Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

Onslaught2996
reply to post by doubletap

 

Now who is being ignorant..

You know very well what a gun sole intent is for.

Tell me why did you buy a gun..for protection? If it is to be used as such would you shoot to kill or injure. If kill then, is that not why you bought it..to end life?

Guns have many purposes, defense, target sport, hunting and yes offense. Depending on what it's being used for can determine the outcome but in the case of defense it is hopefully a deterrent. However the bottom line in both defense or offense the final result it to completely eliminate the threat, most often this result's in the targets death. Which is the point.

reply to post by Kali74


You can't support it and be in favor of registration.

reply to post by Kali74


And no, no it did not deal with forming militias. It is very very clear in the text. The right to bear arms of the people.

Not "we from this militia and grant them the right to bear arms".


So no, no you don't support it because you not only don't understand it, but you clearly are fine with actions that directly infringe upon said right.

reply to post by macman


Sure you can if you actually believe in the true nature of the intended Federal structure created by the Constitution. This isnt a "you have to accept A to believe B" situation in my estimation.



Good debate overall though in this thread.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Care to answer my question on the bottom of page 5?

reply to post by macman

You are completely ignoring half of the amendment. The half that does mention the militia.

daskakik
reply to post by macman

 

You are completely ignoring half of the amendment. The half that does mention the militia.

edit on 26-3-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

He isn't ignoring it, the right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent upon being in a militia.

reply to post by doubletap

But the militia is given as the reason for not infringing on that right so, it had something to do with it.

Five months later they passed a mandate that every able body had to be registered and had to provide his own musket or firelock. They obviously were thinking of the militia and how bad it would be if all those men showed up with knives to a gunfight.

reply to post by doubletap

The purpose of a gun

Purpose of Guns to Intimidate, Kill

A gun’s purpose is to kill, right?

While guns can be used for perfectly legitimate recreational use (like sport shooting or hunting), the gun’s main purpose is to kill – nothing more.

What are guns for?

Actually, Guns Do Kill People

There’s this little gem. Guns don’t kill people, people do. (Had to be an ad exec somewhere behind that one.)
“Cars kills thousands of people every month, cars aren’t made illegal. Smoking kills, that’s legal. Alcohol kills, that’s legal.”
Blah blah blah.
So here’s a question. What is the purpose of a car? Is it to pile into a crowded bus stop and wipe out everyone? I
s alcohol designed to give everyone cirrhosis of the liver?
Are cigarettes designed to destroy anyone who lights up? (Well, maybe, but that’s not what the manufacturers say.) Conversely, is a gun designed to hold a flower in the barrel, or to be used as a prop in family photos? It can be, but the primary use for a gun is to kill things.

So..no your gun is not defective..you just haven't had the chance(thank God) to use it for it's intended purpose.

Bassago
However the bottom line in both defense or offense the final result it to completely eliminate the threat, most often this result's in the targets death. Which is the point.

Exactly what I have been trying to say. Doubletap is lying to himself if he thinks different.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


Are you seriously using the dailykos as a credible source? What, couldn't find an article on the mayors against guns site?

Really? Thanks for the laugh.


The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. It is an inanimate object that is incapable of target selection. That is left up to its human operator.

What is the purpose of a car? To move on tires with power provided by an engine and transmission. Does the car make the decision to go into a crowd of people? No, its driver does.

Whats the purpose of a hammer? To hammer stuff, right? Does the hammer decide if its a nail or a skull that its hammering? No, its human operator does.

Its pretty damn funny you assign a human thought process to an object.

Can you provide a link to a single case where a gun killed someone without being operated by something with a pulse?

If not, once again your argument is a laughable failure.

reply to post by macman

You can't support it and be in favor of registration.

Sure I can. Registering guns is not denying anyone a right.

And no, no it did not deal with forming militias. It is very very clear in the text.

"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."

The text between the 2nd comma and the last comma should be considered as something like a side note or clarification, much like we use parenthesis. A free State can only exist if it can defend itself and can only defend itself if it is armed.

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.

The intention of our forefathers (again by noting the preceding debates) was to guarantee that Congress could not legislate away each State's ability to defend itself with their own militias. I wonder how well in tact individual State's rights would be today had their intention remained the focus.

I think that the Civil War was probably the beginning of the erosion of that, though many States do still maintain SDF's, no one ever mentions them when it comes to keeping the Federal Government at bay... I wonder why that is.

Thinking in depth about it now because of this thread, I have to wonder if the entire debate about individual gun ownership rights vs a State's right to defend itself with an armed militia... was nothing more than another switcheroo.

reply to post by doubletap


Don't like Daily KOS, that would be why I also posted some from gun advocate sites. I never once said guns alone kill people.

"Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do?"

Debunking the “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” Myth

2 Guns don’t kill people. (The toothpaste argument)

The fallacies of the NRA's argument against gun control

“guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Yes, it’s true — a trigger without someone to pull it will never induce carnage. But many triggers that can unleash many rounds make killing many people much easier and more likely.
The same can’t be said for other potential methods of mayhem, which leads us to another fallacious argument — that we shouldn’t regulate guns further because sociopaths bent on violence will always find a way.
They could use a car or a knife or a baseball bat. But cars, knives and baseball bats have valuable, primary uses and are not designed first and foremost as killing machines. Used correctly, they don’t kill people. A gun that kills somebody, however, is merely achieving its ultimate, intended purpose.

“Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do” Makes You Sound Like a Buffoon & Here’s Why

Let me let all the gun zealots in on a little secret — we all completely understand what you mean by “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” We’re not idiots. Yes, a gun does not kill anyone of its own volition

doubletap
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Care to answer my question on the bottom of page 5?

Sure....the gun in an inanimate object. I am not sure why you are asking me to answer that.

Kali is presenting the 'other' side of the interpretation of the Second Amendment and while I disagree with it, has made valid and coherent points to it. I on the other hand agree with the notion that the Second Amendment, in its construction, is broken into two parts; a prefatory clause and an operative clause (as I stated on page two).

This view is held by the majority with the Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C. and also in a paper by Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School.

To begin with, so long as the Second Amendment seems strikingly unusual -- so long as it appears to be the only provision with a justification clause -- people will naturally wonder whether this oddity is some sort of signal

A draft version of the Second Amendment, by James Madison, initially wasn't so brief and offered no ambiguity. In the debates regarding the inclusion of a 'Bill of Rights', Madison first penned the following: Added Link: Federal Register - Bill of Rights Debate

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military services in person.

This form is very clear that the Peoples' natural right was recognized along with the Rights of the States to maintain their own militias absent a standing army. It also had a clause that was stricken out sadly.

Going back now to the current form, we can clearly see that the Amendment is not to be read with just a pause and inclusion of militia and the People, but that they are two separate entities.

When discussing the Bills of Rights, one must not forget the hesitation of Madison himself on the inclusion to the Constitution; that it would lead to the thought that they are granting rights and not protecting them.

Kali74
The text between the 2nd comma and the last comma should be considered as something like a side note or clarification, much like we use parenthesis. A free State can only exist if it can defend itself and can only defend itself if it is armed.

For sake of debate and while I addressed this in the post just above, I do disagree with the notion that the "last comma should be considered as something like a side note or clarification..." I agree with the later part of the above though.

The comma isn't just placed for sake of a comma to be a "side note". It could be, as you just said though, a clarification to the Rights held by not only the State but also to the People.

The intention of our forefathers (again by noting the preceding debates) was to guarantee that Congress could not legislate away each State's ability to defend itself with their own militias. I wonder how well in tact individual State's rights would be today had their intention remained the focus.

I agree partial here. The initial uncertainty of even enumerating some Rights via a Bill of Rights was foreshadowed to create the debate that we have had since in my opinion.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thank-you for your kindness and Bassago as well. Always sweeter coming from someone you find yourself in disagreement with more often than not. The value of a respected 'foe' is nearly equal to that of a kindred spirit.

Regarding the 'other' interpretation, the one that stood til 2008... consider the mindset of the men that wrote the Constitution and debated on it. Specifically think about the Minutemen and how they came to be as a result of the British confiscation of the Colonists gun powder as war was beginning in earnest.

Being armed was as essential as breathing, compulsion...instinct... beyond a right, only an enemy would try to stop you from breathing, only an enemy would try to disarm you. What they were afraid of was being vulnerable to Armies, foreign or domestic (should the Confederation eventually follow in Britain's footsteps), thus they were intending to protect their right and each State's right to defend itself.

reply to post by Kali74


And it is evident we agree on the totality of the Amendment; when we see that it was meant to not only protect the individuals' rights, but that of the newly formed states.

The interpretation wasn't borne in 2008 though... see many of States' declaratory clauses on rights and you can see that the pattern is the same.

when the zombie apocalypse comes, i bet everyone will be gun owners.



ETA: wonder what the survival rate would be by country?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


and thanking lee emery for showing them how to bust melons.


:

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Not quite agree... we both see that the right to bear arms was deemed vital. But in my thinking, bearing arms superseded any 'right' and it wouldn't have needed to be put in the Constitution any more than your right to breathe. Obviously the Supreme Court did finally outright define the 2nd and I do standby an individuals right to own guns as much as I standby an individuals right to breathe, but there are things a person can do that might make society say well you can breathe but behind bars or even state that a person no longer has a right to breathe... so what is it that can't be infringed? If the Constitution protects breathing, it risks the health and well being of the entire population... you can't jail a breathing person, you can't put them on a medical list as a carrier of disease, can't quarantine them.

That may be a silly analogy. It's late. Goodnight lol.