Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Willie Orwontee said:

Why should I take you seriously when you say again and again that you believe in something while not believing what it is premised upon?

Click to expand...

It make no difference to me since your mind is already made up and seems to be rather rigid and unyielding.

You now claim your belief in the Constitution is based in pragmatics . . . Well, I'm glad you have chosen to base your belief on something that "exists" in the physical world that can be "proven to exist" as opposed to a subjective metaphysical "belief system".

Click to expand...

Yes - pragmatics - what works and works well - is something which can is very much part of the real world.

Your pragmatics only operate until the next guy like you comes along with a different argument that dismisses the constraints of the Constitution

Click to expand...

the so called next guy can be one of your own fellow believers who one day is prostrating himself beside you before the same altar and worshipping the same gods and then the next day disagrees with you on facets of that same belief.

here it is a nutshell for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8

haymarket said:

You are the one making the claim so it is up to you to pick and then support it with verifiable evidence.

Click to expand...

I pick, all of the above. The evidence is in your postings.

countryboy said:

I pick, all of the above. The evidence is in your postings.

Click to expand...

You got nothing except your own vitriol. Thank for admitting it with that sweeping generalization devoid of any specifics or any submitted evidence.

haymarket said:

You got nothing except your own vitriol. Thank for admitting it with that sweeping generalization devoid of any specifics or any submitted evidence.

Click to expand...

if it makes you feel better to spew nonsense, by all means, continue.

countryboy said:

if it makes you feel better to spew nonsense, by all means, continue.

Click to expand...

You labeling me as ideological is the worst nonsense of all and then your utter impotence to back it up screams FAILURE in one thousand foot high letters carved into the side of a mountain.

countryboy said:

I pick, all of the above. The evidence is in your postings.

Click to expand...

I note no one-other than Haymarket-has ever claimed I have misrepresented his previous posts.

countryboy said:

if it makes you feel better to spew nonsense, by all means, continue.

Click to expand...

Its a tough position to be assigned the task of claiming that all the encroachments that the Democrats scheme to perpetrate upon our right, are actually not violative of the second amendment and are authorized by the main body of the Constitution. This might explain the evasive nature of the arguments

TurtleDude said:

I note no one-other than Haymarket-has ever claimed I have misrepresented his previous posts.

Click to expand...

I expect nobody to speak for me except me. That is what a man does in this world.
Argumentum ad Populum is a fallacy and invoking it does not lend one jot or tittle of credibility to ones claims, ones allegations or ones arguments.

haymarket said:

Usurpers!?!?!?!? By your standard there seem to be a whole lot of them and they stand with me. And for the legislators and presidents and governors the American people put them into those jobs of responsibility and sent them back time and time again.

I have explained what the word INFRINGED meant. Did you miss that?

The first truly comprehensive dictionary of our language as spoken in the USA was issued in1828 by Noah Webster. This will help everyone understand what INFRINGED means during that era.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/infringed

As you may know, the first definition given is the most common and most used.





So the right had to have been BROKEN to have been INFRINGED. If the right can be exercised - it is by obvious reality NOT BROKEN. The term INFRINGED - as used at the time - was far more final and definitive than any mere incremental step that people today call INFRINGEMENTS. The right had to be BROKEN to be INFRINGED.

Click to expand...

Stop.

Your link says that the word "Infringed" means broken; violated; transgresses.

This means that anything which breaks, violates, or transgresses upon something can be considered to infringe upon it.

Yet you then say the word as used in the constitution exclusively means "broken", and further, that this usage means the 2nd A only prevents complete removal of the right to bear arms, rather than preventing...infringement upon said right.

From where I'm sitting that sounds like some bull**** hackish logic, sir.

The Mark said:

Stop.

Your link says that the word "Infringed" means broken; violated; transgresses.

This means that anything which breaks, violates, or transgresses upon something can be considered to infringe upon it.

Yet you then say the word as used in the constitution exclusively means "broken", and further, that this usage means the 2nd A only prevents complete removal of the right to bear arms, rather than preventing...infringement upon said right.

From where I'm sitting that sounds like some bull**** hackish logic, sir.

Click to expand...

No - the term given first is the most common usage. The following terms then should be viewed with the term BROKEN in mind.

And lets look at the second usage - VIOLATED. If the right can be exercised, by its very nature it has not been violated. So there is no difference in BROKEN and VIOLATED.

haymarket said:

No - the term given first is the most common usage. The following terms then should be viewed with the term BROKEN in mind.

And lets look at the second usage - VIOLATED. If the right can be exercised, by its very nature it has not been violated. So there is no difference in BROKEN and VIOLATED.

Click to expand...

What basis do you have for that take on the definition?

The Mark said:

What basis do you have for that take on the definition?

Click to expand...

Read any introduction to a good dictionary and you will find that is how they work. The first definition listed is the most common. And so on down the line.

As to the VIOLATED - if a right is being exercised or can be exercised it - by the very nature of the ability to exercise it - has not been violated. That is just reality.

haymarket said:

No - the term given first is the most common usage. The following terms then should be viewed with the term BROKEN in mind.

And lets look at the second usage - VIOLATED. If the right can be exercised, by its very nature it has not been violated. So there is no difference in BROKEN and VIOLATED.

Click to expand...

more BS. if a woman is raped she has been violated but not necessarily BROKEN

try again. Shall not be infringed-means to anyone who believes in natural rights, that the right has been impeded, interfered with, encroached or violated. Your silly claim that the 2A is only infringed when someone cannot own any gun is pathetic and completely contradictory to the environment in which this amendment was created.

and again, all this stupid nuancing of the 2A's language is worthless give that the federal government was never properly delegated any power to infringe, impede, encroach, regulate, piss on, screw over, sully, tarnish, tread up, or interfere with our RKBA

TurtleDude said:

more BS. if a woman is raped she has been violated but not necessarily BROKEN

Click to expand...

That is a really bad attempt to change the entire discussion to something beyond the Second Amendment. And we never use the word INFRINGED to describe a rape of a woman. So its just inane trying to put forth that argument.

You have to consider the words in the context of the Amendment. Not other things that are not the Amendment.

Shall not be infringed-means to anyone who believes in natural rights, that the right has been impeded, interfered with, encroached or violated.

Click to expand...

And you just indentified your own problem with the issue.

So by your new rule that you just invented for us, none of the people who ever voted for a gun control law ever believed in natural rights. I welcome your presentation of that evidence. I will not wait up for it.

haymarket said:

That is a really bad attempt to change the entire discussion to something beyond the Second Amendment. And we never use the word INFRINGED to describe a rape of a woman. So its just inane trying to put forth that argument.

You have to consider the words in the context of the Amendment. Not other things that are not the Amendment.

Click to expand...

LOL you started using Broken and violated

the fact is-the government does not have any proper powers in this area so your disingenuous attempts to pretend the 2A allows all sorts of infringements are without any merit whatsoever

TurtleDude said:

LOL you started using Broken and violated

the fact is-the government does not have any proper powers in this area so your disingenuous attempts to pretend the 2A allows all sorts of infringements are without any merit whatsoever

Click to expand...

What raped woman is said to have been INFRINGED? That is the term we are defining - remember? Get real Turtle - that was a real overreach - not to mention just plain not applicable.

haymarket said:

Read any introduction to a good dictionary and you will find that is how they work. The first definition listed is the most common. And so on down the line.

As to the VIOLATED - if a right is being exercised or can be exercised it - by the very nature of the ability to exercise it - has not been violated. That is just reality.

Click to expand...

Do they say that only the most common applies when a word is used? I doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't even list the less common ones.

You seem for some reason to not want to use the 3rd given definition, that of transgression, which would so far as I can tell include any and all laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

Not that I necessarily disagree with all of those laws, you understand...
I'm just saying that arguing the 2nd A does not conflict with various gun restrictions as originally written...is an untenable position.

The Mark said:

Do they say that only the most common applies when a word is used? I doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't even list the less common ones.

