Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 146
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: The US constitution

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    100,528
    Thanks
    8397

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    There is no "right to" in the Bill of Rights or the Second Amendment. A "right to" is a positive right, which is not an unalienable right. The Bill of Rights are unalienable rights.

    The Second Amendment does not mention a right in the prefatory clause. The word "right" is used in the operative clause.
    That does not erase the prefatory clause. The operative clause is limited by the prefatory clause. This is clear to anyone who understands English.

    “As a child with no adult guardian is incapable of providing for themself, the government may become a child’s guardian”

    Does that sentence say that the government t can seize any child at any time at will? Because of the second clause?

    Obviously the second part is limited to the reasons laid out in the first part.

    This was US law for all of your history until 2008.

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[3][4]

    All this changed, in constitutional law, in 2008.

    It’s fucked up, irresponsible, dishonest, and murderously cruel to its random victims and their families.

    It’s a political party’s method of maintaining office, and a lobby groups method of making money. No different than a lab by group paying a party to mandate weekly blowjobs and then counting on men voters to consistently turn out in droves to vote you in.

    The attempts to justify ridiculous extremes with this amendment are transparently dishonest.
    Thanks from boontito, Friday13, Blues63 and 3 others

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,574
    Thanks
    4720

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    Your 2nd amendment states in plain English the right to maintain a well regulated melitia.

    It says the word regulated.

    It says the word melitia.

    Using that as the basis to insist on a right of a person to carry a firearm to go shopping in public is simply not honest.

    Your courts disagree but it’s just plain, basic English comprehension.

    Well. Regulated. Melitia.

    The argument is stupid. It’s blatantly dishonest.
    It also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's curious that you leave that part out. So I would argue it's your argument that is blatantly dishonest.

    Yes... the amendment is made in the context of a militia. But it never limits the right to bear arms to a militia. The whole purpose of the bill of rights as to give individual rights - not Government or State rights. So this idea of yours that the second amendment was meant only for a militia just doesn't add up.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 3rd March 2018 at 02:12 PM.

  3. #13
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    100,528
    Thanks
    8397

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    It also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's curious that you leave that part out. So I would argue it's your argument that is blatantly dishonest.

    Yes... the amendment is made in the context of a militia. But it never limits the right to bear arms to a militia. The whole purpose of the bill of rights as to give individual rights - not Government or State rights. So this idea of yours that the second amendment was meant only for a militia just doesn't add up.
    You can’t read the second clause and ignore the first clause. As was well known and understood in all US constitutional law until 2008.

    No honest person could read the section and not understand that the right to bear arms is for the explicit purpose of maintaining the regulated melitia.

    “As I’m locked out of my car, you can smash my window” does not tell an honest person they can smash my window whenever they want, even when I’m not even trapped in it. By quoting the second part.

    “But you said I could”.

    No.
    Last edited by Dr.Knuckles; 3rd March 2018 at 02:17 PM.

  4. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,574
    Thanks
    4720

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    You can’t read the second clause and ignore the first clause. As was well known and understood in all US constitutional law until 2008.
    I didn't ignore it. I said the amendment was made in the context of a militia (go read my comment again if you don't believe me). But you are simply ignoring the fact the amendment clearly states that it is a right of the people to bear arms. And besides - how is a militia even going to exist if the people are not allowed to bear arms so as to create a militia in the fist place?

    Also - and as I just got done pointing out to you - the whole purpose of the bill of rights is to give individual rights. That's what it's there for. It makes no sense to say all the other rights are individual rights except for the second amendment.

    That was why the bill of rights was created in the first place - to give constitutional protection for individual liberties.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 3rd March 2018 at 02:24 PM.
    Thanks from carpe diem

  5. #15
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,222
    Thanks
    4454

    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Why hasn't the constitution been updated to keep up with social evolution?

    America of today is quite different to the 1700's but people keep reverting back to the constitution. The initial thought process behind the amendments at that time may have been relevant and ideal, maybe some still are. But certainly with the 2nd amendment, it hasn't kept in pace with technology.

    If you do what you've always done, you will get what you've always got.
    It has been updated with amendments. The Supreme court also updates its interpretation. You sound like That idiot Ginsberg
    Thanks from Jeremy

  6. #16
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,222
    Thanks
    4454

    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Not the right ones by the looks of it. When are you going to get to grips with guns? 100 years or 1 million gun deaths, whichever is the soonest?
    Liberals do not rule even though they think they do

  7. #17
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,574
    Thanks
    4720

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    It has been updated with amendments. The Supreme court also updates its interpretation. You sound like That idiot Ginsberg
    Agreed.

    The constitution has changed with the times and has been amended numerous times already.
    Thanks from ptif219 and carpe diem

  8. #18
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,129
    Thanks
    32093

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    There is no "right to" in the Bill of Rights or the Second Amendment. A "right to" is a positive right, which is not an unalienable right. The Bill of Rights are unalienable rights.

    The Second Amendment does not mention a right in the prefatory clause. The word "right" is used in the operative clause.
    I agree with your post #4, but not this one.

    The right to self defense....Home, life and property is inalienable. The Second Amendment is not.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,574
    Thanks
    4720

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    I agree with your post #4, but not this one.

    The right to self defense....Home, life and property is inalienable. The Second Amendment is not.
    This is true.

    Those who believe the second amendment is an inalienable right are living with a false sense of security. Because we could easily lose it.
    Thanks from Friday13

  10. #20
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,271
    Thanks
    507

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    How does anyone know because there is a process in place for amendments to take place.

    In my opinion, it was based on their history and current technology. They may have had good intentions at the time drafting it but the flaw was not revising it as society evolved.

    For example, if one had been written in the stone age days, would it be relevant in 1700? Assuming you feel you have the right to stone Mammoths to death.
    The amendment process of Article V was to correct errors in the Constitution. This was the meaning of amending in the founding era, the public understanding, the intent, and was the basis of the only two amendments in the founding era.

    If technology is to be used regarding the Second Amendment, then individuals should be able to purchase any military grade weapon available.

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where in the Constitution??
    By Wrangler in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 23rd May 2016, 02:47 PM
  2. The US Needs A New Constitution
    By TrueMan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th September 2014, 06:51 AM
  3. Replies: 400
    Last Post: 27th March 2013, 06:02 PM
  4. what does the Constitution say?
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th November 2009, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed