|
BitYakin -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 4:32:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?
Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?
Take a look for yourself.
Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.
No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.
Can we agree on this?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.
If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!
No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level).
well the supreme court disagrees with you, but YOU know better so why bother trying to have this RATIONAL CONVERSATION you speak of?
of course you know constitutional law better than EVERY judge who ever ruled on it though!
Yes, the Heller vs DC case? The one in which the US Supreme Court with its 5 conservative justices did an 'end-run-around" the 2nd amendment and reinterpeted to make a decision that was a political win for the GOP. Now what is wrong with that, you might ask? THEY ARENT ALLOWED TO REINTERPRET ANYTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION! Only Congress, and only in one of four ways (two of which have been used since the country's start). Objectively speaking, Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not in use with 'a well regulated militia...' like his police issued firearm. That he could have have his police issued firearm when off duty was partially the reason to obtain the second firearm. The other is the area to which Mr. Heller lived in was not exactly 'federal ground'. D.C. had two firearm regulations in place that in all regards rendered having a firearm illegal unless one was with law enforcement.
Further, that the US Supreme Court acted out in political game's manship and not Constitutional ability. When does the US Supreme Court step into an issue? When the lower and appealette courts are in disagreement. Notice the US Supreme Court did not enter into gay marriage until one court was in disagreement with the lower court. In the Heller case, the lower court ruled that Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not allowed under DC laws and it was not protected under the 2nd, because the arm was not with use to the police department. The next court up, also sided with DC. So by rights, the US Supreme Court should have....NEVER....entered into the equation.
Now then, the US Supreme Court does weigh in on matters under special circumstances. For example, whether Mr. Obama was a US Citizen and born in Hawaii. Since he's a US President, I'll wager they gave the 'ok' on that one.
That you can not look at the case objectively states all that needs stating.
I can't look at it objectively? but YOU are the one that says you KNOW BETTER than the SUPREME COURTS
OOOOOOOOOOOOOK
and NOOO they didn't do an end run, the just upheld what most people ALREADY KNEW to be the correct interpretation...
maybe you can explain this lil constitutional detail to us all
throughout the constitution the word PEOPLE refers to individual rights, EXCEPT in this ONE PART where you claim is doesn't mean that...
only someone who refuse to see things objectively would pretend that in this ONE PART of the constitution a word means something DIFFERANT than in EVERY OTHER PART OF IT
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"
Fair is fair...and you guys always seem to forget that part,or redefine it to suit your purposes.
I will be interested to hear your stretching of that phrase [8|]
not going to stretch it at all
lets look at the whole thing, this has been demonstrated here before but I'll do it AGAIN, just for you
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.
first thing we look at is, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
this is not so much part of the right but an explination of WHY such a right was included...
basicly it means, since everyone was opposed to standing armies at the time, everyone should HAVE a gun and know how to use it so when NEEDED they could be called upon to defend the nation
this is expressed by, "Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
do I need to explain that quote too?
what the hell, might as well in a nutshell it means there is "NO GREATER FIGHTING FORCE THAN THE CITIZENS PROTECTING THIER HOMES" that as long as EVERY MAN has a gun an army can be raised QUICKLY...
the well regulated part in MY OPINION, refers to training, and what's better I ask, to give a man a gun he's never used, or let him go into battle with a gun he is ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH?
so in a nutshell the 1st part explains WHY the right was included, the second part IS THE RIGHT.
IF the writer had meant for it to ONLY include MILITIA it would have read
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
it might have ALSO gone on to DEFINE militia, it doesn't because its SIMPLE ENGLISH, the people are THE PEOPLE!!
now pretend if STRETCHED it as you say, but I answered, suppose you ANSWER MY QUESTION??
come on lets hear YOUR STRETCH, on why throughout the constitution "people" refers to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, except in the ONE SINGLE AMENDMENT
WHY did they REDEFINE the word people for this ONE SECTION of the constitution? were they intending on trying to CONFUSE US MAYBE????
PS. I asked first, but of course NO ANSWER FROM YOU!!!
|
|
|
|