You seem for some reason to not want to use the 3rd given definition, that of transgression, which would so far as I can tell include any and all laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

Not that I necessarily disagree with all of those laws, you understand...
I'm just saying that arguing the 2nd A does not conflict with various gun restrictions as originally written...is an untenable position.

Click to expand...

Explain to me then why you would skip over the first most common usage.... then skip over the second most common usage .... only to fixate upon the last one which is a minor usage?

You say it is an untenable position. Not so. And I have lots of company in that regard. The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.





Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

That is a whole lot of people from both political parties who seem to hold that same "entenable position". I guess they felt they were on solid ground as I do.

again for the 23rd time, we get the actions of what politicians have done after FDR pissed on the Tenth amendment as some sort of claim of what the founders intended. its completely dishonest and without ANY merit.

haymarket said:

Explain to me then why you would skip over the first most common usage.... then skip over the second most common usage .... only to fixate upon the last one which is a minor usage?

You say it is an untenable position. Not so. And I have lots of company in that regard. The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

Click to expand...

I'm not skipping over anything, I'm looking for what applies.

Obviously the first two words do not apply (unless you're exaggerating things for political reasons) to gun restrictions such as requiring licenses, mag size limits, etc.
None of that actually means the right to keep and bear is broken or violated (although perhaps the last MIGHT apply if you stretched things a bit).
However, we then reach the 3rd meaning listed, "transgressed", and that word quite definitely applies to the situation.

Depending on how you view things, of course, you might say that anything less than absolutely unfettered access to any and all "arms" counts as "infringed".

Personally I don't think that would be accurate. And personally I don't know that gun restrictions are all inherently bad.


But I won't kid myself about whether they're infringing, cause they damn well are.

Well, for the government to stay Constitutionally sound, yeah, Congress needs to amend the 2nd to reflect all of the bull**** hoops they make people jump through nowadays.

The Mark said:

I'm not skipping over anything, I'm looking for what applies.

Obviously the first two words do not apply (unless you're exaggerating things for political reasons) to gun restrictions such as requiring licenses, mag size limits, etc.
None of that actually means the right to keep and bear is broken or violated (although perhaps the last MIGHT apply if you stretched things a bit).
However, we then reach the 3rd meaning listed, "transgressed", and that word quite definitely applies to the situation.

Depending on how you view things, of course, you might say that anything less than absolutely unfettered access to any and all "arms" counts as "infringed".

Personally I don't think that would be accurate. And personally I don't know that gun restrictions are all inherently bad.


But I won't kid myself about whether they're infringing, cause they damn well are.

Click to expand...

MOre importantly, there is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to even act is area. Trying to claim that me buying a 30 round magazine is covered by the Commerce Clause is beyond pathetic.

Jango said:

Well, for the government to stay Constitutionally sound, yeah, Congress needs to amend the 2nd to reflect all of the bull**** hoops they make people jump through nowadays.

Click to expand...

they have to do more than that. they would actually have to amend the constitution to give themselves the proper power to do so

no one can honestly (read HONESTLY) read the Commerce clause and claim it was intended to allow gun control or anything to do with retail sales to individuals of guns

TurtleDude said:

they have to do more than that. they would actually have to amend the constitution to give themselves the proper power to do so

no one can honestly (read HONESTLY) read the Commerce clause and claim it was intended to allow gun control or anything to do with retail sales to individuals of guns

Click to expand...

Right. I'm surprised that cases are not being brought to SCOTUS over firearms and the hoops we must jump through to legally purchase one, as it is in direct confrontation with the 2nd Amendment.

Jango said:

Right. I'm surprised that cases are not being brought to SCOTUS over firearms and the hoops we must jump through to legally purchase one, as it is in direct confrontation with the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

lots of judges are dishonest and they avoid, like the plague, the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause. Scalia basically argues that the commerce clause mutation is unconstitutional but he's afraid to strike down on all the crap that Dem justices allowed to stand in the 30s and 40s (remember for a 20 year period-EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE WAS A DEMOCRAT APPOINTEE-1933-1953) because it was allowed for 20 years and by the time the GOP got some semblance of balance on the federal courts, most of the ND crap had been affirmed or supported by Dem courts for at least 15 years