Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any RIGHT

a reply to: JBurns

why do you think there is such a thing as constitutional lawyers?
what would be their function?

a reply to: JBurns

All this talk of the constitution really means very little in real terms. Unalienable, god-given rights, shall not be infringed? We lost that a long time ago. Today it's all about "interpretation" as if the document was written in some incomprehensible language. What about felons? Do they have the right to self defense?

If this is the law of the land, how can states invalidate it? How can precedent overrule clear and simple language?

You will still have the right but it won't do you much good if you're in jail. The only court you can argue it from is the supreme court. Good luck with that.

The rest of the constitution is pretty much the same.

a reply to: Taggart

The "patriot" act is clearly unconstitutional in its domestic incarnation. It originally was acceptable because it did not target Americans, which are the only protected class of people Constitutionally. It doesn't jive with our Constitution whatsoever in the bastardized version that expanded domestically, spied on US citizens, and generally oppressed our Citizens.

You must have me mistaken for one of the traitors who supported that patently unconstitutional nightmare, and continue to support the illegal programs it spurred.

How were those rights when Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps?

Not very good. Unfortunately, our Constitution specifically permits this during a time of war or other public emergency. This was probably not unconstitutional, only severely and perversely anti-American & intentionally subversive to the Constitution.

You don't have rights, you have privileges that can be and have been revoked at a whim.

I don't think so. Come and take it

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: JBurns

why do you think there is such a thing as constitutional lawyers?
what would be their function?

They can continue to run for POTUS under the Dem ticket.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: JBurns

All this talk of the constitution really means very little in real terms. Unalienable, god-given rights, shall not be infringed? We lost that a long time ago. Today it's all about "interpretation" as if the document was written in some incomprehensible language. What about felons? Do they have the right to self defense?

If this is the law of the land, how can states invalidate it? How can precedent overrule clear and simple language?

You will still have the right but it won't do you much good if you're in jail. The only court you can argue it from is the supreme court. Good luck with that.

The rest of the constitution is pretty much the same.

Precisely. Which leads neatly to my next point.

Although I believe posting that point would be against the TAC

a reply to: TinySickTears

To "interpret" a document with plain & clear language, in an effort to subvert its true meaning. Like all things, the nanny state & its supporters want to water down liberty in the name of safety.

And as Ben Franklin said, those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

EDIT: Just because that's how they do it now, doesn't make it right, legitimate or legal. Simple fact is, some of our elected ancestors (at one point or another) dropped the ball when they crossed very blatant lines long-drawn in the sand. Hence the serious problems we face today, including a system of government that is effectively worthless due to partisan nonsense: EXACTLY what the founders warned us about, RE: 2 party system.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TinySickTears

To "interpret" a document with plain & clear language, in an effort to subvert its true meaning. Like all things, the nanny state & its supporters want to water down liberty in the name of safety.

And as Ben Franklin said, those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

EDIT: Just because that's how they do it now, doesn't make it right, legitimate or legal. Simple fact is, some of our elected ancestors (at one point or another) dropped the ball when they crossed very blatant lines long-drawn in the sand. Hence the serious problems we face today, including a system of government that is effectively worthless due to partisan nonsense: EXACTLY what the founders warned us about, RE: 2 party system.

youre right.
to interpret. because it can be interpreted.
and just because you dont agree does not make it wrong, illegitimate or illegal.

my point is there are people that study the constitution and the laws behind it for years or even the majority of their lives.
why do you think you get it cause you read it?

i dont mean getting the basic idea of it.

to me it seems like because people read the constitution or read the federalist papers they know all their is to know about it.

thats just simply not the case
just my opinion

a reply to: TinySickTears



And we now have the difference of originalist vs. constructionist, or those who believe in strict interpretation of its language and intent at the time of its creation vs. those who believe in examining the text alone without sourcing its historical meaning/relevance

Those differences of "interpretation" are natural as both have understandable arguments.

Regardless, the Constitution and BOR does not grant us any rights. It merely recognizes our existing unalienable rights, sometimes called "natural rights" by the common law, and provides additional protections for items listed in a "Bill of Rights."

Infringing on any natural right is clearly outside the scope of Constitutionally permissible government activity, constituting a tyranny. It would be an untenable situation to live under.

a reply to: TinySickTears

to me it seems like because people read the constitution or read the federalist papers they know all their is to know about it.

I don't know all their is to know, by any means. I do understand the document as written, and have a grasp on the motivations/thoughts/beliefs of the founders when they drafted the document. To me, as an originalist, the meaning is clear of each concept and every concept carries the full weight of the Constitution behind it. Those words and concepts are legally binding, and to me there should be no room for liberal (not political, but "taking an artistic license" so to speak) interpretation. That isn't to say there's not room for disagreement, as there are plenty of constructionists out there who believe differently. This is OK

The one thing all would (or should) agree on, is that the Constitution doesn't grant us any specific right and this same document makes that very clear.

originally posted by: JBurns

Regardless, the Constitution and BOR does not grant us any rights. It merely recognizes our existing unalienable rights, sometimes called "natural rights" by the common law, and provides additional protections for items listed in a "Bill of Rights."

this is what i dont understand and i try to.
i see what you are saying but i dont understand.

there were no unalienable rights until a group of people decided they were so.
same with the common law

human creations

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
The Second Ammendment is the right that keeps all the other rights from being taken away at the government's whim. Take a look at what's happening in europe. People are being fined or arrested because they said mean things about Muslims. Free speech has been effectively abolished.

