The Second Amendment---Broken down

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by PharmrJohn, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jul 16, 2009
    North Florida
    I am not edumacated enough to have a conversation with you belercous. I will say though that sometimes education stands in the way of common sense. I have attempted to read your posts and quite frankly I dont agree with your way of thinking. I feel like I am reading from someone who "thinks" they know it all. I am not attempting to fight with you but rather point out that your way of communication is a turn off. You come across as most liberals do. Its kind of like "I need to teach you a thing or two if your smart enough". Maybe its just me. Maybe its just that I dont share the same views. I honestly dont believe that the raw solid facts could sway you.

    Since I have not been involved in these conversations, I may be out of line for jumping in at the end. Heck I may just be out of line. I just for the life of me cant figure out what it is you are trying to accomplish here. You said you wouldnt respond to anything that didnt fit your mold so you may not respond at all. You are not obligated to. I dont have any authority here any more than you do. It just doesnt seem to me that you are here to get to know anybody or share your gun stories or be part of the forum. Again maybe I am wrong.

    I hold the members here in high regard. I hope to one day get to meet them all. I dont really care if they dont share all of my views or politcal stance. I feel like people here are like an extended family of sorts. And I think most of them are trustworthy good folks. So I guess im just not sure why you are here? Just wondering.......
  2. Ah, sensible, respectful discourse. That's what makes this place so interesting. Guns certainly Aren't my life, either, but I do rather enjoy them. As for the 2nd Amnd., well, I guess we must agree to disagree. I believe that if it did NOT mean that THE PEOPLE were understood to have the God given right to keep and bear arms, the Ferderals would have begun to disarm the population immediately after the Civil War, what with all the killing and all. But no, they didn't even have an argument in Congress over it at that time. They just kept on letting people arm and protect themselves. Now, I myself, have no attachment to either party. I have found myself voting Republican over the years because they USED to let me keep my money and they USED to create jobs where I could make money. I find myself in the Libertarian/Independent class, but that's just a wasted vote (for now). I find it strange that some people get so riled up over a topic over which they have no control. I find it stranger that some people like to agitate others. But hey, that's just me. Harballer, thanks for the links, I thoroughly enjoyed them and they supported my already held beliefs. The rest of you, agitators and agitated, please continue. It's quite absorbing. TJ

  3. RDak

    RDak New Member

    Aug 7, 2008
    The biggest point I think belercous misses is this IMHO:

    The SCOTUS ruled in Heller, supra, that an individual, unconnected to a militia, can own a firearm for self defense purposes.

    It was a close decision but that is now the law of the land. And Scalia wrote a very detailed explanation as to why that is now the law of the land.

    There has never been a 2nd Amendment case heard by the SCOTUS addressing incorporation. And this is especially "brought home" when reading Heller.

    Footnote 23, in Heller states:

    I'm curious how anyone unbiased could read this footnote and still feel the Court will deny incorporation. This footnote begs for future litigation and the Court did accept the incorporation case VERY quickly.

    Belercous has to remember that the States signed a contract to become part of the Union. Certain universal rights have to be honored by the States as part of this contract. Sure this is a double edged sword but I cannot think of a more basic, universal right than the right allowed in Heller (i.e., that an individual, unconnected with a militia, has the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes).

    The Heller decision details why this individual right is fundamental and universal. Heller concludes this right precedes the constitution and has, for all intents and purposes, a life of its own based on my reading of Heller.

    No it is not a "coin-toss" whether we win the incorporation case as belercous opines IMHO. It is a slam dunk IMHO. It may be a 5-4 decision but so be it.

    I guess what I'm saying is belercous should read, and reread, Heller to gain a full understanding of how the 2nd Amendment is now interpreted by the highest court in the land. (His opinions seem to be based on arguments decided upon and rejected by Heller, supra, IMHO.)

    By doing so, he will gain an understanding that the founding fathers clearly assumed, and wanted, individuals to have the unfettered right to own firearms to guard against tyranny, (i.e., whether it be tyranny from government intrusion or tyranny derived from lawlessness).
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2009
  4. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Binghamton, NY
    Belercous, if your education in law school never brought you to the federalist papers written by our founding fathers, and their intentions of the constitution and bill of rights, then I understand the total dimay of our legal system.

    If a law is in violation of a supreme law (constitutional law) it is, by definition, an illegal law. If you chose to use the word "invalid" then so be it. Most anyone else will chose not to pervert the constitution and use words to attempt to soften the blow of a gross violation of the costitution. And, what difference it makes I have no idea? Illegal, unconstitutional, invalid. They all point to the same meaning....Flat out WRONG!!

    If you think our interpretation of the constitution is static, then I suggest that you get off of that computer of yours being that you think that the writers of the constitution never saw the internet coming and therefore must not apply to the first ammendment. I fully assure you of the fact that, our founding fathers all imagined the concept of a repeating rifle without ever a second thought to even a concept of what the internet is.

    The intentions of our founding fathers is very clear. If you chose not to understand their writings on the constitution, then so be it. Do not pretend to be a scholar when you ignore the fact they there are tons and tons of information written by almost every single person directly involved in the birth of the concept of our nation and the intentions be each and every single word they wrote in the constitution.

    When you chose to not read posts by other members in this forum because you can not comprehend the valid thoughts that they provide it only shows what our law schools are teaching our potential lawmaker. Pure ignorance through refusal to understand simple basic concepts.

    The constitution was designed to make our government(s) weak and fearful of the citizenry. The constitution was designed to make the citzenry the holder of absolute power. Hence the reasons for the bill of rights. No, we are not a democracy. No one has the time to deal with the daily nonsense of the affairs of our government. We hire politicians to vote on the day to day business. I have no intentions of going to a voting booth every thirty seconds just because my fellow citizen(s) thought of an idea that should be motioned into law. No group of large people will ever be a democracy. However, as a citizen of the United States of America, no person shall ever take away my basic right to speech and self-defense. That is wht the constitution and bill of rights is all about. The constitution is about who maintains the ultimate control. I intend on keeping my fair share of it.

    If you think your experience with a traffic tickets will give you your guns back, have a ball and run with that fleeting dream. Because when a ban comes, and it will, it has in the course in every single nations' history, I will KEEP my share of what's mine. You do not seem to understand that when a government intitutes a weapons ban against it's citizens, it's for quite negative reasons.

    Our founding fathers meant for us to have the same very weapons that the militia has. Be it flintlocks or the M249 SAW. Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd ammendment. And explained it in the ferderalist papers (which you apparently have never heard of) afterwards, that because a government needs a militia (this is not the local citizens militia, they were clearly talking about an organized army and navy) we need a means of self defense against that very militia. The ultimate check and balance. The freedom of speech is the ultimate check and balance to the "militia's" command structure.

    But this, I'm sure, will fall on your deaf ears; Belercous. Because you seem to think that our president has done none of these things to circumvent us. You believe that our president didn't marginalize our troops. You believe that our president didn't try to take away FOX's ability to report the news. You must also, I presume, believe that our president never voted to ban handguns in Illinois. You must believe that our president is like every other politician in office. An honest, caring, man who takes care of his constituents. One who takes care of his grandmother in Kenya as she lives on the edge of starvation in a shed not good enough for your lawnmower.

    Keep believing that our leaders are a good group of people. And keep believing that you will get your guns back after they take them away and melt them down. Keep believing this as did Hitler's and Pol Pot's constituients.
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2009
  5. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jul 16, 2009
    North Florida
    I have said in previous posts that it is impossible to "reason" with certain people. This is in fact the perfect representation of that mindset. I hate to see so much effort go to waste.
  6. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Binghamton, NY
    Unfortunately, you are correct.
  7. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    While it might be impossible to "reason" with certain people, it is good exercise for us to do so here. Many of the points brought up here, on both sides, are presented in such a way that we can hone our thinking, preparations and arguments for the coming fights to keep and regain our rights.

    Good job, folks. Thank you.

  8. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jul 16, 2009
    North Florida
    Pops, while I do agree with you about debate being a good brain exercise, I have a hard time with the know it all additude and the "I will only respond if someone is on my level" mindset. While I have had a couple of small debates with a member or two, I will never try to take the stance that I am smarter than someone else or that they dont warrant a response. I have used some strong one sided language in a few conversations and I have also made a few attempts to reach out to some with the opposite views.
    I am not an expert on anything. I will never make that claim. I dont like it much when I feel like myself or others are being talked down to. Heck we all pull our pants up the same way. Im just sayin......
  9. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    DD, I understand what you are saying. However, by drawing him out we have made him "show his true colors" as it were. That is a good thing.

  10. PharmrJohn

    PharmrJohn New Member

    Jun 15, 2009
    Western Washington
    Ab*so*lute*ly. I posted my thought, sat back....and read the posts. And I have learned quite a lot from this. There are points on both sides, at least, it seems to me there is. I would post more.....but frankly, I know just about as much as I said in my first post. A cut and paste with, quite frankly, a pretty lame interpretation. But since it was all I had....I went with it.

    And while the reasoning part of it goes both ways, that is what a good debate is for. To strengthen each other's knowledge base.

    Thank you all for your posts. Rock on.......John.
  11. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Binghamton, NY
    True, some arguments are worth having. Especially if it shows true colors.
  12. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    I'm not here to argue with anyone. The term just sounds non-winable.
    Debate? Yes, by all means.
    And that term would imply one is open to new ideas worthy of exploration.

    That is a good thing for all involved.
    None have perfect insight. All are subject to new ideas.

    When we chooose to ignore all other ideas, we lose.

    Plenty of room at the table.:)
  13. Southern Boy

    Southern Boy New Member

    Jun 8, 2009
    HMMMMM, while some on this site are not sure what the founding fathers really meant in the 2nd. amendment, we can know for sure. How you may ask? Just read what they themselves had to say on the subject.---- --or this one -- --There are many other sites where this type of info can be found on line. They most certainly had a lot to say on the matter, to support their arguement for the citizens to keep and bear arms.
  14. DemoDick115

    DemoDick115 New Member

    Sep 19, 2012
    I believe that the 2nd Amendment states that militias and arms are to be protected. Militias being any group of men between the ages of 18 and 45. Arms was to mean ANY weapon. Weapon bans are completely un-Constitutional wether it is banning a knife, a firearm, a sword, etc etc. What alot of people go nuts over is the word "regulated" as in "A well REGULATED militia..." As determined by the Supreme Court "regulated" means trained and/or disciplined. Also training does NOT have to come from a U.S. Gov. Agency as said by the Supreme Court. I could go out and teach a group of men how to shoot rifles and that would suffice in the way of "regulated" And for those on this site who know i am only 14 the Supreme Court ruling said nothing on the age of the teacher for i would not be a part of the militia thus i would not have to be between the ages of 18 and 45. Just to cover my ass :D
  15. Diamondback

    Diamondback Well-Known Member

    This has been an interesting thread. I have learned in my lifetime that an education does not impart either wisdom or knowledge. Belercous you are, IMHO, an educated moron. The thought that we should not fight back because we could lose didn't enter into the founding fathers reasoning. After all, if they had placidly handed over their weapons simply because the king said to then we would still subjects of the english royalty.
    I read the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in high school and had absolutely no problem understanding what they meant to say.
    I have to admit that the last time I read or heard such drivel from a mewling, slackjawed, inbred cretin was the time I heard gore claiming he was robbed. I didn't buy into his idiocy either.

    I ask the moderators to please forgive what may be considered flaming, but sometimes..............

    As for you belecous if I have in any offended or upset you---- tango sierra. Take your whining rant to the Chaplain. Maybe he will hold your hand.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Second amendment: a good deal, but a deal nonetheless. Aug 13, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Miss South Carolina Digs Second Amendment Sep 17, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Says Waiting Period in CA Violates The Second Amendment Aug 25, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Ruling: Waiting Periods a "Burden" on Second Amendment Rights Dec 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas House Gives Final Approval to Impressive Number of Pro-Second Amendment Bills May 8, 2013