Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 146
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: The US constitution

  1. #31
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
    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.
    great post
    Thanks from Jeremy

  2. #32
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    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.
    Without the second amendment...you could not defend your home, life and property. I like the fact that evil idiots have to wonder IF I am armed, rather than know I am not.

  3. #33
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    3,171
    Thanks
    701

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    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.
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to only those in a well regulated milita. In the parallel statement "a well schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" does not mean only those attending school, or those already well schooled have the right to own books. It merely highlights the importance of the right to own books in furtherance of a well schooled population. Also the statement does't explicitly limit reading materials to only books of paper and leather. Nothing in it implies that Ebooks and the internet should not also be allowed.



    Your interpretation of Cruikshank is likewise misguided; yes, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, nor dependent on the Constitution, but is recognized as preexisting the Constitution. But no, the second amendment doesn't grant the right to "keep and bear arms" to the government but rather limits the government from infringing on that "right of the people."

    And your interpretation of Miller also misses the point that while the government can limit the right to own a short barreled shotgun by requiring a tax stamp on it, it is only because such a weapon is not deemed to be the sort of weapon that might be required by a militia, while on the other hand an AR-15 for instance would be precisely such a weapon.

    And the Heller decision simply reaffirmed what has always been the standard interpretation of the second amendment that "the people" actually does mean the people, individually.

    Please stop trying to reinterpret that which you clearly don't understand and I'll refrain from explaining cricket to you. Thanks.

  4. #34
    Under Protest excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    11,646
    Thanks
    3677

    From
    The Milky Way
    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 itís just plain, basic English comprehension.

    Well. Regulated. Melitia.

    The argument is stupid. Itís blatantly dishonest.

    It also mentions the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

  5. #35
    Under Protest excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    11,646
    Thanks
    3677

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Take the 1215 Magna Carta that consisted of 63 rules. I would hazard a guess each one has been superseded by new laws as society evolved.

    Imagine if we stuck to 800 year old ideas.

    On the whole you would be freer.

  6. #36
    Junior Member Slartibartfast's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,705
    Thanks
    517

    From
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    On the whole you would be freer.
    Do you mean reckless?

    Everyone has one right, to live sensibly in society.

  7. #37
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,129
    Thanks
    32093

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Without the second amendment...you could not defend your home, life and property. I like the fact that evil idiots have to wonder IF I am armed, rather than know I am not.
    That is ridiculous. Humans have defended their homes for eons before the 2nd Amendment was invented. Millennia before firearms were invented.
    Thanks from Babba

  8. #38
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,129
    Thanks
    32093

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Otto Throttle View Post
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to only those in a well regulated milita. In the parallel statement "a well schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" does not mean only those attending school, or those already well schooled have the right to own books. It merely highlights the importance of the right to own books in furtherance of a well schooled population. Also the statement does't explicitly limit reading materials to only books of paper and leather. Nothing in it implies that Ebooks and the internet should not also be allowed.



    Your interpretation of Cruikshank is likewise misguided; yes, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, nor dependent on the Constitution, but is recognized as preexisting the Constitution. But no, the second amendment doesn't grant the right to "keep and bear arms" to the government but rather limits the government from infringing on that "right of the people."

    And your interpretation of Miller also misses the point that while the government can limit the right to own a short barreled shotgun by requiring a tax stamp on it, it is only because such a weapon is not deemed to be the sort of weapon that might be required by a militia, while on the other hand an AR-15 for instance would be precisely such a weapon.

    And the Heller decision simply reaffirmed what has always been the standard interpretation of the second amendment that "the people" actually does mean the people, individually.

    Please stop trying to reinterpret that which you clearly don't understand and I'll refrain from explaining cricket to you. Thanks.
    then you should also explain to Dr.Knuckles that the last ruling by the supreme court ruled that the right to bear arms was in a case where that firearm was kept at home.

    So in McDonald v Chicago affirms that the right of ordinary people to bear arms goes beyond the militia...and is so far limited to the home ...in this ruling.

  9. #39
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    3,171
    Thanks
    701

    From
    Florida
    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?
    Please propose a change in law that you believe will prevent criminals and crazy people from acquiring guns. I'd be really interested in how that would work.

  10. #40
    Junior Member Slartibartfast's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,705
    Thanks
    517

    From
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Otto Throttle View Post
    Please propose a change in law that you believe will prevent criminals and crazy people from acquiring guns. I'd be really interested in how that would work.
    Impossible.

    You probably find that the massacres committed are not by felons. All you can do is take a certain type/range of guns out of the system and as time passes coupled with amnesty hand in days, there will be less and less in the system.

    If someone wants to be a criminal, there's no stopping them. That is not the focus. It's trying to stop law abiding citizens murdering one another with guns

    Reducing crime is handled by length of prison terms and rehabilitation programmes. Different focus.
    Last edited by Slartibartfast; 4th March 2018 at 03:55 AM.

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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