Second Amendment

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by TheFlash

 

Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

the only limits on inalienable rights occur when that right interferes with another's rights.

smoking has negative health consequences, and shouting fire when there is none can cause panic and lead to injury or death.

these examples are not analogous to a person possessing guns.

I believe that many parents in Newtown, CT would disagree with you.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by slugger9787

 

Still waiting for that reputable reference.

I already proved you wrong once in this thread, shall I do it again?


First of all one must understand that the founding fathers philosophy and beliefs are based on and inspired by the various enlightenment philosophers. It is the enlightenment movement that inspired them to take action and to write the Constitution.

Here is an excellent article:
www.google.com... d=2&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2F2ll%2F2ndschol%2F53-2nd.pdf&ei=MX6wUcX7OfOp4AOt7YHwBg&usg=AFQjCNG-eqizVtKv3O0PLM-MFR9HMIIKWw &bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmg


A few exerpts from the article:

These notions of community benefit from individuals armed and ready to exercise their natural right of self-defense come together in the thought of Sir William Blackstone. Significantly, the way in which he described the right to arms emphasizes both the individual self-protection rationale and the criminological premises, which are so foreign to the terms of the modern debate over the second amendment.

Blackstone placed the right to arms among the "absolute rights of individuals at common law," those rights he saw as preserving to England its free government and to Englishmen their liberties. Yet, unquestionably, what Blackstone was referring to was individuals' rights to have and use personal arms for self-protection. He describes the right to bear arms as being "for self-preservation and defense," and self-defense as being "the primary law of nature [which cannot be] taken away by the law of society"[26]--the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[27]

Foreign Invasions of ambitious and unruly Neighbours.[35]

This faith in the possession of arms buoyed up Locke and his English and American followers against their opponents' charge that their advocacy of a right to resistance and even revolution would lead to sanguinary and internecine disorders. To the contrary, they replied, that is what will come from disarming the people. Unchecked by the salubrious fear of its armed populace, government will follow its natural tendency to despotism. Tyrannous ministers will push their usurpations to the point that even an unarmed people will rise en masse to take their rights back into their bloody hands regardless of casualties.[36] But where the people are armed it would rarely, if ever, come to this for, as Thomas Paine asserted, "arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer (p.97)in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property."[37] To avoid domestic tyranny, wrote Trenchard and Moyle, the people must be armed to


stand upon [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their] hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it.[38]

Some more from Locke:

JOHN LOCKE (“Two Treatises of Government”, 1689):

“Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself...”.

Some more from Blackstone:

SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765):

“Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.”

ANd I'll even throw in a modern Enlightenment Philosopher, the REverend Martin Luther King Jr.:

“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” – Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Chapter II, Black Power)

All of the Bill of rights and the very concept of a representative government were based on the Enlightment movement. The founding fathers saw the right to self defense as well as the right to freedom of speech and the right to secure from unreasonable search and assemble peacefully as inate and natural rights of man.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

That is not a logical comparison. When you scream fire in a theater when there is not one, you are punished. However, you are not gagged before you walk into the theater because you might scream fire.

We already have laws that punish people who violate other people's rights with guns, just as we have laws that punish people for screaming fire in a theater or slander.

What we do not do with the first amendment, what you want to do with the second amendment, is we do not restrict the freedom of speech becasue of what someone might say or has the potential to say.

Regarding my analogy, yes it is logical. To further your comment about it - the corresponding point to "gagging" would be, I imagine. taking away all guns. No one here has ever said anything about that, though it seems that may gun owners imagine such "complete" scenarios whenever any step or measure regarding gun control or restrictions is mentioned. Much to the delight of the firearms and ammunition industries people have imagined shortages or bans on these items resulting in hoarding and huge sales. As owners and buyers know these knee-jerk over-reactions have resulted in shortages and huge price increases. It wouldn't surprise me the industries themselves started such nonsensical rumors to incite these paranoid responses.

No it is highly illogical. You propose to restrict a civil liberty because someone MIGHT abuse it or misuse it. That is exactly like gagging someone before they enter a theater because they have the potential ability to shout "fire" once inside.

If a law is passed that the freedom of speech is limited to the spoken word only, is this acceptable to you? Why not, after all you can still speak freely, just with some minor restrictions.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

Show that there are limits on other constitutional rights that are not on the second amendment. You have not shown that there are not.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

That is not a logical comparison. When you scream fire in a theater when there is not one, you are punished. However, you are not gagged before you walk into the theater because you might scream fire.

We already have laws that punish people who violate other people's rights with guns, just as we have laws that punish people for screaming fire in a theater or slander.

What we do not do with the first amendment, what you want to do with the second amendment, is we do not restrict the freedom of speech becasue of what someone might say or has the potential to say.

Regarding my analogy, yes it is logical. To further your comment about it - the corresponding point to "gagging" would be, I imagine. taking away all guns. No one here has ever said anything about that, though it seems that may gun owners imagine such "complete" scenarios whenever any step or measure regarding gun control or restrictions is mentioned. Much to the delight of the firearms and ammunition industries people have imagined shortages or bans on these items resulting in hoarding and huge sales. As owners and buyers know these knee-jerk over-reactions have resulted in shortages and huge price increases. It wouldn't surprise me the industries themselves started such nonsensical rumors to incite these paranoid responses.

No it is highly illogical. You propose to restrict a civil liberty because someone MIGHT abuse it or misuse it. That is exactly like gagging someone before they enter a theater because they have the potential ability to shout "fire" once inside.

If a law is passed that the freedom of speech is limited to the spoken word only, is this acceptable to you? Why not, after all you can still speak freely, just with some minor restrictions.

I'm sorry - I am not following you. What exactly are you insinuating that I am 'proposing'?

Originally posted by TheFlash
Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

You are really peddling the "Fire in a theatre" argument?

Are you a late comer to ideas, or just regurgitating talking points from Progressive sites?

You can state this in a theater. The after affect is the issue. If it creates panic, then there is the issue. If no one listens, then no issue.

As for smoking??? Another Progressive BS law. Just because you don't like people smoking, you in turn believe that you and other like you get to dictate not only to others, but to a private business as to what can and can't happen inside the property.
No wonder our country is going down the crapper. You and every other Progressive are legislating free choice away from people.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by TheFlash

 

this thread is not about freedom of speech and it is not about smoking in a reastaurant is it mr.. flash.
the thread is about the second amendment.

it has been written as a result of the experience both in the animal and human species of an observed NATURAL right to self defense.

in fact since you want to inject speech and smoking, even babies in the womb fights and struggles to save and preserve their life under the blade and suction tube of the murdering abortionist.

The thread is about Rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America, thus the Freedom of Speech right is pertinent and relevant. Please provide evidence from a reputable source to support your claim that fetuses fight against being aborted as I have never heard of such a thing.

Are you honestly trolling and derailing your own thread???

Now I have seen it all.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

You either forgot what you said or are being disingenuous. Let me quote you:

No - the error is in your mind my friend. Here is my proof in black and white: "[the Supreme Court finding] leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave."

You are the wrong one my friend. First of all, the ruling occurred in Washington in a case in Washington DC. Which paper did you think it should be reported in - The Miami Herald? The second thing you were wrong about was that all the references I posted with regard to this legal issue were from the Washington Post. My 7:50 AM post on 5/31 linked to the Touro Law Review as a reference which states:

I have clearly shown here that you are in error and that the things you say should are to be doubted at the very least.

You were wrong in your premise, one that you were insulting and condescending about, you were proven wrong, and now you are trying to backpedal and wiggle out of your declarative statements. That is not very intellectually honest.

Originally posted by TheFlash


I believe that many parents in Newtown, CT would disagree with you.

I believe those parents don't then get to dictate solely about a Constitutionally protected right.

Again, fear driven mob rule is the way TheFlash sees the country governed under. Oh, and can't forget statistics are the religious force behind it.

reply to post by TheFlash

I believe that many parents in Newtown, CT would disagree with you.

what a poor argument. please list the exact mode in which private possession of guns leads to rights violations.

those kids would have stood a better chance with armed teachers who could fight back instead of get mowed down. many of the teachers acted heroically, too bad they didn't have guns with them or their actions could have been preventive.

you see, you're making a circular argument, implying that guns don't stop killing sprees (killing sprees being uncommon in the first place). however, guns prevent a murder from becoming a killing spree in the first place.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

Show that there are limits on other constitutional rights that are not on the second amendment. You have not shown that there are not.

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did? Nonetheless all such rights have restrictions such as in cases where they cause harm to others.

reply to post by NavyDoc


My premise that the DC vs. Heller decision did NOT resolve the issue as to whether the ruling in question applied to the states and not just federal enclaves WAS and IS valid and correct. If you believe otherwise then provide proof.

reply to post by TheFlash


the shooter in Newtown
stole his mothers weapons.

the right to self defense, was being denied for the persons murdered at school shootings in that the right to bear arms is denied in churches and schools, making them prime locations for predatory individuals to hunt people unable to exercize their God given natural right to self defense.

link to a baby in the womb fighting for its life while being aborted:


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by slugger9787


Many members of the medical community were critical of the film 'The Silent Scream', describing it as misleading and deceptive. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, described the film as "factually misleading and unfair". John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", that the "scream" may have been a yawn, and also that "mouth" identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.

Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements. David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments. The size of the ultrasound image and of the fetus model used was also misleading, appearing to show a fetus the size of a full-term baby, while in actuality a twelve-week-old fetus is under two inches long.

reply to post by TheFlash


and it is introduced by Bernard Nathanson a former abortion doctor.

I will not debate abortion on a 2A thread, you asked for proof of the innate right to self defense.

scientifically and with intelligence mr. flash go study this yourself.

catch or buy some mice and then individually with your
BARE hands injure and attempt to kill these mice and
let me warn you, you with no common sense, you
will get hurt as these animals fight you for their life.


oh by the way, i will accept your personal experience as reputable resource of information.
and i will send you a check made out to a local pet store so you can go buy the mice.


i will put my money where your mouth should be.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

That is not a logical comparison. When you scream fire in a theater when there is not one, you are punished. However, you are not gagged before you walk into the theater because you might scream fire.

We already have laws that punish people who violate other people's rights with guns, just as we have laws that punish people for screaming fire in a theater or slander.

What we do not do with the first amendment, what you want to do with the second amendment, is we do not restrict the freedom of speech becasue of what someone might say or has the potential to say.

Regarding my analogy, yes it is logical. To further your comment about it - the corresponding point to "gagging" would be, I imagine. taking away all guns. No one here has ever said anything about that, though it seems that may gun owners imagine such "complete" scenarios whenever any step or measure regarding gun control or restrictions is mentioned. Much to the delight of the firearms and ammunition industries people have imagined shortages or bans on these items resulting in hoarding and huge sales. As owners and buyers know these knee-jerk over-reactions have resulted in shortages and huge price increases. It wouldn't surprise me the industries themselves started such nonsensical rumors to incite these paranoid responses.

No it is highly illogical. You propose to restrict a civil liberty because someone MIGHT abuse it or misuse it. That is exactly like gagging someone before they enter a theater because they have the potential ability to shout "fire" once inside.

If a law is passed that the freedom of speech is limited to the spoken word only, is this acceptable to you? Why not, after all you can still speak freely, just with some minor restrictions.

I'm sorry - I am not following you. What exactly are you insinuating that I am 'proposing'?

You suggested that the other rights had "reasonable" restrictions and you used the very old "yelling fire in a theater" arguement and I pointed out the logical flaw in said arguement. All of the other restrictions on the rights in the bill of rights are based on damage to others...your endorsement of more gun control is based on a totally different premise...that the right be restricted before any harm is done.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

My premise that the DC vs. Heller decision did NOT resolve the issue as to whether the ruling in question applied to the states and not just federal enclaves WAS and IS valid and correct. If you believe otherwise then provide proof.

Backpedaling.

reply to post by NavyDoc


So are you saying that we should wait until people commit mass murders with guns before we pass laws that such things are illegal? And you call me illogical?

I merely said that there are restrictions on rights including the right to bear arms just are there are restrictions on the constitutional right to free speech.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

My premise that the DC vs. Heller decision did NOT resolve the issue as to whether the ruling in question applied to the states and not just federal enclaves WAS and IS valid and correct. If you believe otherwise then provide proof.

Backpedaling.

I don't know what you are talking about. Clarify.