Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Kali74
The issue is that the far-right has made dishonesty, not confusion or ignorance, but willful dishonesty an inate component of thier rhetoric. It started with just the occassional BS, but once the originators of the far right rhetoric and talking points realized that thier listeners didn't care about honesty...it just jumped the shark fast..."Born in Kenya"..."Manchurian candidate" ..."Birthers"..."Death Panels"..."Micro-chips"....the BS just got ingrained.
The far right doesn't know how to engage in honest, rational debate anymore...And honestly that hurts everyone. Left, Right and center...cuz we need honest debate to get to honest answers.
You can't arrive at "tested solutions" when one side talks about "Executive Action" in the form of increasing penalties for folks that lie on background checks..or stiffer sentences for gun traffickers...and the other side shouts "The Nazi's are comming!!! They will kick in your door in the middle of the night!!!...Obama is a terrorist Kenyan who secretly killed his gay lover!!!!"
What you end up with is more and more of one view...the left...cuz the right? they have to battle thier own effen crazy "far" right just to be able to speak any rational thought publicly.edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
What does the 2nd Amendment say again??
Just wondering.
Where does it state that Regulation is fine or Restrictions are okay?
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.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.
In General
[P. 1275, add at the end of the section:]
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively
came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying
on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the 1
Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been 2
a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the
Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached
this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an 3
examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes,
and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases
found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical
and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms”
often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted
that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the 4
Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not
to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of
“able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, 5
the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions,
post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude
that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended
beyond the context of militia service to include
self-defense.
84 AMENDMENT 2–BEARING ARMS
128 S. Ct. at 2818. 6
128 S. Ct. at 2817 n.27 (discussing non-application of rational basis review). See 7
id. at 2850-51 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down
a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns,
and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled
or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected
the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other
guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety
of reasons, handguns are the “most popular weapon chosen by
Americans for self-defense in the home.” Similarly, the require- 6
ment that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was
found to limit the “core lawful purpose of self-defense.” However,
the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second
Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying
firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating
the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and
unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. The
Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which
future gun regulations would be evaluated. And, more impor- 7
tantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the
Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider
its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not
apply to the states.
Originally posted by yuppa
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Kali74
The issue is that the far-right has made dishonesty, not confusion or ignorance, but willful dishonesty an inate component of thier rhetoric. It started with just the occassional BS, but once the originators of the far right rhetoric and talking points realized that thier listeners didn't care about honesty...it just jumped the shark fast..."Born in Kenya"..."Manchurian candidate" ..."Birthers"..."Death Panels"..."Micro-chips"....the BS just got ingrained.
The far right doesn't know how to engage in honest, rational debate anymore...And honestly that hurts everyone. Left, Right and center...cuz we need honest debate to get to honest answers.
You can't arrive at "tested solutions" when one side talks about "Executive Action" in the form of increasing penalties for folks that lie on background checks..or stiffer sentences for gun traffickers...and the other side shouts "The Nazi's are comming!!! They will kick in your door in the middle of the night!!!...Obama is a terrorist Kenyan who secretly killed his gay lover!!!!"
What you end up with is more and more of one view...the left...cuz the right? they have to battle thier own effen crazy "far" right just to be able to speak any rational thought publicly.edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
Oh HELL no you did not go there about left honesty. When Bush was in charge there was Plenty of dishonesty from the left. And what about Harry reid saying that bull about romneys taxes? he was proven wrong when he released his statements. And what about the famous Pelosi? We have to pass the bill to see whats in it. Please do not even TRY to say the left is always Honest,and rational when there are just as irresponsible as the right. Both of them are like spoiled children who want to get their way all the time..
Oh, by engaging in logical debate, you mean let the Progressives walk over and stomp on the 2nd Amendment. I see. Yeah, sure, go ahead with that.
Why is it so hard to comprehend?
It states, as the law of the land that it shall not be infringed upon.
If you and other Progressives
hold a Constitutional Convention and do it the Lawful and legal way.
working towards the ultimate goal of all Progressive Liberals, to ban guns.
But, since he can't get all guns banned, he will work to make it difficult for anyone to own/purchase them.
What documents are you and other Progressives standing on, other then "Rules for Radicals" and articles put out by ThinkProgress?
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kali74
So?
The left has no problems calling Bush a nazi and there is a historical record of nazis banning weapons.
Any and all restrictions go directly against the 2nd Amendment.
Are you sure??? Anything revolving around restrictions or bans are Progressive Liberal wet dreams. You must be dreaming then.
When the EO even hints that it will infringe upon, then yes, it is illegal and it is pushed via a dictator'ish Govt. I will stand in that meeting.
I am listening.
Better go tell Bill Ayers.
Does it infringe upon?
I will offer any and all information I have. But, I will hold no punches when it comes to the topic of the 2nd Amendment.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
I did not ask what the Supreme Court has bastardized it into.
I asked what the 2nd Amendment states.
The first portion states the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.
What the Courts have wrongly interpreted, from a very simple and easy to understand Law of the Land is not what I asked for.
Anyone can look at the 2nd Amendment, read it and see that it is in fact simple and straight forward.
