Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[GoBills808]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Yes, I assumed you were going somewhere else with it. 

 

Interestingly, Caetano vacated a conviction that was based on the ideas that the weapon wasn't covered by the 2nd because it wasn't commonly used when the 2nd was written and that the weapon wasn't covered by the 2nd because it was "thoroughly modern."

Indeed, and until they decide otherwise the whole 'it wasn't around in the 1700's' argument doesn't fly (which is an eminently debatable decision IMO but that's another tangent)...I was more referring to the idea that if you concede that 'well-regulated militia' is since 2010 (I think?), by SC opinion, held to 'the people' standard wrt firearm rights, an argument can be made that determining which types of weapons are allowed for public consumption does not infringe upon the 2nd. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, thebug said:

Who’s the creator? 

That was left intentionally vague, as our Founders believed the First to be as important as the Second.  For the purpose of our Constitution it simply means that your rights are intrinsic to your humanity, and you've had them from your first moment of existence.  That they are yours naturally, it is tyrannical to separate you from them, and as such a legitimate and just government cannot deprive you of them.

Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LeviF]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Indeed, and until they decide otherwise the whole 'it wasn't around in the 1700's' argument doesn't fly (which is an eminently debatable decision IMO but that's another tangent)...I was more referring to the idea that if you concede that 'well-regulated militia' is since 2010 (I think?), by SC opinion, held to 'the people' standard wrt firearm rights, an argument can be made that determining which types of weapons are allowed for public consumption does not infringe upon the 2nd. 

 

Interesting take.  I'm not sure that's actually what the Court did, though, when they said that the 2nd covers self-defense in the home.  Caetano is tough because it's a per curiam decision, but Heller only said that the 2nd covers the right to possess a firearm outside of service in a militia, not that the militia is the people. 

 

Edit to add: it's also noteworthy that the 2nd has both "militia" and "the people" in it as two entities.

Edited February 22, 2018 by LeviF91

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, thebug said:

Who’s the creator? 

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

[thebug]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That was left intentionally vague, as our Founders belied the First to be as important as the Second.  For the purpose of our Constitution it simply means that your rights are intrinsic to your humanity, and you've had them from your first moment of existence.  That they are yours naturally, it is tyrannical to separate you from them, and as such a legitimate and just government cannot deprive you of them.

Fair enough.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Indeed, and until they decide otherwise the whole 'it wasn't around in the 1700's' argument doesn't fly (which is an eminently debatable decision IMO but that's another tangent)...I was more referring to the idea that if you concede that 'well-regulated militia' is since 2010 (I think?), by SC opinion, held to 'the people' standard wrt firearm rights, an argument can be made that determining which types of weapons are allowed for public consumption does not infringe upon the 2nd. 

An argument that tortures language, modifies history to it's own ends, and disregards the purpose of the Amendment in question; but sure, and "argument" can be made.

 

Poor arguments can be made in favor of just about anything.  This place demonstrates that quite adequately by the hour.

Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Interesting position.  In relation to the Second Amendment this can only be an assertion that people are different than they were 300 years ago in their desires.

 

Today there must be:  No despots seeking to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from consequences at the expense of the People, no movement to squash political speech, no massive corruption and criminality in government, no government entities engaging in human trafficking, no war with other nations, no nations hostile towards America.

 

These were the reasons for the Second Amendment, so if the second is antiquated, all of those issues must have been solved?

 

You know, I think I'm beginning to see his point. Of course today, nearly 300 years later, our society has grown and evolved, and has different needs than way back when those dusty old amendments were crafted. In fact, with our current environment being one of such violence and discord, I think it's about time we shut down dangerous speech such as his, so somebody needs to shut down KW95's account, and if he persists in publishing his dangerous rhetoric, he should be arrested.

[thebug]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

Thank you. 

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

 

 

but your big discovery of "born into FREEDOM" held slaves as a huge part of the economy

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

but your big discovery of "born into FREEDOM" held slaves as a huge part of the economy

 

At the time it was a political necessity. 

 

And it wasn't my discovery, nor the founding fathers'. It was the end result of centuries of philosophy and history.

 

Slavery is called this nation's original sin for a reason. The founders could not wage two wars at once - against the most dominant empire in history up until that point AND one against their own people. If they tackled slavery in 1776 (or 1788) it would have split the country before it even got started.

 

They chose to tackle one at a time - for better or worse. It's fair to hold that against them in some respects, but they also left a way to fix their omission... it took another war to do so, but they trusted the future generations to finish the war they started. 

