Comprehending the 2nd Amendment

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH


The gun is a **bleepin'** tool. It allows me, should the time ever come, to protect myself a bit easier. It allows me to feed myself, another protection, this one from hunger.
.

Well, Iran and North Korea both think it's their right to build Nuclear Bombs, to protect themselves from aggressors.

So, they think just like you, we should be able to acquire the weapon of our own choice to defend ourselves.

The Nuclear Weapon is just a **bleepin** tool.

Why don't we all just go along with their view of what their "rights" are?

That's not an argument.

We have a document laying it out as a right for ourselves.

a reply to: AMPTAH

What does North Korea, or Iran, or whichever country, building nuclear bombs have to do with Constitutionally protected rights here in the U.S.?

Go ahead, I'll wait while you try to explain that one to me.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects rights already inherent to each of us. NK, or Iran, have no part in this discussion, at all.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You're quoting from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Just FYI.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: AMPTAH

Well then, *poof* I decide you no longer have any rights.

No more posting on ATS, privacy, we can punish you as cruellly and unusually as we like, and you now are going to be compelled to testify against yourself.

Sucks...moderators do that here all the time. Ever seen one of your posts go "poof" and wondered what it was that you said, that offended the sensitivities of the mods?

Sometimes when I post something, I forget what I posted. When I check back, I just see a sign there with an empty spot, saying something like removed for violation of rules. Since, I can't remember what I posted, I have no clue what it was that caused offence. There should be a rule, that the original poster can at least see what it is that he'd put there, so he can remember not to write such a thing again. Even if other posters can't see it, the original poster should have a way to check, and reflect on his own conduct, so he can modify his own behavior. Feedback is important, but without "memory" or "recording" to evaluate, we can't change.

Remember, the constitution says "We the People", and it doesn't say "I the person".

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH

What does North Korea, or Iran, or whichever country, building nuclear bombs have to do with Constitutionally protected rights here in the U.S.?

Go ahead, I'll wait while you try to explain that one to me.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects rights already inherent to each of us. NK, or Iran, have no part in this discussion, at all.

That was in response to the claim that we are all born with these rights. That means everyone in the world is born with the right to self-defense, and the right to choose our own weapon to defend, since it's not a right "granted" by any government.

See? Once you accept that the state doesn't grant you this "right", then the whole world has these rights too.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

That's not an argument.

We have a document laying it out as a right for ourselves.

Sure. What we're debating here is the "interpretation" of that document.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: elysiumfire



When the 2nd amendment was written, gunfire was at around 3 rounds per MINUTE. Not second. Interesting fact. It was created in 1791, for God sake. Times have changed.

So what?

It's not like the threats to a 'free state' are armed with weapons that fire three rounds per minute.

****

ETA: Are you seriously suggesting that people should only be armed with the bare minimum to fight against enemies/threats who are armed with the most lethal and advanced weapons?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

ETA: Are you seriously suggesting that people should only be armed with the bare minimum to fight against enemies/threats who are armed with the most lethal and advanced weapons?

Well we're not going to arm John Joe Citizen with a Nuclear Rocket to defend himself...

but we will so arm him if he's a member of a well regulated force, trained and pledged to do battle to protect "the group" of all of us.

The citizen doesn't need these things for self-protection, he only needs those things to protect "us", and when we decide he should have them.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
but we will so arm him if he's a member of a well regulated force, trained and pledged to do battle to protect "the group" of all of us.

The sale of guns is well regulated. I don't remember "trained" and "pledged" being mentioned in the Second Amendment.

Ha...and let's be honest...the greatest threat to our 'free state' is the federal government.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
So, it is obvious that the constitution "CANNOT" mean every citizen has the right to bear arms.

Actually it can mean exactly that. 'Keep and bear' does not mean 'use to deprive another person of life, liberty or property'

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Ha...and let's be honest...the greatest threat to our 'free state' is the federal government.

The federal government is just made up of citizens. They are not some foreign power ruling over the population.

And I don't know where you get the idea that this is some kind of "free state". It's not free at all. It is bound up by all sorts of laws that prevent the citizens from freely doing whatever they want.

It's ordered, and regulated, and bounded, by contracts and oaths, to all kinds of obligations, restrictions, and limitations.

No where is any man walking the land free.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: AMPTAH
So, it is obvious that the constitution "CANNOT" mean every citizen has the right to bear arms.

Actually it can mean exactly that. 'Keep and bear' does not mean 'use to deprive another person of life, liberty or property'

But, we just had a school shooting in Florida. Where the old interpretation of right to "keep and bear" arms was indeed used by the citizen to deprive 17 people of life and liberty. So, we cannot deny what is right in front of us.

Telling the citizens they are "not supposed" to do that with this "right", doesn't work. It's meaningless.

That leaves us with a puzzle, what's wrong with the Constitution? It's supposed to protect us.

Do we really need new laws?

No.

The very same U.S. Constitution will protect us from this kind of school shooting, if we only "interpret" the 2nd amendment correctly. It's not a right of every John Doe Citizen to "keep and bear" arms, it's only a right for those particular citizens the state has selected to be part of the state's militia.

Problem would be easily solved, if the supreme court would re-think the same text, again. As they do from time to time.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Ha...and let's be honest...the greatest threat to our 'free state' is the federal government.

The federal government is just made up of citizens. They are not some foreign power ruling over the population.

The federal government has the power to collect & spend taxpayer money, make laws, seize property, detain and imprison citizens, start wars, etc. They are no 'ordinary citizens.'

And, yes, we are very free (other than the unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional limits that the federal government puts on us). We are free to do pretty much anything we want to do as long as we don't infringe on others' freedoms.

Clearly, one’s first comprehension of the whole statement can only be understood to disclude the individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence, one’s own self-defence is neither discussed nor enshrined in the Constitution. The statement is one of plurality, not of individuality.

So , to prove your point we have to leave out parts of the Amendment ?
No thank you...

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Meaning any US citizen in the US and this can't be taken away
NO EXCEPTIONS
Seems as if instead of a fantasy filled daydream , you needed a literal translation

originally posted by: AMPTAH
It's not a right of every John Doe Citizen to "keep and bear" arms, it's only a right for those particular citizens the state has selected to be part of the state's militia.

Apparently, you have never looked up the definition of 'militia.'

A militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/[1] is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Generally unable to hold ground against regular forces, it is common for militias to be used for aiding regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or irregular warfare, instead of being used in offensive campaigns by themselves. Militia are often limited by local civilian laws to serve only in their home region, and to be serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns.

Link

***

ETA: Willing, ordinary citizens ARE a militia. You have it all wrong. You have confused the military with militia.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Ha...and let's be honest...the greatest threat to our 'free state' is the federal government.

The federal government is just made up of citizens. They are not some foreign power ruling over the population.

And I don't know where you get the idea that this is some kind of "free state". It's not free at all. It is bound up by all sorts of laws that prevent the citizens from freely doing whatever they want.

It's ordered, and regulated, and bounded, by contracts and oaths, to all kinds of obligations, restrictions, and limitations.

No where is any man walking the land free.

People are not free to infringe on others' freedoms. You conflate 'freedom' with 'a pass to commit any atrocity.' Like, I can't even believe you've given your argument any serious thought. WTH?

We are free though. That freedom is protected, in part, by laws that prohibit murder, for example. Freedom means more than 'just me enjoys freedom.' I have to respect others' freedoms if I want to protect my own freedoms.

You want to limit other people's freedoms to make yourself feel better. Sorry, but. you really have it all wrong.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

And, yes, we are very free (other than the unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional limits that the federal government puts on us). We are free to do pretty much anything we want to do as long as we don't infringe on others' freedoms.

There's no freedom at all.

If you have "money", you can buy certain products and services, that then make it "appear" that you have some kind of freedom.

But, you can't even leave the US without paying a fee.

The test of a free man, is whether you can just leave your master without having to pay him compensation.

Currently, any person wishing to renounce US Citizenship has to pay the Federal Government $2,350. And that's just the minimum you'd have to pay. If there are any legal complications requiring a lawyer or accountant, to handle back taxes claims, or any number of other things on your file, like being in possession of state secrets or sensitive technological information, etc..you may never even get "permission" to leave.

If America is so free, why are citizens electing to "give up" their U.S. Citizenship. Why are some Americans running to Canada? What kind of freedom is this, where people try "to escape" the land?

No doubt, once upon a time, The United States was considered the land of the free. People arrived from all over the world, and drove caravans from east to west, seeking fortunes, and settling "freely" on the land wherever they found some unoccupied land. But, that was long ago.

That America no longer exists.

All that is the same, is the constitution.

But, the conditions that prevailed at the time the constitution was written, have long since vanished from the land.

originally posted by: Gothmog

Meaning any US citizen in the US and this can't be taken away
NO EXCEPTIONS
Seems as if instead of a fantasy filled daydream , you needed a literal translation

What do you mean NO EXCEPTIONS.

We do have exceptions. Like I said, felons and mentally ill people are two examples of exceptions.

So, either the government is "ILLEGALLY" denying felons the right to keep and bear arms,

"or"

the government is "LEGALLY" denying the felons the right to keep and bear arms, because the constitution does not give everyone the right to bear arms.

See?

How hard is that to understand?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

And, yes, we are very free (other than the unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional limits that the federal government puts on us). We are free to do pretty much anything we want to do as long as we don't infringe on others' freedoms.

There's no freedom at all.

If you have "money", you can buy certain products and services, that then make it "appear" that you have some kind of freedom.

But, you can't even leave the US without paying a fee.

The test of a free man, is whether you can just leave your master without having to pay him compensation.

Currently, any person wishing to renounce US Citizenship has to pay the Federal Government $2,350. And that's just the minimum you'd have to pay. If there are any legal complications requiring a lawyer or accountant, to handle back taxes claims, or any number of other things on your file, like being in possession of state secrets or sensitive technological information, etc..you may never even get "permission" to leave.

If America is so free, why are citizens electing to "give up" their U.S. Citizenship. Why are some Americans running to Canada? What kind of freedom is this, where people try "to escape" the land?

No doubt, once upon a time, The United States was considered the land of the free. People arrived from all over the world, and drove caravans from east to west, seeking fortunes, and settling "freely" on the land wherever they found some unoccupied land. But, that was long ago.

That America no longer exists.

All that is the same, is the constitution.

But, the conditions that prevailed at the time the constitution was written, have long since vanished from the land.

Ah, so you really do think only you should be free...that airlines should not be free to charge for travel, food should be freely given to you..gas, too, and others should not be free to sell property.

As long as you operate on a broken definition of freedom that includes only you..yeah, you are not free.

I am though. And I’d like to keep it that way if you can stop thinking of only yourself.

TIA.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
As long as you operate on a broken definition of freedom that includes only you..yeah, you are not free..

Freedom became broken when we ran out of freely available resources.

We're no longer in a free state. We're in a pay for access state.

Even then, although you may have money, there are things you aren't allowed to buy, for various reasons, such as because they are reserved for certain other people, by various laws and regulations.

The Free American could not even freely visit Cuba, to see for himself, whether the propaganda the American Government presents concerning that small island, was actually based on facts.

But, the Free Canadian could.

Amazing, isn't it?