Because the Second has done such a good job at protecting us from legislation like the Patriot Act right?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Do not repeal that 2nd amendment, it would be the start of the end of our freedoms. The Thieves and gangs will always have guns, so will people who do not obey the laws, it is the honest citizen that loses their priviledges.

At one time we said that about the gangsters having fully automatic weapons.

Guess gun control worked there.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you believe blood should have spilled, and you're a gun owner, then you believe that you should take action. If you aren't willing to take action, then you're admitting that the second isn't as important in preserving rights as you think it is.

Do you think it should be someone elses job to spill their blood for you?

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: JBurns

Regardless, the Constitution and BOR does not grant us any rights. It merely recognizes our existing unalienable rights, sometimes called "natural rights" by the common law, and provides additional protections for items listed in a "Bill of Rights."

this is what i dont understand and i try to.
i see what you are saying but i dont understand.

there were no unalienable rights until a group of people decided they were so.
same with the common law

human creations

Maybe it was just the opposite. People had these rights and lived unmolested until some authority tried to take them away. Then they codified them to prevent that from happening. I don't remember the name of the famous
document that established this in England but I remember they did it in response to some especially tyrannical king.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
Do not repeal that 2nd amendment, it would be the start of the end of our freedoms. The Thieves and gangs will always have guns, so will people who do not obey the laws, it is the honest citizen that loses their priviledges.

At one time we said that about the gangsters having fully automatic weapons.

Guess gun control worked there.

Yeah, we took those guns out of the hands of criminals. I think there may be just a little bit of difference there. Fully automatic guns have been illegal for a very long time, there are laws governing those that do not interfere with the interpretation of our right to bear arms. That was hashed out long time ago. The vast majority of people have no problem with bans on fully automatic weapons.

a reply to: Aazadan

It should have. There is no question about it. But the complacency level in this country is frightening, as is the apparent gullibility of the masses.

Should'a, could'a, would'a

Fortunately, more Americans are waking up to reality. Many are realizing that future threats to the Constitution can arise from seemingly nowhere. To me, it would have to be a blatant act of Constitutional subversion OR one that had exhausted all legal recourse before it'd be worth the end of civil society as we know it. An attempt at confiscating any firearm would count, to me, as a blatant act of Constitutional subversion.

Our founding principles clearly show the inevitable results of such endeavors. Just ask the British infantry how that turned out.

a reply to: rickymouse

I have a big problem with it. Primarily because they are NOT illegal, only very expensive. The NFA requires a $200 tax stamp, to purchase a machine gun or other NFA weapon. The firearms themselves are very expensive, because transferable machineguns are rare (comparatively). Thus, an individual with ~$20,000 can get a machinegun legally. This has the effect of denying equal protection/application of the law, and gives well-to-do folks an advantage codified in law.

To me, it is patently Unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" mentions nothing about machineguns.... In fact, the intent was to have at least military grade firearms. The colonial militias had weapons superior to the British Infantry rifles, this was one of the things that scared British regulars so much.

Specifically, the Constitution does not allocate the government the right to regulate machineguns and other NFA weaponry. Therefore, they've usurped the 10th amendment of the BOR. This should've been an issue for the States (which many permit machineguns) or the individual Citizens (ie: self-regulation, as our founders intended)

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: JBurns

Regardless, the Constitution and BOR does not grant us any rights. It merely recognizes our existing unalienable rights, sometimes called "natural rights" by the common law, and provides additional protections for items listed in a "Bill of Rights."

this is what i dont understand and i try to.
i see what you are saying but i dont understand.

there were no unalienable rights until a group of people decided they were so.
same with the common law

human creations

Maybe it was just the opposite. People had these rights and lived unmolested until some authority tried to take them away. Then they codified them to prevent that from happening. I don't remember the name of the famous
document that established this in England but I remember they did it in response to some especially tyrannical king.

possibly
i dont really know

or it is all human creation and we as human animals dont have rights to #

after all nothing was unalienable until a group decided it was so

but i dont know

a reply to: TinySickTears

We secure for ourselves these rights, as well. We were endowed with these rights by simply existing as a human being. And we uphold them through our DOI, BOR, etc

I hope this is what you meant

a reply to: TinySickTears

If that is truly the case, then our RKBA (among others) are even more important. If you're correct, then humans must arm themselves with the best technology possible. Each one of us has a personal vested interest in living under freedom, liberty, etc vs. oppression and tyranny.

RKBA ensures we are never subjects to such a system, giving the Citizenry the ability to wield a very old and very quiet silver sword.

Given the magnitude of such a task, it ensures no small contingent of Citizens can make that decision. Clearly, it would require vast changes/concrete steps toward tyranny in the conditions in this country to lead us down that road.