Assault On The Us Constitution

[ddavelarsen]

If I knew how to embed YouTube video here I'd do that because I figure more people might watch it than following a link, but I'm not that good of a web user. Sorry. This is an important subject for me, but if you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment or believe Americans should not own firearms, this is not for you. Personally, I respectfully disagree with such sentiments in the most vigorous manner.

Thank you for your time.

Dave

[MD864]

Oh my darling dearest Dave.... what a pot you have stirred up now. There are so many things i could say in this response, but i fear that it would start an even bigger political debate than what your intended thread will undoubtedly stir up. In short I am for the 2nd amendment. So much so that i have my CWL's and have for 2 years. But the debate is so much bigger than the 2nd amendment. The best thing for America and its citizens would be to lock the government up and throw away the key and start over.....

[Michelle]

Let's do it, MD. You lock them up and I'll throw away the key.

[Schizophretard]

Dave, I think you need to look at it from their point of view and you will understand why personal gun ownership is a bad thing. Would you give a slave a gun?

[snubber]

This is really a shame...we fought a war with England over 300 years ago because of them telling us what to do and they're still trying it today.

If something like this goes through no one will be safe. It will just give other countries a free shot at us.

And whats so bad about it is that alot of these countries are suppose to be out allies. They turn to us everytime they get into trouble...it's about time we let them fend for themselves.

[Stirfry]

let's hear from those who oppose gun ownership:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

-- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942

what a ******.

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

-- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.

way to go Mao... hence the 2nd Amendment written over 100 years before you spoke those words. dumbass.

[ddavelarsen]

Oh my darling dearest Dave.... what a pot you have stirred up now. There are so many things i could say in this response, but i fear that it would start an even bigger political debate than what your intended thread will undoubtedly stir up. In short I am for the 2nd amendment. So much so that i have my CWL's and have for 2 years. But the debate is so much bigger than the 2nd amendment. The best thing for America and its citizens would be to lock the government up and throw away the key and start over.....

I do love stirring the pot. But knowing this bunch, I thought it a safe bet.

You all make me proud. Please do be sure to write your congress critters. My understanding is that H Clinton is poised to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty as we speak. It could be over already.

That is really quite scary. It's our Constitution they're messing with! Congress have sworn to uphold it, but at every turn they denigrate it, step around it, step on it.

"Vote Incumbents Out," that's my motto and my rule. Just doing that every election is about as close as we can come to locking them up and tossing the key. Which sounds a whole lot more just than simply throwing them out on the street.

Okay, I'm going back to bed. I will sleep comfortably now, bless you.

[SmokinHammer]

Jeez Dave, you scared me there. Then, as soon as I realized that this was some UN BS, I just shut that crap off and relaxed. Come on. If you really want nothing to happen, give it to the UN. They have a great track record of being completely useless.

It's been said before, and I'll say it now. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

[FTJoe]

Jeez Dave, you scared me there. Then, as soon as I realized that this was some UN BS, I just shut that crap off and relaxed. Come on. If you really want nothing to happen, give it to the UN. They have a great track record of being completely useless.

It's been said before, and I'll say it now. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

In regards to the UN, couldn't agree more. I'm ambivalent on owning a gun, handguns especially should be well regulated IMO. I probably will soon, once apathy turns to anarchy. But I do like the never ending argument about the second amendment. I for one do not believe it was meant to give the right for citizens/civilians to simply pack whatever they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I breezed through this and something I didn't realize near the bottom was the very terminology about the meaning of "to keep and bear arms". Some argue that the term is meant as a military term, not civilian. The wiki is a very interesting read. So my point always has been if it was written in regards to making sure a militia was maintained, then taking away someone's gun is not an attack against the constitution.

[gnerd]

I breezed through this and something I didn't realize near the bottom was the very terminology about the meaning of "to keep and bear arms". Some argue that the term is meant as a military term, not civilian. The wiki is a very interesting read. So my point always has been if it was written in regards to making sure a militia was maintained, then taking away someone's gun is not an attack against the constitution.

I have to disagree with you FTJoe. The word "Militia" at the time the Amendment was written was defined as every able-bodied adult. Modern political wanks are using symantics to redefine the word. It's <expletive>, IMO.

The Swiss have a true militia, and it's what America used to have. We need to get back to our roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Edited February 6, 2010 by gnerd

[FTJoe]

I have to disagree with you FTJoe. The word "Militia" at the time the Amendment was written was defined as every able-bodied adult. Modern political wanks are using symantics to redefine the word. It's <expletive>, IMO.

The Swiss have a true militia, and it's what America used to have. We need to get back to our roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

And this is what I love about the second amendment argument. There are so many opinions. And the problem is neither I nor you know what the founding fathers meant for sure. My point was, modern day historians believe that a militia was not every farmer. Check out the history in the wiki of what the final wording eventually was and the process it went through, they were struggling with these very concepts.

Here are the most interesting (IMO) areas:

6 Scholarly commentary

6.1 Early commentary

6.2 Later commentary

6.3 Meaning of "to keep and bear arms"

6.4 Meaning of "well regulated militia"

Regardless, it reads:

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.

IMO - on what planet does "well regulated" not mean an army and not a couple of farmers running around with his turkey gun? Was every able bodied adult expected to join the militia, yes, were they a defacto member of it, no.

[ddavelarsen]

Lest this discussion get out of hand and shut down, let me ask everyone to agree to disagree and drop it. FTJoe, this isn't one of those issues there's any ambivalence about around here.

[Schizophretard]

But I do like the never ending argument about the second amendment. I for one do not believe it was meant to give the right for citizens/civilians to simply pack whatever they want.

I agree! It wasn't meant to give the right. You can't give rights. The Constitution could say,"Citizens/civilians do not have the right to bear arms." but you and I would still have that right. Rights aren't something that are given or taken away by a piece of paper. A government can either recognize or violate our rights but it can't give them or take them away. The Nazis tried to take away the rights of the Jews but they were unsuccessful because they can write whatever they want on paper but that doesn't change the fact that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[FTJoe]

I agree! It wasn't meant to give the right. You can't give rights. The Constitution could say,"Citizens/civilians do not have the right to bear arms." but you and I would still have that right. Rights aren't something that are given or taken away by a piece of paper. A government can either recognize or violate our rights but it can't give them or take them away. The Nazis tried to take away the rights of the Jews but they were unsuccessful because they can write whatever they want on paper but that doesn't change the fact that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You are absolutely correct, rights can not be given, they are simply being recognized and therefore protected. But people still argue that whether the right being detailed here is the right for every single person to have a gun for whatever reason, or what I believe, is the right for the "state" to have militia, something that was obviously denied them under British rule. The text reads:

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.

Obviously the first part is recognizing an army, the second part some people believe recognizes the right for all to have carry firearms. My take is since they kept those two statements together with a comma, I don't believe the founding fathers meant these two items to be separate.

On the other side of the argument, if you look at the wiki, you'll see there was very early on in English history a requirement for citizens to bear arms by the king because there was no army or police force.

Anyway, I'm not rallying against someone legally having a gun, I will probably get one soon myself. I just don't happen to believe it was detailed as a right by the authors. JMHO

[FTJoe]

Lest this discussion get out of hand and shut down, let me ask everyone to agree to disagree and drop it. FTJoe, this isn't one of those issues there's any ambivalence about around here.

uh oh - sorry Dave, I have to disagree. I don't think there should be any reason an intellectual discussion about the intentions of the founding fathers needs to get out of hand. I understand many people feel strongly about it, but regardless of how much they want to believe in their interpretation of, my point is, it is just an interpretation. The reality is its intentions have been argued for a very long time and will be into the future. Based on all the versions I see in the wiki before being ratified, they were doing some serious arguing as well back then.

I can also see the possibility that they were stating the belief that everyone does have a right to carry firearms, hunt food, protect themselves, keep the slaves in line, etc. as there was an embargo of firearms before the revolution. People not loyal to Britain (patriots) were stockpiling weapons so the Brits placed an embargo on the. So I could see the possibility the authors were saying we'll let you keep arms in case we stink at governing as badly as the Brits did.

[gnerd]

I highly recommend this book on the subject. They're exceedingly rare, but worth owning. What a history lesson!

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4

Edited February 7, 2010 by gnerd

[ddavelarsen]

uh oh - sorry Dave, I have to disagree. I don't think there should be any reason an intellectual discussion about the intentions of the founding fathers needs to get out of hand. I understand many people feel strongly about it, but regardless of how much they want to believe in their interpretation of, my point is, it is just an interpretation. The reality is its intentions have been argued for a very long time and will be into the future. Based on all the versions I see in the wiki before being ratified, they were doing some serious arguing as well back then.

I can also see the possibility that they were stating the belief that everyone does have a right to carry firearms, hunt food, protect themselves, keep the slaves in line, etc. as there was an embargo of firearms before the revolution. People not loyal to Britain (patriots) were stockpiling weapons so the Brits placed an embargo on the. So I could see the possibility the authors were saying we'll let you keep arms in case we stink at governing as badly as the Brits did.

