Second Amendment - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

shakran · 05-01-2006, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Shakran, it really appears that you're reading dksuddeth's posts in twisted ways solely to be argumentative. His statements that you've quoted, "The right. . . of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. . . is not a right granted by the Constitution", and "Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence" aren't so unclear to me.

They're not unclear to me either. But what is also clear is that he has previously tried to convince us that the 2nd amendment gives us all the right to have guns. The 2nd amendment is part of the constitution which means his previous (wrong) statements are inconsistant with his latest (correct) statements.

Quote:

He's saying that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights (existing as amendments to the Consitution) aren't granted by those amendments that mention them. They ENSURED by those amendments, as they were rights that people naturally had - and a state of being ruled by a government shouldn't be able to change them.

Yes but where the disagreement still lies is whether it is the right of EVERYONE to have a gun, or whether it is only the right of those in a well regulated militia to have a gun.

Quote:

Also, your comment about the brevity and clarity of the 2nd Amendment doesn't help much - it merely shows that the thing can be read in more than one way.

That's kinda my whole point. I'm glad you got that. I'm trying to get him to see that.

Quote:

The amendment says "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." [According to wikipedia, a copy made by the scribe who prepared the BOR carries different punctuation: "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."] I read that to mean "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to have a free state."

Grammatically you're wrong. Your second version simply switches "being necessary to the security of a free state" to a parenthetical phrase. It's also grammatically incorrect since removing the parenthetical phrase would leave us with "A well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Ignoring the obvious comma error, we have a sentence fragment at the beginning of the runon sentence. It doesn't make any sense. So this scribe wasn't any better at grammar than he was at copying the original.

Quote:

I don't see the beginning as a conditional clause at all - it's a justification.

There are many, MANY people who disagree with you. And if it's a justification, why don't they justify any other amendment? I mean, a free press is certainly necessary to the security of a free state. Why didn't they preface the 1st with that justification? The logical conclusion is that they put that phrase in there for a very specific reason, which was to explain that the gun-rights amendment was not a national suicide pact, and that if you want to have a gun you have to be in some sort of well regulated militia.

Quote:

Incidentally, the wikipedia article reads it in a third way (see the very first sentence at the top): "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"." Please excuse my quotation mark madness.

I'm sure that you know as well as I do that using wikipedia as a source for ANYTHING is dubious at best.

Quote:

All of that stuff I typed above is incidental to my main point, which is the same that I made in post 27. I now quote my self, for repetitive goodness:

I'm not sure why you think we're trying to score points on each other. We each have an opinion. We're advancing those opinions. If that's "scoring points," and you are saying that "scoring points" is wrong, then you might as well shut down the whole politics forum, because advancing opinions is the point of political debate.

Ample · 05-01-2006, 05:56 AM

I grew up around guns. My father would take me to the shooting range every couple of months and I felt like a big man when I shot his big pistols.

When I was in the eighth grade. I had a friend named Eric. He and some other friends were out late at night. I would have been out with him, but went out with a girl instead that night. He was walking through a neighborhood, when a guy ran out of his house waiving his shotgun. He thought that my friend was trying to break into his car. All of my friends ran away, but the guy ended up blowing the back of my friend’s head out.

The guy was a normal citizen, no police record, and no history that would indicate that he would do anything like that. From that moment I felt that it was need for private citizens to own firearms. People can argue till their blue in the face that its their right, and its to protect their family blah blah blah. If it were up to me. I would pull out a red magic marker and put a giant X through the Second Amendment.

flstf · 05-01-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

There are many, MANY people who disagree with you. And if it's a justification, why don't they justify any other amendment? I mean, a free press is certainly necessary to the security of a free state. Why didn't they preface the 1st with that justification? The logical conclusion is that they put that phrase in there for a very specific reason, which was to explain that the gun-rights amendment was not a national suicide pact, and that if you want to have a gun you have to be in some sort of well regulated militia.

I don't understand why they would want to insure our right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from our government and at the same time give that government the ability, without having to amend the constitution, to regulate that right away.

Do you think they intended us to all form well regulated militias outside of government control? If the definition of "well regulated" is determined by the very government that we are armed to protect ourselves from then what is the point of having the amendment in the first place?

I believe they intended to insure that we had the right to bear arms to overthrow a corrupt government like they just did as well as form well regulated militias.

shakran · 05-01-2006, 06:21 AM

I never said it had to be a GOVERNMENT RUN well regulated militia. I'm simply saying that well regulated does not encompass a bunch of people running around in the woods with rifles trying to kill deer, or a bunch of people haphazardly shooting at each other in LA during a riot. And, once again, since this seems to be a sticking point for many, I am not saying you cannot have a gun. I am saying the 2nd does not SAY you can have a gun no matter what.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 03:12 AM

As more information about things like the NSA program or total internet monitoring and further abuses of the constitution, am I the only one that foresees a lethal force conflict coming with the government?

Is anyone else saddened by this potential conflict?

shakran · 05-12-2006, 04:41 AM

Well see, that's kinda the argument I've been using to show the fallacy of the NRA/gun lobby's claim that the guns are for protection against a tyrranical government. If that's really the case. . .then why aren't they already shooting?

dksuddeth · 05-13-2006, 02:12 PM

because the government obviously hasn't become tyrannical enough for most people yet.

smooth · 05-13-2006, 06:49 PM

How would it become tyrannical to the people with the guns since they are predominantly in the same party supporting all these NSA monitoring BS programs?

ASU2003 · 05-14-2006, 06:23 AM

Unless they start rounding up people and killing them, they can try to monitor me all they want. And you are right that the NRA memebers are going to be the ones who overthrow the government, and I'm not sure what their leadership will be like.

I think the police departments are the ones that don't want automatic weapons on the streets. This is going to be racist, but I bet they wouldn't have a problem with whites owning fully auto AR15's and other powerful guns. Now the gang members have other ways to get guns, but those are the people that they want to take guns away from.

There is currently about a .00001% chance that we will need guns to overthrow the US government. But I still want the option. And I wouldn't want the government to not fear an uprising. But, I would say that the military would have to break apart or be on the opposition's side. Or a foreign government would have to support and fight along side of them to be a chance. But, things would have to get so bad that most people would leave the country first, and then attack from the outside.

Guns can be used for protection, but most of the time they are used incorrectly. I don't have a problem with the current system, but think that guns give people power that most of the time isn't good.

dksuddeth · 05-27-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

How would it become tyrannical to the people with the guns since they are predominantly in the same party supporting all these NSA monitoring BS programs?

it would seem that the 'predominant' party is losing a lot of favor these days. Not only that, there are alot of 'democrats' that are also pro 2A that are dissatisfied with the democrat party. Do you foresee at all the possibility that enough people would recognize the inherent usurpation of both parties and then react?

05-12-2006, 03:12 AM	#125 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	As more information about things like the NSA program or total internet monitoring and further abuses of the constitution, am I the only one that foresees a lethal force conflict coming with the government? Is anyone else saddened by this potential conflict? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-13-2006, 02:12 PM	#127 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	because the government obviously hasn't become tyrannical enough for most people yet. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-13-2006, 06:49 PM	#128 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	How would it become tyrannical to the people with the guns since they are predominantly in the same party supporting all these NSA monitoring BS programs? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

05-14-2006, 06:23 AM	#129 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Unless they start rounding up people and killing them, they can try to monitor me all they want. And you are right that the NRA memebers are going to be the ones who overthrow the government, and I'm not sure what their leadership will be like. I think the police departments are the ones that don't want automatic weapons on the streets. This is going to be racist, but I bet they wouldn't have a problem with whites owning fully auto AR15's and other powerful guns. Now the gang members have other ways to get guns, but those are the people that they want to take guns away from. There is currently about a .00001% chance that we will need guns to overthrow the US government. But I still want the option. And I wouldn't want the government to not fear an uprising. But, I would say that the military would have to break apart or be on the opposition's side. Or a foreign government would have to support and fight along side of them to be a chance. But, things would have to get so bad that most people would leave the country first, and then attack from the outside. Guns can be used for protection, but most of the time they are used incorrectly. I don't have a problem with the current system, but think that guns give people power that most of the time isn't good. Last edited by ASU2003; 05-14-2006 at 06:29 AM..

05-01-2006, 05:56 AM	#122 (permalink)
Ample Psycho Location: In your closet	I grew up around guns. My father would take me to the shooting range every couple of months and I felt like a big man when I shot his big pistols. When I was in the eighth grade. I had a friend named Eric. He and some other friends were out late at night. I would have been out with him, but went out with a girl instead that night. He was walking through a neighborhood, when a guy ran out of his house waiving his shotgun. He thought that my friend was trying to break into his car. All of my friends ran away, but the guy ended up blowing the back of my friend’s head out. The guy was a normal citizen, no police record, and no history that would indicate that he would do anything like that. From that moment I felt that it was need for private citizens to own firearms. People can argue till their blue in the face that its their right, and its to protect their family blah blah blah. If it were up to me. I would pull out a red magic marker and put a giant X through the Second Amendment.

05-01-2006, 06:21 AM	#124 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I never said it had to be a GOVERNMENT RUN well regulated militia. I'm simply saying that well regulated does not encompass a bunch of people running around in the woods with rifles trying to kill deer, or a bunch of people haphazardly shooting at each other in LA during a riot. And, once again, since this seems to be a sticking point for many, I am not saying you cannot have a gun. I am saying the 2nd does not SAY you can have a gun no matter what.

05-12-2006, 04:41 AM	#126 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Well see, that's kinda the argument I've been using to show the fallacy of the NRA/gun lobby's claim that the guns are for protection against a tyrranical government. If that's really the case. . .then why aren't they already shooting?