Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 145 of 145

Thread: Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

  1. #141
    Guru
    Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,728

    Re: Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

    And the story continues...

    Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton

    As us usual with quotes attributed to founders, the context and conversation that led to the quote is rarely mentioned nor is the fact that during the convention many ideas were proposed and discarded in favor of what we see today in the BOR. While we are quoting sources, lets try this:

    The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY

    So we see that the debate continues. What made sense in 1788 for reasons known to the people of the time may or may not make sense in the original argument today. Are we part of a militia? No. Do we have slave patrols that must be armed and kept within states that cannot be taken by a federal government to leave slave owners at risk? No. Do we have the constant threat of war by foreign powers on all sides? No. Are we conquering native peoples through force? No. Are we completely devoid of police protection today as they were in 1788? No. So we are left with the self-defense argument alone. But self-defense is not an open mandate to defend yourself with any weapon, limits can and are placed upon them from time to time as technology advances. Are guns a fabric of American identity? For some, yes. For many others who live in constant fear of our fellow gun owning citizens, no. Lastly, the idea of natural rights is an easy rationale for just about anything since they have never been completely listed nor agreed upon by any majority of opinion. They were ideas promoted by philosophers only. While I agree that all human beings deserve to live with certain rights upheld by governments, no one can define them nor is there any global consensus on what they are today.
    Ubuntu: I am because we are.

    'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' Anatole France

  2. #142
    Guru Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,532

    Re: Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    And the story continues...

    Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton

    As us usual with quotes attributed to founders, the context and conversation that led to the quote is rarely mentioned nor is the fact that during the convention many ideas were proposed and discarded in favor of what we see today in the BOR. While we are quoting sources, lets try this:

    The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY

    So we see that the debate continues. What made sense in 1788 for reasons known to the people of the time may or may not make sense in the original argument today. Are we part of a militia? No. Do we have slave patrols that must be armed and kept within states that cannot be taken by a federal government to leave slave owners at risk? No. Do we have the constant threat of war by foreign powers on all sides? No. Are we conquering native peoples through force? No. Are we completely devoid of police protection today as they were in 1788? No. So we are left with the self-defense argument alone. But self-defense is not an open mandate to defend yourself with any weapon, limits can and are placed upon them from time to time as technology advances. Are guns a fabric of American identity? For some, yes. For many others who live in constant fear of our fellow gun owning citizens, no. Lastly, the idea of natural rights is an easy rationale for just about anything since they have never been completely listed nor agreed upon by any majority of opinion. They were ideas promoted by philosophers only. While I agree that all human beings deserve to live with certain rights upheld by governments, no one can define them nor is there any global consensus on what they are today.
    Still having difficulty comprehending "shall not be infringed" I see. I'm not surprised. It is very common for the anti-American left to become myopic and focus on only what they want to see, not what the text actually says. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not conditioned on membership with any militia. Nor is it a right that has to be justified to you or anyone else. Nobody cares whether you think it is useful or not, because you don't get to make that decision. Nor are individual rights determined by consensus. It is always the fascist left trying to decide what is or isn't necessary for others. It is the tell-tale trait of their mental illness.

  3. #143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,211

    Re: Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    Care to cite any experts not associated with Heller in that analysis of the origins of the 2nd amendment? If the intent was to protect the right of self-defense, why not say so clearly and list all the various weapons one could use to defend oneself including rapiers, knives, bow and arrows, pikes, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, etc? Why only arms? They did not mention cannons, could a person have a cannon to defend his home from attack? No, the amendment was about the militias and the lack of a standing army. In defense of your argument, it is true that self-defense was never intended to be restricted by the government but your position here seems to be that the only way to defend oneself was by a gun. As I stated, guns were expensive, armies needed to be called up in an instant and war at that time required armed soldiers.
    The right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law if it is not specifically about "the Poor sleeping under bridges."

    Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not individual rights. It says so in the first clause and there no no Individual terms in our entire Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution. All terms are collective and plural.

  4. #144
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,211

    Re: Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Still having difficulty comprehending "shall not be infringed" I see. I'm not surprised. It is very common for the anti-American left to become myopic and focus on only what they want to see, not what the text actually says. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not conditioned on membership with any militia. Nor is it a right that has to be justified to you or anyone else. Nobody cares whether you think it is useful or not, because you don't get to make that decision. Nor are individual rights determined by consensus. It is always the fascist left trying to decide what is or isn't necessary for others. It is the tell-tale trait of their mental illness.
    Since the security of our free States is the End and the Militia is the means; it means there can be no prohibition on lgbtq community regarding keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

    An army group in reserve, or we are not going!

  5. #145
    Sage
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,690

    Re: Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    And the story continues...

    Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton

    As us usual with quotes attributed to founders, the context and conversation that led to the quote is rarely mentioned nor is the fact that during the convention many ideas were proposed and discarded in favor of what we see today in the BOR. While we are quoting sources, lets try this:

    The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY

    So we see that the debate continues. What made sense in 1788 for reasons known to the people of the time may or may not make sense in the original argument today. Are we part of a militia? No. Do we have slave patrols that must be armed and kept within states that cannot be taken by a federal government to leave slave owners at risk? No. Do we have the constant threat of war by foreign powers on all sides? No. Are we conquering native peoples through force? No. Are we completely devoid of police protection today as they were in 1788? No. So we are left with the self-defense argument alone. But self-defense is not an open mandate to defend yourself with any weapon, limits can and are placed upon them from time to time as technology advances. Are guns a fabric of American identity? For some, yes. For many others who live in constant fear of our fellow gun owning citizens, no. Lastly, the idea of natural rights is an easy rationale for just about anything since they have never been completely listed nor agreed upon by any majority of opinion. They were ideas promoted by philosophers only. While I agree that all human beings deserve to live with certain rights upheld by governments, no one can define them nor is there any global consensus on what they are today.
    No, there is another argument you've missed, and as far as I can tell, it's the decisive one: the historical argument. History is full of instances of populations giving up their weapons. And for the most part--with just two exceptions I can think of, in fact--those populations learned to regret having done so. Human beings are nasty, violent, power-seeking creatures who will almost always seek out not merely undue advantage over others, but advantage that isn't needed. Governments that start out egalitarian become tyrannical. Companies or other organizations do the same. The people must be able to bring to bear as much force, or nearly as much force, as could be brought to bear against them. Again, history shows us that when that is no longer the case, it usually leads to some very bad outcomes.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •