Pen and Teller explain the Second Amendment...

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

What are you talking about? Moral? The Bill of Rights was written during a time where I could challenge you to a duel if you stepped on my new pair of those old-timey shoes with the buckles on them. I say sir I demand satisfaction. Then I would slap you with a glove.
He'll one of the first few US presidents was killed in a duel

a reply to: dashen

The more we interpret the second incorrectly the more it becomes alienable to us

again to bare arms means to carry

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Kurokage

Sorry mate those English slaves first . We just freed them. Plus that has nothing to do with my comment.

This has a lot to do with slavery and Americas attempt at it's continued use.

The 2nd Amendment and slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

a reply to: dashen

That sounds like a strict set of morals to me

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Thank you for that. :-) had a very hearty laugh

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: kyleplatinum

If it was so easily explained then how come judges and constitutional lawyers can't agree on how it's interpreted

Because they don't want to agree.

Because politics.

I was referring more to common folks not understanding the Amendment.

The fact that the 2nd has been infringed upon so much baffles me on how the infringements were allowed in the first place. I don't want to hear the "but it's an old outdated Amendment that has no place in today's society" ..... BS!

It get more and more cultish by the day, the absolute fascination and inherrent want/need for Americans to bare arms

Thankfully you Americans never mock religions for beliveing in out of date texts and manuscripts.

These threads are the usual circle jerk or attempt to rile a response by the liberal left

If I could ask how many years will the 2nd be relevant, does society never advance because of the 2nd or does it just need a few more hundred years.

I wonder if those forefathers would be spinning in there graves if they saw some of todays youth holding guns while they do a selfie for some social media nonsense, maybe they would have changed their minds if they saw the future we actually now live in.

Is America convinced their founding fathers would be proud of todays gun culture?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: dashen

i do not think you know what infringe means in the constitution

likely do not know what bear arms means either

that is just based on your choice of bs artist in the vid

You barely understand the main words in the vid, but you still assume he is a BS artist?

You need to chill out on the bias and open your mind and ears before judging.

Up until now, Penn and Teller in the vid are fairly left leaning in most issues.

Yawn. Just change the constitution.

.....make an amendment.......ahem.

Simple.

Time for a beer

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Which reminds me wasn't there an amendment against Prohibition in there somewhere?

originally posted by: neo96
The Judge makes a solid case.

Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be neither theist nor atheist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Such rights cannot be separated from us, as they are integral to our humanity. Foremost among our unalienable rights is the right to life -- the right to be and to remain alive.

And that right implies the right to defend life -- the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.

Read the rest

Or you could make schools more of a safe space for mass shooters to do their snip.

It's a simple civil rights and social trust issue. I should have the right to own and operate whatever I want, and you should trust that I won't do you any harm with what I have. It works both ways too as in I should allow you to have whatever you want, and in so doing I should trust that you won't harm me with it.

The problem with the gun debate is that people have lost respect for one another, and just assume that no matter what it is that you have; "I don't like it". This is why we keep running into this negative-nexus point where instead of agreeing that we should be allowed freedoms, we instead push for the removal of freedoms. Culturally we've been played, and hard. We've become a culture of "scapegoatism" quick to blame, and quick to refuse debate and compromise.

dashen:

An inalienable right as framed by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

No, it is not inalienable. Neither a human being, nor a group of them can you give you anything 'inalienable'. All rights given can be taken away, either by legislation or by force, nor matter what country you are in. Fact is, this is what you want it to mean, but no matter how many times you call something inalienable...it never will be. America is on the road to removing guns from its society, and in the not-too-distant future, the gun-toters of today will simply have to make do with a copy of Call of Duty.

I am wondering where you get the gall from to suggest that many don't understand the wording? How the hell can the 2nd amendment be 'inalienable' when it is a bloody amendment? How is it inalienable, who said it was inalienable, and by what authority and by what criteria? To give answers to the former five questions, you have to answer the last question...on criteria.

There are two parties mentioned the militia and the people.

Again, that is something you want it to mean, but misunderstand the context for and between each word...of militia and people.

The context of the word militia, is conveyed in the sense of a 'thing' of state, it is not a party, but a device for defence of the state. It is composed from people who live in the state, and who can be called upon by the state for its defence. There are not two parties, there is always only one...the people of the state, unless you somehow know of a different form of 'people' from the state.

Why shall the right to 'keep and bear arms' not be infringed? At the time of the founding, the colonists did not have a ready-made arsenal of weapons to draw upon for use in defence. Most of the arms were bought and owned by the colonists themselves, so a state wanting to have a means of defence for itself required the people of the militia to bring their own arms. It was the most fundamental way a state could defend itself, hence the right to 'keep and bear arms', and not have that federal and state right infringed. Bear in mind, it is only an agreement between states and the government, and can be amended or repealed and abolished at any time. Especially so today, because people are no longer required to keep and bear arms for the state's defence as there is now a home guard which has replaced the militia. So the right to keep and bear arms is pretty much an anachronism, well past it's sell by date. It has expired!

a reply to: howtonhawky
For the ignorant among us :

Infringe

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

Defs by Google

Get it ?
Got it ?
Good.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: dashen

The more we interpret the second incorrectly the more it becomes alienable to us

again to bare arms means to carry

Who are you speaking for when you use the term WE ?
I can read with full comprehension...
Or , are using the foreign vernacular for the term in the reading and interpretation of the Second Amendment ?
Or , a self - interpretation and misusing the term we ?
Do not include me in the we part of your self-imposed and generated incorrect definition of the terms...

originally posted by: neo96
Gunphobes are not known for their reading and comprehension skills.

Oh, they do that just fine. They're just known for their extraordinary ability to play dumb.

I think you're dangerously miscalculating if you don't think these people know what's up.

Technically speaking if you take the 2nd amendment literally, then a 2 year old can have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or a cannon.

Now I'm not sure that is the intention as that is clearly insane. I think the authors kind of stuffed it up by being so vague.

The question is if they could see what it is like today what would they have to say about it. I think they would be a lot more specific about exactly how they meant it to work in practice.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: dashen

The more we interpret the second incorrectly the more it becomes alienable to us

again to bare arms means to carry

Who are you speaking for when you use the term WE ?
I can read with full comprehension...
Or , are using the foreign vernacular for the term in the reading and interpretation of the Second Amendment ?
Or , a self - interpretation and misusing the term we ?
Do not include me in the we part of your self-imposed and generated incorrect definition of the terms...

It is pretty clear that i was speaking anyone that's spouts stupidity about what they think the words mean rather than actually what the words mean.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: howtonhawky
For the ignorant among us :

Infringe

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

Defs by Google

Get it ?
Got it ?
Good.

lol
You are a thick one. Does it make you feel like a big boy to dribble such hate?
Try again
The definition today that many use while claiming others to be ignorant is not the same definition as when we were created the amendment.

ie see infrango

originally posted by: Kurokage

Thats so funny. The 2nd amendment was based of a British law, you guys couldn't even think for yourselves back then!!

No it isn't. The Bill of Rights does a very different thing to the 2A - in fact, they almost contradict each other. The BoR gave a "right" (putting aside arguments over the use of that specific word) that was still limited by law- "suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" - while the 2A stated that the right existed above and beyond the law - "shall not be infringed".

If anything, the 2A might well have been drafted to specifically contradict the BoR, to make it clear that the same mindset was not to be applied.

a reply to: EvillerBob

You sound like a punch and judy show, Oh yes it was! You need to re-read it and learn a bit of history other than America!!
The English bill of Rights of 1689 was the inspiration for your 2nd amendment and has been acknowledged as such by the U.S. Supreme Court.