 

And they did.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Interesting take.  I'm not sure that's actually what the Court did, though, when they said that the 2nd covers self-defense in the home.  Caetano is tough because it's a per curiam decision, but Heller only said that the 2nd covers the right to possess a firearm outside of service in a militia, not that the militia is the people. 

 

Edit to add: it's also noteworthy that the 2nd has both "militia" and "the people" in it as two entities.

Yep! It's an admittedly roundabout interpretation, although I say the original text was sufficiently clear in allowing that 'the people' be conflated with 'well-regulated militia', and previous versions of the amendment as well as our nascent government's feelings on a standing army (from Federalists and anti-Federalists alike) imo support that interpretation. At least initially.

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

An argument that tortures language, modifies history to it's own ends, and disregards the purpose of the Amendment in question; but sure, and "argument" can be made.

 

Poor arguments can be made in favor of just about anything.  This place demonstrates that quite adequately by the hour.

You can do better than this

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

but your big discovery of "born into FREEDOM" held slaves as a huge part of the economy

 

 

Correct.  The Founders, men of their own time, were not perfect.  They failed to live up to our 21st century understanding of their actions.  That's how history works.  The modern concept of freedom, self-determination, and natural rights protected by government is only 250 years old on the entire timeline of human history.

 

Think about that: 200,000 years of human history, and until only 250 years ago all but a handful of individuals owned nothing (they had no right to property as we understand it), and lived in serfdom and servitude to those handful of individuals who were free, largely, to do as they pleased to the masses with impunity.  So yes, our Founders were late to the party in regards to other races; but in the timeline of our history, that party only started about 3 minutes ago, and now that the minorities have arrived, we're thrilled to have them here, and are sorry they weren't able to get here earlier because we gave them bad directions.  But you know what?  They're here now with the rest of us, and we're all better off for it... and by the way, did I mention the party only started 3 minutes ago?  Stop bitching and grab a !@#$ing beer.

 

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

You can do better than this

I thought it was a pretty good joke.

 

But to the meat:  I really don't need to do better.  I have historical evidence outlining the Founders' intentions in regard to the Second, have a reading level higher than a 5th grade understanding, and I know how to diagram a sentence.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Yep! It's an admittedly roundabout interpretation, although I say the original text was sufficiently clear in allowing that 'the people' be conflated with 'well-regulated militia', and previous versions of the amendment as well as our nascent government's feelings on a standing army (from Federalists and anti-Federalists alike) imo support that interpretation. At least initially.

 

I can't agree that we can conflate the two.  The debates in the Massachusetts commonwealth as well as the various pamphlets published at the time showed that the Constitution was never to be construed to prevent the people, who are "peaceable citizens," from keeping their own arms.  Militias are mentioned separately.

[Tiberius]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

At the time it was a political necessity. 

 

And it wasn't my discovery, nor the founding fathers'. It was the end result of centuries of philosophy and history.

 

Slavery is called this nation's original sin for a reason. The founders could not wage two wars at once - against the most dominant empire in history up until that point AND one against their own people. If they tackled slavery in 1776 (or 1788) it would have split the country before it even got started.

 

They chose to tackle one at a time - for better or worse. It's fair to hold that against them in some respects, but they also left a way to fix their omission... it took another war to do so, but they trusted the future generations to finish the war they started. 

 

And they did.

You are really bad at history, also. The war against Great Britain had been over for years before the Constitution was written. And many (most?) of the founders had no problem with slavery, especially the southerners. Hamilton was a shining example to the contray, but ironically, he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are really bad at history, also. The war against Great Britain had been over for years before the Constitution was written. And many (most?) of the founders had no problem with slavery, especially the southerners. Hamilton was a shining example to the contray, but ironically, he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[thebug]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Trump? 

[Koko78]

45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

 

This is exactly right. The Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are not granting anyone rights; the document (and amendments) were written specifically and intentionally to limit governmental power, and prevent those 'inalienable rights' from being taken away. The whole !@#$ing point of the document is to prevent a totalitarian/tyrannical/oppressive state.

 

To assume that the government has the power to grant rights necessarily assumes that the government has the power to take them away (which renders said rights meaningless). The Bill of Rights is not meaningless.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, KW95 said:

The Constitution.  Laws created 300 years ago when the Model T was still 200 years away!  Great Stuff

 

Dear KW95,

 

Thank you for your thoughts. We hope you continue to share these thoughts with as many people as you can. Yell them loudly from the rooftops, and we'll be there to provide the amplification you need to ensure everyone can hear your message.

