declare one by law. If the majority in a state had chosen to do that, it would have done the rest of the people in that state no good whatever to point to the First Amendment and demand its protection. Until McDonald v. Chicago just four years ago, Illinois was not extending the guarantee of the Second Amendment to its citizens--and I'm sure quite a few other states were not, either.

    Even today, the Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states. It's up to each state whether it wants to give people the right to a jury trial in civil suits where more than $20 is at stake. The same is true of the Eight Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines--the Supreme Court has never held that that bit of the Bill of Rights is binding on states. And there are quite a few states, including my own, in which a person charged with a felony like murder has no right to be indicted by a grand jury, despite the fact the Fifth Amendment guarantees that right to a person similarly charged in federal court.

    While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.
    I'm not concerned with what any other poster may have claimed. I've been responding only to your assertions, and I've shown they are flat untrue. It is as basic a principle as anything in constitutional law that the Bill of Rights is a "charter of negative liberties" and NOT a positive grant of rights by government. Trying to deny such a black-letter principle is a great way for a person to make a fool of himself--sort of the equivalent of sitting down at a chessboard and loudly insisting that the bishops move only along ranks or files, and never diagonally. But then you've made very clear here that your credibility means nothing to you.
    Last edited by matchlight; 10-25-14 at 04:35 PM.

  6. #1316
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that's crap and you know it.
    It cannot be crap because I have been saying the same thing you just did - its a belief. And a belief inside a persons head gives nobody any so called "right" to exercised, use or anything else for that matter.

    So now that we all agree the belief in natural rights is indeed only a belief and it is nowhere to be found outside of the willful self adoption of the believer himself, what good does it do any citizen?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1317
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I wouldn't put it quite like that.
    Excellent. So lets flush this idea that Barron somehow negates the Bill of Rights. And that admission settles that.

    If the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had "supplanted" the principle that the Bill of Rights applied only to the United States, there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to make all those decisions in which it applied first one bit of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states through the much-debated "doctrine of incorporation."
    And what provided the platform for the Court to do just that .... the 14th Amendment. So its much the same thing and you are arguing about a distinction without any real difference.

    Second, I don't accept your Jiify-Law "evidence."
    You have the right to reject anything which contradicts your own personal ideology and belief system. Thank for the admission and there is little point in then arguing it when you reserve the right to reject verifiable evidence which proves my point.

    And none of any of this changes the reality that we get our rights from the Bill of Rights. If you disagree, simply show me where we get them from.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1318
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    By getting an "activist" judge to back them up.
    But then the previously non existent right comes into existence. Before the judge made it so it still did not exist in reality or in usage.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-25-14 at 04:55 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

  9. #1319
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong
    I think someone's inner child got a great big owey because of Heller. That mean man Scalia made him feel all icky, and he can't do anything about it. So he jumps up and down and screams and makes up fibs about the Constitution--but no one listens to him.

  10. #1320
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,811

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Well lets see. some Democrat scum bag politician says LETS BAN all SEMI AUTOS" and a wise man says-NO WAY that violates the natural right of self defense and of free men to be armed. and if enough people agree with the wise man, the scum bag Democrat gets thrown out of office

    as it should be
    You did NOT answer my question. In fact - you did the opposite since you are using the example of a right that is in the Bill of Rights and the law of the land. I do not know why you would do that and think you could get away with it - but you did just the same.

    So lets try this again: can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •