Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

Nope. The Founders did what they did and agve the Congress the powers they gave them.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

The Mark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

jet57 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

so now the Haymarket approach to the constitution is that the founders lied and they really wanted to ban guns

what bottom of the barrel, last chance attempt to salvage a position you lost years ago

haymarket said:

Nope. The Founders did what they did and agve the Congress the powers they gave them.

Click to expand...

a completely worthless statement that has no value whatsoever. Its apparently all one has left after saying the Founders intended congress REGULATE FROM THE START a right they (along with subsequent supreme court decisions) believed PRE EXISTED congress

complete fail

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

complete fail. You pretend that the words they use say and command something different than just about anyone else. and your interpretations completely run counter to the belief system of the founders

No wonder you spend so much time trying to twist or deny what they believed

TurtleDude said:

so now the Haymarket approach to the constitution is that the founders lied and they really wanted to ban guns

what bottom of the barrel, last chance attempt to salvage a position you lost years ago

Click to expand...

We know the Founders did NOT believe in the nonsense they were spewing since their words are 100% contrary to their own actions AT THAT VERY TIME. That is historical fact that is beyond argument, beyond dispute and beyond debate.

As to wanting to "ban guns". Nobody has asserted that so take another one of you long series of strawmen back into that massive barn where you store them by the gross.

TurtleDude said:

complete fail. You pretend that the words they use say and command something different than just about anyone else. and your interpretations completely run counter to the belief system of the founders

No wonder you spend so much time trying to twist or deny what they believed

Click to expand...

Nope. What I said was that they did not believe the crap they were spewing as mere window dressing for their actions. We know this because at the very second they were putting those words down on parchment and signing them - they were doing the very opposite..... and continued to do so.

Judging a man by his beliefs and words rather than by their actions is a game for the gullible and naive. It is also a denial of the harsh and opposite reality that their deeds revealed.

TurtleDude said:

a completely worthless statement that has no value whatsoever. Its apparently all one has left after saying the Founders intended congress REGULATE FROM THE START a right they (along with subsequent supreme court decisions) believed PRE EXISTED congress

complete fail

Click to expand...

Rights do not pre-exist. If they do tell us please where they pre-existed.

haymarket said:

Rights do not pre-exist. If they do tell us please where they pre-existed.

Click to expand...

I am not going to answer that stupid dilatory question yet again. You can argue with the Cruikshank court that noted the 2A protects a pre-existing right

I realize you don't like that holding. 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

haymarket said:

Nope. What I said was that they did not believe the crap they were spewing as mere window dressing for their actions. We know this because at the very second they were putting those words down on parchment and signing them - they were doing the very opposite..... and continued to do so.

Judging a man by his beliefs and words rather than by their actions is a game for the gullible and naive. It is also a denial of the harsh and opposite reality that their deeds revealed.

Click to expand...

complete horsecrap. the founders had not given a single clue they wanted federal gun control

TurtleDude said:

complete horsecrap. the founders had not given a single clue they wanted federal gun control

Click to expand...

I wonder. Haven't studied it that much. But I also wonder how they would be today, having lived a couple if centruries seeing all that history.

TurtleDude said:

I am not going to answer that stupid dilatory question yet again.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ernst barkmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

haymarket said:

Really? Perhaps you can provide a quote for us from Marshall saying that?

Click to expand...

dont need to do that read just the summary of the case.

ernst barkmann said:

dont need to do that read just the summary of the case.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

A bit of a difference there.

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

That may be.

Doesn't make them or you correct, however.

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

haymarket said:

the Bill of Rights gave us our rights.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

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.