 

Sincerely,

Trump/Pence 2020 Re-Election Campaign

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

This is exactly right. The Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are not granting anyone rights; the document (and amendments) were written specifically and intentionally to limit governmental power, and prevent those 'inalienable rights' from being taken away. The whole !@#$ing point of the document is to prevent a totalitarian/tyrannical/oppressive state.

 

To assume that the government has the power to grant rights necessarily assumes that the government has the power to take them away (which renders said rights meaningless). The Bill of Rights is not meaningless.

In part yes, but it also included a totalitarian/tyranical/oppressive aspects like the fugitive slave section. And the Constitution was also written to strengthen government power, as the Articles of Confederation were seen as a "rope of sand"

 

The first step of freedom  is forcefully fighting an anarchy, chaos and criminality. Stronger gun laws do not limit freedom, they give it to people that would be victims of gun violence 

[LeviF]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hamilton was a shining example to the contray, but ironically, he was opposed to the Bill of Rights.

 

Interestingly enough, Hamilton was essentially a monarchist.  He later praised the four-year term for the greater good, but was desirous of a lifetime term.

Just now, Tiberius said:

And the Constitution was also written to strengthen government power, as the Articles of Confederation were seen as a "rope of sand"

 

And the Bill of Rights was put in to put hard limits on the strengths given to the central government, a fact that seems entirely lost on your selective history.

[Tiberius]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Interestingly enough, Hamilton was essentially a monarchist.  He later praised the four-year term for the greater good, but was desirous of a lifetime term.

He was a contradiction in many ways. Not big on voting rights, but all for economic freedoms.

[LA Grant]

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oh hey jmc! Well, I already know you're trash from your posts on TSW but speaking of Amendments... Let's hear it from Thomas Jefferson. (Apologies he doesn't write in message board style for you, jmc, but it's worth it to read through the full excerpt, or even more!)

 

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." 

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/

 

"Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will."

https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/the-creator-has-made-the-earth-for-the-living-not-the-dead

 

"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."

 

^

Congrats on being the binding generation, you selfish lazy old useless farts.

 

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

 

Then go for it bro, amend the Constitution.  It's been done 27 times before.

 

Until then, shove it, kitty.

[LA Grant]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

An truly convincing argument:  "I can't dispute a single fact presented, and I'm an emotional and self-righteous dickhead, so I'll call names instead."

 

I am convinced.  Where should I turn over my firearms?

 

I do thank you for your asshattery, however, because while your particular brand of howling into your facebook echo chamber won't do a thing to take a single gun off the street, prevent a single gun death, or help a mentally ill child, what it does do, very effectively, is put gun owners on the further defensive.

 

And that's fine, stupid as it may be to pick a fight with the people with all the guns.

 

 

No one wants your stupid firearms. No one is coming for your guns, you knob. No one is scared of "the people with all the guns." 

 

I don't know how this idea just won't pass through your doughy mind. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR LOSER HOBBY SHOOTING BEER CANS IN THE WOODS. It is a false equivalency.

 

Guns are NOT PROTECTING YOU from some evil government dystopia. Good lord.  Legal Gun Owners are the softest people alive. Not just in the mid-section. In the brain.

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Then go for it bro, amend the Constitution.  It's been done 27 times before.

 

Until then, shove it, kitty.

 

Aw I'm sorry you're being mildly inconvenienced with message board posts you don't prefer! Life is so hard for you!

 

Don't worry. Go take gun from safe. Look at gun. Gun won't judge you. Gun thinks you're smart and cool.

Edited February 22, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

 

If you think that's what Tasker and LA are saying, you are more retarded than I thought.  And I thought you were seriously impaired to begin with.

[B-Man]

21 minutes ago, thebug said:

Trump? 

 

Nope, just acknowledging that gator had (again) set his stupidity up on a tee for our board's history majors.

 

 

 

 

.

 

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Nope, just acknowledging that gator had (again) set his stupidity up on a tee for our board's history majors.

 

 

 

 

.

 

I thought it meant T'd off. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Nope, just acknowledging that gator had (again) set his stupidity up on a tee for our board's history majors.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

I wasn't going to bother, since he made it damn clear he didn't read anything anyone else posted.

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

If you think that's what Tasker and LA are saying, you are more retarded than I thought.  And I thought you were seriously impaired to begin with.

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

 

Like I said...I don't have a point, I just deconstruct stupidity.  

