RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it.

RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 1:50:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml What a stupid man he must be. I mean, you've just 'splained to us how everyone is in the militia anyway, so why would he make such a stupid point? He didn't mean to, he was trying to argue to change the 2nd and most leftist have taken his word as gospel but they didn't notice this point. Leftists are "stoopid" that way [8\|] Finally you got something right.

slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 1:59:49 PM)
Fuck you,I'm taking my second issues back to the other thread [:D]

GotSteel -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 4:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Once again someone comes along and mischaracterizes my viewpoint to be one of repealing the second,rather than of re-interpreting it . If you re-interpret it you have repealed it without taking the stand to do so. face palm By that logic pro-lifers are trying to repeal the 14th amendment.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 4:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Once again someone comes along and mischaracterizes my viewpoint to be one of repealing the second,rather than of re-interpreting it . If you re-interpret it you have repealed it without taking the stand to do so. face palm By that logic pro-lifers are trying to repeal the 14th amendment. So you are saying that the 14th, as well as the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and 10th are under attack? You have made no ground against me on this I do not approve of undermining the constitution by left or right regardless of how good they feel their intentions are.

mnottertail -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 7:30:56 AM)
Oh, aren't they all under attack? Our very constitution under attack by nutsuckers on the supreme court at the least. Money is speech and corporations are people my friend.

hot4bondage -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 7:42:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml At least in the UK the democratically elected representatives can change laws.... I appreciate how utterly confusing this concept might be, but the way it works is this... if the people of the UK decide that they want tighter restrictions on pornography, their elected representatives have to take action. If on the other hand they wanted more relaxed laws, the same would apply. It's super neat. Democracy, that is. That's called the tyranny of the majority. No one has an inherent right to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. Exactly the sort of thuggery the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us against.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 7:48:42 AM)
Explain that to Conservatives. We'll wait here.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 8:06:47 AM)
quote: No one has an inherent right to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies Try telling women of america that. Just how many bills does it take to get thru to some men? 200 regulations passed since 2010 obviously isnt enough http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/12/30/373817623/big-question-for-2015-will-the-supreme-court-rule-on-abortion This GOP Lawmaker Wants a Woman to Get Permission From the Father Before Having an Abortion http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/republican-wants-women-get-permission-father-having-abortion Map Shows Abortion Access In Texas Now Only For Wealthy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/texas-abortion-access-is-_n_5952968.html

hot4bondage -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 8:18:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Explain that to Conservatives. We'll wait here. Might be awhile. ...I never could understand the disconnect between libs and cons on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Aren't they both important? Why do so many people seem to love one and more or less ignore the other? Maybe we should combine them so both sides will leave them the fuck alone.

crazyml -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 9:05:46 AM)
Another way of describing it is <finger quotes>Democracy</finger quotes> A system in which people get to decide how they are governed, and what laws they wish to live by without being beholden to rules that were created centuries ago. And yes, there are many many cases where society has an absolute (not merely inherent) right to tell people what they can or cannot do. Murder and Theft are two teensy lil examples.

lovmuffin -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 9:19:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Another way of describing it is <finger quotes>Democracy</finger quotes> A system in which people get to decide how they are governed, and what laws they wish to live by without being beholden to rules that were created centuries ago. And yes, there are many many cases where society has an absolute (not merely inherent) right to tell people what they can or cannot do. Murder and Theft are two teensy lil examples. Murder and theft aren't exactly teensy and we are not a pure democracy. We are a constitutional republic. There are certain things spelled out in the constitution that is supposed to restrict what the government can and can not do.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 9:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Explain that to Conservatives. We'll wait here. Might be awhile. ...I never could understand the disconnect between libs and cons on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Aren't they both important? Why do so many people seem to love one and more or less ignore the other? Maybe we should combine them so both sides will leave them the fuck alone. I think that the undermining of the first is just as bad as undermining of the 2nd. I argue about the 2nd more because it is openly attacked more. In fact I cannot see arguing the sanctity of one amendment (or clause) without arguing for the sanctity of all. You can't pick and choose which ones to protect and which ones to erode.

GotSteel -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 11:03:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So you are saying that the 14th, as well as the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and 10th are under attack? No I'm saying that the rest of us are having a conversation at the 3 digit IQ level. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You have made no ground against me on this I do not approve of undermining the constitution by left or right regardless of how good they feel their intentions are. [sm=Groaner.gif] Well if you're unwilling to have this discussion at a more nuanced level than: pro life = hating black people Then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you and would strongly advise you to give up on trying to comprehend politics and stick to finger painting.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 11:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So you are saying that the 14th, as well as the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and 10th are under attack? No I'm saying that the rest of us are having a conversation at the 3 digit IQ level. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You have made no ground against me on this I do not approve of undermining the constitution by left or right regardless of how good they feel their intentions are. [sm=Groaner.gif] Well if you're unwilling to have this discussion at a more nuanced level than: pro life = hating black people Then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you and would strongly advise you to give up on trying to comprehend politics and stick to finger painting. I never said pro life = hating black people so you are trying to look good by pretending I said something I didn't.

tweakabelle -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 7:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle "The Second Amendment 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.” Perhaps this is a naive question but does any one know what proportion of current legal gun owners are members of a "well regulated militia"? how many leftists know what the right of the people shall not be infringed means at the time everyone was part of the militia by Federal law every male between 18 and 50 is part of the militia so while this sounds good it is BS So you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment assumes membership of an organized militia? Oh dear. That would fuck your argument right up the arse. You dolt. No bozo, since everyone is part of the militia, the militia argument becomes irrelevant. Besides, by their view someone who protects their neighbor is in effect militia. Your failure to comprehend is astounding. This strikes me as a very odd claim. Others have dealt with your spurious claim that everyone is part of a militia, so I won't bother with that bit of nonsense. If "the militia argument becomes irrelevant", as is claimed above, then why was reference to the militia included in the first place? It is clearly there for a reason, and the "right to bear arms" is related to that reason, otherwise it simply makes no sense for the two to be included in the Amendment. If the "right to bear arms" was unqualified and unrelated to the existence of a "well regulated militia, then it would have been stated as such and thereby eliminated all ambiguity. But it isn't. To claim that the militia argument is "irrelevant" is gibberish. Another of the gun lobby's favoured arguments is that gun rights are a protection against tyranny, usually state tyranny. Yet the Amendment contains the phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". In the Amendment, it is clear that the right to bear arms is seen as related to the defence of the State, not as a protection against tyranny. Indeed it could even be argued that the 'security of the State' and 'protection against tyranny' are in some respects opposite and mutually exclusive. So it sounds to me that all the loud noises you are making are emanating from your posterior.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 7:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle "The Second Amendment 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.” Perhaps this is a naive question but does any one know what proportion of current legal gun owners are members of a "well regulated militia"? how many leftists know what the right of the people shall not be infringed means at the time everyone was part of the militia by Federal law every male between 18 and 50 is part of the militia so while this sounds good it is BS So you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment assumes membership of an organized militia? Oh dear. That would fuck your argument right up the arse. You dolt. No bozo, since everyone is part of the militia, the militia argument becomes irrelevant. Besides, by their view someone who protects their neighbor is in effect militia. Your failure to comprehend is astounding. This strikes me as a very odd claim. Others have dealt with your spurious claim that everyone is part of a militia, so I won't bother with that bit of nonsense. If "the militia argument becomes irrelevant", as is claimed above, then why was reference to the militia included in the first place? It is clearly there for a reason, and the "right to bear arms" is related to that reason, otherwise it simply makes no sense for the two to be included in the Amendment. If the "right to bear arms" was unqualified and unrelated to the existence of a "well regulated militia, then it would have been stated as such and thereby eliminated all ambiguity. But it isn't. To claim that the militia argument is "irrelevant" is gibberish. Another of the gun lobby's favoured arguments is that gun rights are a protection against tyranny, usually state tyranny. Yet the Amendment contains the phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". In the Amendment, it is clear that the right to bear arms is seen as related to the defence of the State, not as a protection against tyranny. Indeed it could even be argued that the 'security of the State' and 'protection against tyranny' are in some respects opposite and mutually exclusive. So it sounds to me that all the loud noises you are making are emanating from your posterior. You remember Justice Stevens don't you? In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens. It wasn't his intent but he did it.

GotSteel -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 9:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I never said pro life = hating black people so you are trying to look good by pretending I said something I didn't. Which is of course exactly what people are saying to you. One can disagree with the interpretation made in Row v. Wade without disagreeing with the amendment that gave black people rights. You aren't talking to people who want to repeal the second amendment any more than being pro-life is a moment to remove American citizenship from black people.

MercTech -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/31/2014 9:24:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Everyone doesn't appear aware they are in the militia. The citizen militia concept that all male citizens of reasonable adult age were subject to being called up in time of national emergency was what was used as justification for the draft... compulsory military service. I'm not aware if the use of compulsory service when Congress has not declared war was ever tested in the courts. Registration for the draft is acknowledging militia status. Furthermore Federal Marshals can deputize personnel in order to meet mission objectives. (Yes, posse does exist in law.) Many state laws allow for call up of citizenry in times of emergency on a local basis. The last time I saw that done was after Katrina hit for the looter patrols.

joether -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 12:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle "The Second Amendment 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.” Perhaps this is a naive question but does any one know what proportion of current legal gun owners are members of a "well regulated militia"? how many leftists know what the right of the people shall not be infringed means Lets start with reality.... ...Most gun nuts dont have a clue what the 2nd means. Most gun owners have never stopped to realize what the amendment means in its correct form. All the others? Should really sit down with some of those old books in the thirteen colonizes on each of the amendments. That said... "The right to bear arms..." Does not mean an individual right to have a firearm for any purpose and held to no accountability with it. A mistake many gun owners and every gun nut makes. The original meaning had to do with the idea that firearms were to be placed with individual members of a well regulated militia and in good standing with said militia. The belief was that if the firearms were kept in a centralized area, an enemy force (be it brigands, indians, or a foreign power) could simply blow it up and place the citizens of the town/city at their mercy. Decentralizing the force of arms was the central point of this (the 3rd part) of the amendment. "...shall not be infringed." This part (the 4th part of the 2nd amendment) has nothing to do with the individuals legal right(s) to one or more firearms. It was the belief that if a government could become tyrannical, could it force all the militias opposing its rule to lay their arms down or be against 'the law of the land'. The answer was 'no'. If a order came from a superior officer or a citizen body (be it a major, selectmen, council, etc.) to 'lay down the arms', the militia would take a democratic vote. If the vote succeeded, the arms would be surrendered. Neither part of the 2nd amendment, addresses the individual directly. The third part explains the individual's role as part of the whole. The forth part explains the individuals role as part of the well regulated militia on a specific vote. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD at the time everyone was part of the militia Actually at the time of the Revolutionary War and up to the American Civil War, only those 16-76 years of age, male, and in good health, would be part of the militia. As a member of the militia, one had specific duties and requirements to meet. Granted the rules and regulations (not to mention the penalties) would be extremely basic by our standards of law today; they were enforced. In every conflict, women have played a role as much as their male counterparts. Were they required to? No. So why did they fight? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD by Federal law every male between 18 and 50 is part of the militia so while this sounds good it is BS It wasn't federal law; but state laws. The 2nd amendment doesn't define "A well regulated militia...." in its exact form; that was for the individual states to decide upon (under the 10th amendment). But it did require the states to have a specific structure to those militias. Who regulates the local police department these days? Generally its the state in most cases.

joether -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 12:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether You must all enjoy mass shootings. This is both stupid and insulting Did you bother to read the....WHOLE....section? No, you look only at that which supports a 'tunnel view' on reality. Here is the whole thing: You must all enjoy mass shootings. Do you have a cable channel devoted to watching those injured by bullets in the ER's across the nation? Say 'Well, if Americans just agreed with me...." to the grieving family that just lost their loved one(s)? Do you enjoy digging the holes in the ground, to lay the coffins within? Of course not! Only someone devoid of emotion would 'enjoy' that! See that bold part there? That is me, assuming everyone on this thread, be they on one side of this discussion or the other as....NOT....being totally psychotic! Next time, make sure to read and more importantly, understand the nature of information stated.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625