Okay. Works for me.

Mike and I were talking about this this morning. The second amendment was intended for exactly that purpose - to ensure the people would never be subject to an overpowering government. Govt is subject to the people - at least that was the intent of our democracy. Not exactly heading in that direction however.

[FTJoe]

I highly recommend this book on the subject. They're exceedingly rare, but worth owning. What a history lesson!

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4

Hey cool - thanx for the reference..browsing for a copy now.

[FTJoe]

Okay. Works for me.

Mike and I were talking about this this morning. The second amendment was intended for exactly that purpose - to ensure the people would never be subject to an overpowering government. Govt is subject to the people - at least that was the intent of our democracy. Not exactly heading in that direction however.

Cool - so my question, and I'm really not trying to be a -!@#$, is how do you know that's exactly what is was written for? I see lots of different opinions on the matter. My opinion is based on the fact they did not separate the phrase, a well regulated militia from the phrase a right to bear arms. They are contained in the same sentence. I would have thought if they were saying every grab a gun, they would have made that a separate sentence. I believe instead they are pointing out each state can have a militia to defend that state and yes, possibly against the federal government. But I'll be the first to admit I don't know...

Personally I find it kind of a scary thought that people think they are given the right to bear arms so they have the ability to rise up against the government.

Agreed - the direction right now is aimless at best, and sinister at worst.

[2legit]

[Phaseman66]

Not only are they NOT taking away anyone's rights to bear arms, but there's NO way they COULD do that at this point in time. The gun manufacturers have been given a free pass to make as MANY guns as they can possibly make with zero liability for doing so. The black market would simply explode. The past has shown, there can be NO prohibition, on something that was legal at one time. IT simply won't work. It just become criminal and drives the price for that item up dramatically. Not to mention the obvious and sudden trouble they would have attempting to retrieve those banned weapons from their owners

[miatafrank]

This is really a shame...we fought a war with England over 300 years ago because of them telling us what to do and they're still trying it today.

If something like this goes through no one will be safe. It will just give other countries a free shot at us.

And whats so bad about it is that alot of these countries are suppose to be out allies. They turn to us everytime they get into trouble...it's about time we let them fend for themselves.

The real threat is from within!!!!!

Did you hear the part of the report that said that other countries that have adopted this law also enjoy a rise in crime? That's the real threat! The only thing laws can stop is legally obtained guns, which leaves only the criminals holding. I don't own a gun now, so you would think that this shouldn't matter to me. A criminal doesn't know that I don't have a gun, and that could be just a powerful, but have a law like this go into effect and every criminal will know for certain that you and your father and your mother and your sister and your brother doesn't have a gun. The police cannot protect you, and the criminals will have open season on law abiding citizens since they know no one is in a position to protect themselves. Our country will fall apart from within, and the ragheads can sit and watch without lifting a finger to bomb us or fly planes into our buildings.

[Christopher]

Blaming gun on murder is like blaming Rosie O'Donnell's spoon for her being fat. The 2nd amendment was written for a reason and that was to protect ourselves against an all to powerful government should it ever happen. I have every right to carry a gun as much as you have every right not to carry one.

I cringe when I hear people going out for stricter gun laws so we can stop these evil criminals. Last time I checked criminals broke the law, making more laws isn't going to do a damn thing. It's just going to make it harder to protect myself and my family.

There is only one way I'm giving up my bullets and that's if someone breaks into my home.

We can argue this all day long though. The bottom line is people are to fat and lazy to fight back. I've said this before. It's going to have to get REALLY bad before anyone fights back. And when I say bad I mean the point where death isn't such a bad option. Only then will we finally fight back.

Humans must have nothing to fight for something. It's just the way we work.

[ddavelarsen]

Wow Chris, I am one of those Pollyanna types that never think of the obvious. That is so true I've looked right through it all along -- that "people must have nothing to fight for something," that they'll finally stand up only when death looks certain otherwise. You are all too right, and it explains why we have this whole sheeple thing going with our government. I've never understood why voters don't just throw the whole lot out and start over; but that explains it. It's easier to go along with the status quo than to put out the effort to become informed and involved. At least as long as they get to consume wholeheartedly. Hm.

There is only one way I'm giving up my bullets and that's if someone break into my home.

LOL! That's the best description of the sentiment I've ever heard! I'm keeping it. Thanks Chris, I appreciate your comments.

[Christopher]

Your very welcome

I hope I didn't halt this thread When it comes to constitutional rights I get a little excited.