 

Not yours, though.  You're doing a bang-up job deconstructing yourself.  Where ever DID you get the above lunacy?

[KW95 - JA17]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

 

I just take it for what it is LAGrant. Everyone knows he's got the good one liners.  That is all he brings to the boards.  If he feels good about it, that is what counts. He makes me smile and laugh as well. in regards to opinions and points of views on anything,  He is vanilla. no flavor....but again, his one liners are funny!

[Nanker]

3 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

If any single image better perfectly captures pure evil, I don't want to see it.

Will this do?

 

 

[thebug]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I wasn't going to bother, since he made it damn clear he didn't read anything anyone else posted.

Zip it. 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, KW95 said:

I just take it for what it is LAGrant. Everyone knows he's got the good one liners.  That is all he brings to the boards.  If he feels good about it, that is what counts. He makes me smile and laugh as well. in regards to opinions and points of views on anything,  He is vanilla. no flavor....but again, his one liners are funny!

 

Yes, Tom is funny sometimes on TSW. It's clearly gone to his head down here.

 

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Like I said...I don't have a point, I just deconstruct stupidity.  

 

Not yours, though.  You're doing a bang-up job deconstructing yourself.  Where ever DID you get the above lunacy?

 

If you were good at deconstructing stupidity, you'd realize you're stupidly wasting all this valuable social satire toiling in PPP. 

 

Looks like a handy delusion to me. "Hey, not me, I don't have a point, I go after all sides. I'm an Equal Opportunity Offender. I snipe retards from the balcony with a Muppets avatar. I have a mug with funny words on it and several funny bumper stickers." 

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yes, Tom is funny sometimes on TSW. It's clearly gone to his head down here.

 

 

If you were good at deconstructing stupidity, you'd realize you're stupidly wasting all this valuable social satire toiling in PPP. 

 

Looks like a handy delusion to me. "Hey, not me, I don't have a point, I go after all sides. I'm an Equal Opportunity Offender. I snipe retards from the balcony with a Muppets avatar. I have a mug with funny words on it and several funny bumper stickers." 

Don't worry, it's 4:30 so dinner time for Tommy. 

[Chandemonium]

30 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

7 hours ago, LA Grant said:

"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."

 

^

Congrats on being the binding generation, you selfish lazy old useless farts.

 

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

 

The right to bear arms falls under the unchangeable bit mentioned in the bolded section. The right to freedom is inherent and inalienable. By extension the right to protect said freedom against those who would take it  away by force is also inherent and inalienable. Ergo, since those who would take this right by force have guns and will continue to do so, we the people get them too.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

The Document is permitted to be changed, not intended to be changed.  Intended changes would have made at the time of ratification.  Intended changes like, for instance, adding the Bill or Rights.

 

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it could not have been ratified without it.  It was understood by all in attendance of the Convention that the right to self-defense and the defense of rights against oppressors was the absolute sacred right of the People.  Those opposed to adding the Bill of Rights asserted that what we now deem to be "Second Amendment rights" were so obvious and intrinsic that their protection need not be encoded, as the body of the Document itself did not permit the federal government the power to infringe on that obvious natural right (and all other rights enumerated in the BoR), and knowing the despotism of the Leviathan, feared a possible future in which the People enjoyed only the rights specifically enumerated which went against their intentions.  Those who did insist on it for ratification did so because they also knew the despotism of the Leviathan, and foresaw a possible future in which the government recognized no rights not specifically enumerated.  Both fears wound up being valid, with the advantage of hindsight.  The compromise was the 10th Amendment.

 

The purpose of the Amendment process was not to eliminate of modify the rights of Americans.  The purpose, in relation to the natural rights, is carefully spelled out in the Document's pre-amble.  The first words of the Document, which tell's you of their importance to those writing it:  "...to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." 

 

This "Liberty" outlined in the Declaration of Independence is defined as not coming from government, but instead being inborn, intrinsic, and inalienable (meaning inseparable from the holder).

 

The Founders never intended the Amendment process to remove rights from it's citizens.  They quite clearly didn't believe that any just form of government even had that authority.  The had, in fact, just fought a war for the very purpose of establishing that fact.

 

The Amendment process was included for three reasons: 1) the compromise over slavery was untenable, and they knew they needed to leave room for changes as liberty grew,  2)  the were creating a new form of government structurally, and had the desire to make if possible to reform roles, duties, and checks and balances as became necessary, and 3)  they feared the expansion of government over the People it intended to govern, and wished to leave the ability to add to the list of enumerated rights in the likely even that government grew to bold.

