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 69 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #681
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Of course you don't. Why confuse you with facts and reality when you seem so comfy and secure in your own belief system?



    the first half of the same sentence in the same Amendment in the same Constitution tells you who the people they are referring to are. Or lets look at the answer as given by the previously experts Scalia claimed he was guided by in his majority opinion:
    That doesn't even make sense. If the founding fathers wanted arms to only be kept by an organized militia, why didn't they simply state that? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"? Please give an example of any other time the term "the people" is used in the Constitution, where it means anything other than the whole of the people.

    At the time the Constitution was drafted, the militia drew from the whole of the people,and they supplied their own arms. That is why this is emphasized by the 2A.

  2. #682
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,770

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    That doesn't even make sense. If the founding fathers wanted arms to only be kept by an organized militia, why didn't they simply state that? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"? Please give an example of any other time the term "the people" is used in the Constitution, where it means anything other than the whole of the people.

    At the time the Constitution was drafted, the militia drew from the whole of the people,and they supplied their own arms. That is why this is emphasized by the 2A.
    No it did not. the militia was white free men between the ages of 18 and 45. that would be less than 30% of the population.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #683
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Not at all is it silly. I have shown you how the decision could have been written. You do not like that. Fine. But I have shown it just the same.

    You are merely against it because my approach would have reaffirmed the right of Congress to pass regulations in this area and are against that as part of your own political belief system. You being against the approach does NOT make it contradictory nor silly. It simply makes you against it because of your own beliefs and political agenda.

    As to a prior natural right - there is no such thing and you have never been able to prove any such thing exists outside of a willful belief which exists only in the mind of the believer.
    1) Congress has no such proper power

    2) the stupid tactic of trying to prove "natural rights" don't exist is a straw man. The fact that you avoid is that the FOUNDERS believed that there were such things and used the BoR to recognize them / Your constant claim that NR do not exist has absolutely no relevance nor does the actual question of whether such rights exist. The fact is, the founders thought such rights exist and anyone who sought to RECOGNIZE a NR with a Amendment would not INTEND that amendment to do something other than recognize the right

    So your worthless interpretation of the 2A is worthless because it is not consistent with what men who believed in NR would do.

    Your entire argument scheme is self contradictory.



  4. #684
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    I don't really give a ****. The Second Amendment is clear, without referencing any outside sources, and strictly from a language perspective. Which really shouldn't even be needed. The meaning is clear. It is only because of gun hating liberals, that this argument even needs to take place.

    Riddle me this Batman, why does the 2A use the term "the people"?
    The people who spend so much time nuancing the language in the second and pretending it is hard to understand are those who understand what it says and THEY DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT MEANS

    none of the disgusting Democrap schemes against our rights are constitutional. We know it, THEY know it, and that is why they spend so much time pretending the 2A says something other than what it does



  5. #685
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    That doesn't even make sense. If the founding fathers wanted arms to only be kept by an organized militia, why didn't they simply state that? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"? Please give an example of any other time the term "the people" is used in the Constitution, where it means anything other than the whole of the people.

    At the time the Constitution was drafted, the militia drew from the whole of the people,and they supplied their own arms. That is why this is emphasized by the 2A.
    The 2A is all about what the federal government is not permitted to do, Yet Haymarket claims the 2A is telling the federal government that it can organize a federal militia. The entire environment surrounding the BoR is contrary to Haymarket's extremely statist misinterpretation of the 2A



  6. #686
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    No it did not. the militia was white free men between the ages of 18 and 45. that would be less than 30% of the population.
    that is worthless argument. in 1790 or so that was a majority of the voting population



  7. #687
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,925

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The 2A is all about what the federal government is not permitted to do, Yet Haymarket claims the 2A is telling the federal government that it can organize a federal militia. The entire environment surrounding the BoR is contrary to Haymarket's extremely statist misinterpretation of the 2A
    where does the 2A ammendment state that the federal government can not make laws concerning firearms?

    are gun laws of any kind considered an infringement?
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  8. #688
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    where does the 2A ammendment state that the federal government can not make laws concerning firearms?

    are gun laws of any kind considered an infringement?
    the question you seem to studiously ignore is WHERE the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was given such a power

    Shall not be infringed it pretty obvious to me. I guess to those who want gun regulations beyond what states can properly impose, don't really care what the 2A or the Constitution says



  9. #689
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    No it did not. the militia was white free men between the ages of 18 and 45. that would be less than 30% of the population.
    Okay, then let's play out this silly game of semantics to it's logical conclusion. Are you seriously trying to convince us that the founders meant that only, " white free men between the ages of 18 and 45", were "the people" referred to by the 2A? If that were the case, why didn't the founders simply say so? Why use the unambiguous term "the people"?

    I noticed you failed to provide an example of the Constitution using the term "the people" aside from the 2A, where the meaning can be anything other than the whole of the people. Did you forget?

  10. #690
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,770

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    1) Congress has no such proper power.
    Article I Section 8 says otherwise. But you know that since I have informed you of it many many many times in many many treads.



    2) the stupid tactic of trying to prove "natural rights" don't exist is a straw man.
    Your serious misuse of the term shows you again have no idea what it means. The fact is that natural rights are a belief. They exist only in the mind of the willful believer.



    The fact that you avoid is that the FOUNDERS believed that there were such things and used the BoR to recognize them / Your constant claim that NR do not exist has absolutely no relevance nor does the actual question of whether such rights exist. The fact is, the founders thought such rights exist and anyone who sought to RECOGNIZE a NR with a Amendment would not INTEND that amendment to do something other than recognize the right
    people can believe in gods or God or faeries or Santa Claus. that does not make them real.


    Your entire argument scheme is self contradictory
    No it is not. It makes perfect sense in the real world divorced from a belief natural rights, elves, fairies and gods dispensing rights like Halloween candy to costumed toddlers disguised as Superman and Barnie.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •