RE: Duty to retreat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

MercTech -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/31/2014 4:08:53 PM)

On a lighter note.. just thinking about the "Right to Arm Bears"

http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/0671319590/0671319590.htm



BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/31/2014 4:46:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

On a lighter note.. just thinking about the "Right to Arm Bears"

http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/0671319590/0671319590.htm

I have the T-shirt



Kirata -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/31/2014 7:30:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

K.



BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/31/2014 8:50:26 PM)

" Mr. Heller did not want to go through the whole democratic process of bringing a bill through the D.C. legislation. As that would have been the correct way to do it;
gaining support from fellow Americans living in D.C. No, he went by way of the courts"

That is what you do when a law violates your rights.



joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 4:02:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
" Mr. Heller did not want to go through the whole democratic process of bringing a bill through the D.C. legislation. As that would have been the correct way to do it;
gaining support from fellow Americans living in D.C. No, he went by way of the courts"

That is what you do when a law violates your rights.


The law did not violate his rights. The law was two fold. The first was a ban on all firearm permits within the D.C. limits. The second was no firearm permits would be issued. So if you had a firearm that was not issued for D.C., and you lived in D.C., you were violating the law for D.C.. They didn't ban your ability to obtain a firearm, they ban the ability to have a lawful permit for said firearm. D.C. could not create a law that would ban firearms within D.C. per the supremacy clause.

Each of the lower courts upheld the law, since Mr. Heller's second firearm was not part of his duties with "a well regulated militia...". If the second firearm was part of his duties as a police officer, he could have said weapon since its protected under the 2nd amendment. That's REALLY how the amendment was suppose to work. But Mr. Heller did not make a request with his police department for the second arm, nor through the local government of D.C.

When people want a law changed, they get like minded persons together and go through the process to have a law changed. They might have to go before the government to enter the request into the system to be pushed towards a vote by all citizens in D.C.. That's how your suppose to get laws changed. Not this 'back alley legal crap'. You sue the government (as per the 1st amendment) when you have a issue that will never be accepted (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education), but it violates the standing laws, that's when you sue over grievances. He knew that most of the area would simply vote against it, since it would increase crime and violence in the non-federal areas. An he knew that the second gun was not protected under the 2nd amendment, because the nature of the 2nd was for those arms being apart of 'a well regulated militia'. Without the first sentence, he could have that second gun. But then, so could any person, with any arm, for any reason. Including terrorists.....

I'm not the one that created the 2nd and then forgot to define it for a population two hundred years in the future to be understood. The lower courts decided on their ruling not due to politics, but due to the rule of law. The US Supreme Court decided on it for political reasons to help the GOP out. But then, three of the conservative justices have never struck me as being wise....




joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 4:35:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The four parts as I see it:

A ) A well regulated militia...
B ) ....being nessissary for the security of a free state.
C ) The right to bear arms,...
D ) ...shall not be infringed.

Abandon the notion that how "you" see it means anything. And stop re-writing it to suit your fevered imaginings. The Amendment as ratified by the States is comprised of two parts, a prefatory clause and a main clause. It reads:

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. ~Source


Oh forgot, we have to throw out 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of thought' for your 'religion'. Last I checked, I'm allowed my viewpoint. If you don't like that, tough shit! You can view the 2nd amendment as 'any person, any arm, for any reason'; frankly that leads to anarchy eventually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
A pile of lone individuals are nothing against a decently organized group of individuals.

In your fantasies. During the Revolutionary War, militia snipers and guerilla bands made life unbearable for the British, picking off their officers and disrupting their ability to re-supply their troops. It can fairly be argued that without the Continental Army the war would have taken longer, but suppressing an armed populace is no quick and easy matter. For a more recent example, the Mujahadeen shredded the Russians despite the latter's numbers, air power, and armor.


We are not talking about the Revolutionary War, we are talking 2014. I know the concept is hard for you, but do try to keep up! The weapons in that war are NOTHING compared to the weapons today. Do you really thing the British Military in the colonies in the 18th century were a match to one US NAVY carrier task force? How about a platoon of M-1s? Or a couple of tactical nukes? Trust me, any officer in the 18th century would shit his pants after seeing his whole regiment shredded by a platoon of US Maries after five minutes. Should I keep going with YOUR fantasy?

An I wasn't even talking about the 18th century of individuals. More of 2014. And there exist plenty of evidence that a pack of 'lone wolves' would get absolutely killed by a numerically even, but well trained force that operates as a group. We see it on FPS's, airsoft/paintball, and for conflicts. The only person that believes 20 guys not working together can take down 20 well trained soldiers operating as a team, is an idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
'C' is the understanding that individuals, as part of a militia and within good standing, could have their duty weapons and gear with them, in the event they were called up for an emergency. It has nothing to do with persons...

More made up shit. If you would actually read some of the scholarship I've posted, you might actually fucking learn something. The "militia" does not refer to an organized militia. The authors of the Bill (of Rights) were very distrustful of standing armies, and drew the distinction clearly and repeatedly.


Yeah, I've read your 'NRA talking points' and frankly, its full of shit. The founding fathers were distrustful of standing armies....NOT....organized, local, militias. A concept you do not seem to understand to clearly. An what does a 'A well regulated militia....' mean exactly if NOT, an organization that has rules, command structure, penalties, and structure? Oh wait, here comes another one of your fantasies again....

Just because you dislike the notion, does not mean its untrue. 'C' was really how the understanding of things were back in the 18th century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Now I agree the 'Right to bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It's not the "right to bear arms," it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The people, armed, are the militia of the prefatory clause. It's English, ferfucksake. All you are doing here is agreeing with yourself, not the Second Amendment. And if you'll excuse me now, I'm going to skip the rest of your sermon.


If its the 'right of the people' and NOT the 'right of the individuals', then you just agreed that the arms are part of a militia. Not to mention that you really have no clue what I was talking about in that paragraph. An that you don't want to debate the rest? That's due to you not HAVING AN ARGUMENT that didn't first come from some NRA document.

You lost the intellectual fight. You got called on for using NRA talking points. An now you cant even understand the nature of the paragraphs. Do yourself a favor, Kirata, and just bow out of the discussion.




joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 4:42:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.



You didn't answer his central question. Nice dodge and evade, btw....



BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 7:28:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
" Mr. Heller did not want to go through the whole democratic process of bringing a bill through the D.C. legislation. As that would have been the correct way to do it;
gaining support from fellow Americans living in D.C. No, he went by way of the courts"

That is what you do when a law violates your rights.


The law did not violate his rights. The law was two fold. The first was a ban on all firearm permits within the D.C. limits. The second was no firearm permits would be issued. So if you had a firearm that was not issued for D.C., and you lived in D.C., you were violating the law for D.C.. They didn't ban your ability to obtain a firearm, they ban the ability to have a lawful permit for said firearm. D.C. could not create a law that would ban firearms within D.C. per the supremacy clause.

Each of the lower courts upheld the law, since Mr. Heller's second firearm was not part of his duties with "a well regulated militia...". If the second firearm was part of his duties as a police officer, he could have said weapon since its protected under the 2nd amendment. That's REALLY how the amendment was suppose to work. But Mr. Heller did not make a request with his police department for the second arm, nor through the local government of D.C.

When people want a law changed, they get like minded persons together and go through the process to have a law changed. They might have to go before the government to enter the request into the system to be pushed towards a vote by all citizens in D.C.. That's how your suppose to get laws changed. Not this 'back alley legal crap'. You sue the government (as per the 1st amendment) when you have a issue that will never be accepted (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education), but it violates the standing laws, that's when you sue over grievances. He knew that most of the area would simply vote against it, since it would increase crime and violence in the non-federal areas. An he knew that the second gun was not protected under the 2nd amendment, because the nature of the 2nd was for those arms being apart of 'a well regulated militia'. Without the first sentence, he could have that second gun. But then, so could any person, with any arm, for any reason. Including terrorists.....

I'm not the one that created the 2nd and then forgot to define it for a population two hundred years in the future to be understood. The lower courts decided on their ruling not due to politics, but due to the rule of law. The US Supreme Court decided on it for political reasons to help the GOP out. But then, three of the conservative justices have never struck me as being wise....



You can't even keep recent history straight.
The law banned ownership of handguns, period.
And the lower courts were over ruled by the big boys who noticed that the law
did, in fact violate his rights.



BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 7:32:45 AM)

"If its the 'right of the people' and NOT the 'right of the individuals',
then you just agreed that the arms are part of a militia"

You refuse to comprehend that in the Constitution
the right of the people = the right of the individual
how can a person as wise as you not know that



Kirata -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 1:11:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Oh forgot, we have to throw out 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of thought' for your 'religion'. Last I checked, I'm allowed my viewpoint. If you don't like that, tough shit! You can view the 2nd amendment as 'any person, any arm, for any reason'; frankly that leads to anarchy eventually.

You're making shit up again. I never said anything against your right to express any viewpoint you wish. I've just been pointing out that your notions are factually, not to say spectacularly and damn near hallucinationally, wrong.

And that includes your dismissive characterizations and bald misrepresentations of what my views are.

K.





Musicmystery -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 3:23:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

K.


Thanks Kirata. Lucid. I get it.

Subjective perhaps on my part, but seem to underscore the point that it's a product of the 18th century, no longer reflecting "intent" in the context of the 21st century.

I suppose that's up to Congress, though, or the Supreme Court. I've not a lot of faith in either these days.



Phydeaux -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 5:49:33 PM)

Seems like my point that Congress in 1792 passed a law requiring all males 18 to 45 to own a gun..



lovmuffin -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 6:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucky7dawg

I have a question, open for anyone to answer. If Joether, DK, et al are correct, and the Second Amendment is not an individual right, it's only for organized militias that can be controlled and disciplined by the Government, why were the guns not rounded up after the Revolution, and no one ever thought that is what it meant until the mid 1960s? Why, if that's what it has always meant, do you have to change it now? Ownership of weapons has always been common and legal in America. Not requiring any sort of registration and/or "permits".


I've pretty much made the same comment as your question. "The 2nd amendment has referred to an individual right for the better part of 200 years. Now in the age of modern progressive liberalism, certain powers that be are trying to indoctrinate the population into believing it means something else." (Paraphrased)



BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 6:14:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: lucky7dawg

I have a question, open for anyone to answer. If Joether, DK, et al are correct, and the Second Amendment is not an individual right, it's only for organized militias that can be controlled and disciplined by the Government, why were the guns not rounded up after the Revolution, and no one ever thought that is what it meant until the mid 1960s? Why, if that's what it has always meant, do you have to change it now? Ownership of weapons has always been common and legal in America. Not requiring any sort of registration and/or "permits".


I've pretty much made the same comment as your question. "The 2nd amendment has referred to an individual right for the better part of 200 years. Now in the age of modern progressive liberalism, certain powers that be are trying to indoctrinate the population into believing it means something else.

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to. This is the jest of any argument that flows down this river----
what it meant in the 18th century doesn't hold for the 21st century



PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 6:22:10 PM)

quote:

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to.


You want to argue for its meaning as a 'dead document', then?



BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 6:36:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to.


You want to argue for its meaning as a 'dead document', then?

Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.



PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 6:49:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.


I was only asking, Bama. As you may know, we have no written constitution here in the UK, nor any amendments to same, obviously. Any 'dead' versus 'living' document debate is indeed unfamiliar. But I've got to say, if it's *not* a living document then, again, it means nothing at all of relevance to today, does it?



BitYakin -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 7:19:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to.


You want to argue for its meaning as a 'dead document', then?


HAHAH that's FUNNY, I think he is arguing that it's a FIRM DOCUMENT AKA carved in stone!

because if it's not then it is WORTHLESS

what's the point of a document that can be REINTERPETED at the whim of a few whiners...

going to address some earlier argued things in this post which have nothing to do with what PFH said

the whole 4 part thing is idiotic, in order for something to be considered a part or section of a legal document, it has to be able to stand on its own merit...

the ONLY part that is able to stand on its own without the rest of it is the 4th part

and I love how the person who claimed this, EDITED the actual words to make their point more palatable, left out the KEY WORD, PEOPLE!

next this whole if people from the 1790's saw how warfare had EVOLVED they'd change their minds

sorry another IDIOTIC CONCEPT, could be why they chose to use the word ARMS, which is short for ARAMENT which covers everything from a slingshot to a hydrogen bomb

see they DID see how implements of war had EVOLVED, from a rock to a knife to slingshot to a spear to a bow and arrow to a crossbow to a catapault to a black powder gun to a cannon and knew full well the evolution would continue threw out the history of mankind.

this whole gun control thing can be traced DIRECTLY back to prohibition. when fully automatic weapons were used for the EXACT PURPOSE the founders INTENDED...

when congress pushed by a percentage of WHINERS banned all liquer, the PEOPLE said not until you can pry my thompson sub machine gun from my cold dead hands. and they waged WAR on the TYRANICAL GOV'T that sought to enforce a WILDLY UNPOPULAR LAW on the people

and the gov't was SHOCKED to find out "hey that dam constitution shit WORKS! you tell these people NO and they don't like it they WILL stand up and say FUCK YOU!" so they decided they needed to RESTRICT the general population to inferior weapons so THEY would ALWAYS have a tremendous EDGE on them by making weapons that would put the people on EQUAL FOOTING extremely hard to obtain!

maybe they understood at that time, that if a bunch of whiners could get liquer banned, later another bunch of whiners would come along and be in favor of pushing ANOTHER stupid change that would ABSOLUTELY be BENEFICIAL to the GOV'T by taking away ALL ARMS and if they RESTRICTED the people to INFERIOR weapons they'd have an EASIER time enforcing it.

and I'll state my view on the matter QUITE CLEARLY, if it means a few trayvons or a dozen trayvons or 100 or a 1000 have to die to ensure 300 million people have the ability to say to the gov't "LIKE HELL YOU WILL", then SO BE IT!

just like ANY OTHER TECH, there WILL be casualties, when we went from horse an carriage to auto the death toll SKYROCETED, when cell phones became predominant way of communication, auto accidents rose did we BANN THEM?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Phydeaux -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 7:42:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

K.


Thanks Kirata. Lucid. I get it.

Subjective perhaps on my part, but seem to underscore the point that it's a product of the 18th century, no longer reflecting "intent" in the context of the 21st century.

I suppose that's up to Congress, though, or the Supreme Court. I've not a lot of faith in either these days.



Its not actually up to either. The supreme court is supposed to faithfully interpret the law.
This is the right's biggest gripe with the left. There is a path to modify the law. Its called an amendment. It has clearly enumerated instructions. Its the rules we americans agreed to live by.

It is an egregious abridgement of the political process when a court invents laws (roe v wade) or abridges laws (Affirmative action decisions) merely because it wants too.

Congress passes laws. But the people pass amendments.



Phydeaux -> RE: Duty to retreat... (4/1/2014 7:44:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.


I was only asking, Bama. As you may know, we have no written constitution here in the UK, nor any amendments to same, obviously. Any 'dead' versus 'living' document debate is indeed unfamiliar. But I've got to say, if it's *not* a living document then, again, it means nothing at all of relevance to today, does it?



Illogical argument. Whether "lliving" or not, literalist interpretation or not, its still the law of the land, and hence, relevant.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625