 

24 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

That's not a factual counter argument addressing any of the points or concerns raised, it's a fiat declaration based on nothing more than your own feelings.  And it's not very bright. 

 

I'm going to go ahead and stick with my argument, because yours isn't very impressive.

[Koko78]

26 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Will this do?

 

 

 

Not acceptable. The reference was to pure evil from a SJW perspective.

 

Goddess-Queen Hillary is not pure evil, she is the victim of the misogynistic, racist, bigoted, hateful patriarchy that just exists to keep the poor liberal woman down.

[Cinga]

30 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

You right, the Constitution can be changed, and that very document tell you how to go about doing it.... But your quotes are based on ignorance of that document and this Nation. Let me just take this one:

 

Quote

A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."

The very premise of this assumes wrongly that the United States is a Democracy which we are NOT!  It speaks of majorities which the Founder dreaded because so long as there is a rule by majority, it is ALWAYS to the detriment of the minority. I know what you have been taught in school, and I know what politician always say, but they are wrong too.

You see, an extreme of a Democracy would be making the minority give all their earnings over to the majority. Or even for the majority to exempt themselves from all laws and even take the voting rights away from the minority to assure you are forever the majority.

We are a Constitutional Republic, much different than a Democracy in that it is a limited government whose main responsibility it is to protect the rights of the smallest minority,,, The individual.

 

And if you really think any attempt to infringe on the right to bear is not a precedent for more rights taken away, you are sadly mistaken. Just look at the infringements on rights over the last couple decades. If it were not for the investigations going on now,if Hillary had won, I would have expected her to figure a way to suspend the Constitution, or try to.... We know Obama looked into that possibility

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The Document is permitted to be changed, not intended to be changed.  Intended changes would have made at the time of ratification.  Intended changes like, for instance, adding the Bill or Rights.

 

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it could not have been ratified without it.  It was understood by all in attendance of the Convention that the right to self-defense and the defense of rights against oppressors was the absolute sacred right of the People.  Those opposed to adding the Bill of Rights asserted that what we now deem to be "Second Amendment rights" were so obvious and intrinsic that their protection need not be encoded, as the body of the Document itself did not permit the federal government the power to infringe on that obvious natural right (and all other rights enumerated in the BoR), and knowing the despotism of the Leviathan, feared a possible future in which the People enjoyed only the rights specifically enumerated which went against their intentions.  Those who did insist on it for ratification did so because they also knew the despotism of the Leviathan, and foresaw a possible future in which the government recognized no rights not specifically enumerated.  Both fears wound up being valid, with the advantage of hindsight.  The compromise was the 10th Amendment.

 

The purpose of the Amendment process was not to eliminate of modify the rights of Americans.  The purpose, in relation to the natural rights, is carefully spelled out in the Document's pre-amble.  The first words of the Document, which tell's you of their importance to those writing it:  "...to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." 

 

This "Liberty" outlined in the Declaration of Independence is defined as not coming from government, but instead being inborn, intrinsic, and inalienable (meaning inseparable from the holder).

 

The Founders never intended the Amendment process to remove rights from it's citizens.  They quite clearly didn't believe that any just form of government even had that authority.  The had, in fact, just fought a war for the very purpose of establishing that fact.

 

The Amendment process was included for three reasons: 1) the compromise over slavery was untenable, and they knew they needed to leave room for changes as liberty grew,  2)  the were creating a new form of government structurally, and had the desire to make if possible to reform roles, duties, and checks and balances as became necessary, and 3)  they feared the expansion of government over the People it intended to govern, and wished to leave the ability to add to the list of enumerated rights in the likely even that government grew to bold.

 

 

You're way off. The idea, as clearly outlined in those Jefferson letters as anywhere (but not just there), is that the document evolves with society. They were aware they were not Moses coming down from the mountain, although people like yourself get completely lost and miss the forest for the trees. You, your stubbornness, your unwillingness to change or compromise — you are what they were trying to save us from.

 

Military technology is NOT a God-given inalienable right. It is not inborn. It is not intrinsic. 

 

NRA folk are clinging to this perversely warped misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights/the Second Amendment because they think Obama himself is going to come smack the rifle out of their hand or something.

 

Again — No one cares about you shooting beer cans in the woods. But AR-15s are not an inalienable right. OBVIOUSLY. It's madness that such a statement even needs to be said.