joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
"If a "right" can be rescinded at an individual level, surely that means, in and of itself,
that the so-called "right" is no longer a right - at least at the same level as the rest
of the constitution. "
Here is another point you fail to comprehend.
Rights were not granted by the constitution they were recognized
You can be denied the exorcise of a right but it is still a right
Those things that can be given or taken away at the whim
of government are privileges, not rights
And that is exactly my point! 
The 2nd gives the individual the right to hold and bear arms.
It also very specifically states that it shall not be infringed.
You've said and argued that point several times.
Yet a court can rescind that "right" to an individual - which, in your own words, makes it not a "right" but a "privilege".
The 18th century "....Shall not be infringed. and the 21st century versions are total different in meaning. Its like the word 'bank' has two meanings: Could be A ) The side of a river or B ) A place people store money in.
Infringed back in the 18th century meant the government could not order a militia to lay its arms down as a pre-emptive move to the creation of a tyrannical government. In the 21st century 'gun nut' definition, it means they can not be held to any level of accountability or responsibility with firearms since its their right to have any arm for any reason. Which sounds more like its the truth?
Well since the people who wrote it said that it meant individuals right to keep arms then that is what
it meant.
When you can change the meaning to be what you want it to then the constitution means nothing.
It's like the traveling rule in the NBA basketball, reinterpretation has made it meaningless.
I'm stating a concept from the 18th century that you have conveniently forgotten and/or never learned. The founding fathers may have meant many things, but something they didn't do so well is to give DEFINITIONS to each word. Go look into the Affordable Care Act. It explains how each of the important rules are defined. An why does each major bill for the past twenty years have this as a concept? Why do the most recent set of amendments, accompanied by definitions? It helps define the exact nature of the law. In other words, Americans learned from past mistakes to avoid future ones.
I'm not changing the definition, I'm restating what it states from the history books itself. That is really what '...shall not be infringed." means. You and others have reinterpreted the whole amendment. Now why is that? What does the Firearm Industry have to gain from the definition changing from organizations with firearms to any nut case with a firearm? PROFIT. Also the Republican/Tea Party routinely plays on the fears, prejudices, intolerances, foolishness and plain stupidity of anyone that will listen to them. What do they gain by changing the definition? Votes. Conservative talk radio hosts use short concepts rather then long and involved factual explanations on news (i.e NPR), why? Profits and Coverage. An then there are any number of websites that publish FEAR, FEAR, FEAR to those that will take them serious. What do they gain? More viewers. All these groups together, for the last forty years have done a pretty good job of conditioning the modern conservative voter to some very strange beliefs. Including the 2nd amendment. It was never designed to be the 'one size fits all' for anything related to firearms in legal terms. It was much more defined than the 3rd, yet how many major 3rd amendment arguments are seen in the US Supreme Court in the last forty years? There is nothing to gain in terms of votes, viewership, and dollars by changing the 3rd amendment's definition.
Would people in this nation notice a difference if one day the 2nd's definition was changed? Hell ya! Would they notice it over forty years? Not really.
Why is it the US Supreme Court has never given a definition to each concept within the 2nd? Its not their job. So whose job is it? Congress. Would Congress do that? Hell no, that's the US Supreme Court's job, they would say! Five conservative justices, one of them being the chief justice. Two or three of them are confirmed to vote basically as the GOP dictates. So, yes, they are going to define things differently from previous held notions. Now what if there were five liberals and one of them was also the justice. Would we get the same results, BamaD?
Back to the topic of the thread...
Does the 2nd amendment explain directly the reason to retreat and/or stand one's ground? The answer is....no. The reason is the concept of 'stand your ground' was not known until under a decade ago. How would the founding fathers have known about the concept? So why are you constantly bringing up the 2nd amendment?
I know that these are some pretty tough questions. An I expect you'll give some pretty lame answers, without decent supporting arguments/information in your reply....
|
RE: Duty to retreat... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread