The second amendment does not give you the right to own a gun [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The second amendment does not give you the right to own a gun


Razorsharp
12-19-2012, 15:45
We often hear people say, “The First Amendment gives me the right to say…” or “The Second Amendment gives me the right to have…”

Both statements are contradictory to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the founding principles of America.

America was founded under the principle that we, as citizens, were endowed with certain rights, unlike in other countries, where rights are dispensations from the government. It’s what makes America unique.

Outside the realm of jurisprudence, The Bill of Rights does not confer any rights to the individual, nor does it empower the Federal Government any degree of oversight. Quite the contrary, each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is a stricture against the Federal Government, binding and limiting its power.

The Second Amendment states:

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.

Many who oppose the ownership of firearms by private citizens make the claim that citizens are only permitted firearms when in service of the Militia. That’s a bass-ackwards reading of the Amendment. When the Amendment is properly read, it is obvious that it is the Militia that is dependent on the people’s right, rather than the people’s right being dependent on the Militia. Furthermore, from the words of the Amendment itself, it is also obvious that the right of the people to bear arms preceded any militia involvement and even the Constitution itself.

Those who favor stricter gun-control legislation, point to the phrase, "A well regulated militia..." as license for the Federal Government to intervene and "regulate" the private ownership of firearms. This is a deliberate misreading perpetrated by those wishing to advance their agenda. The word "regulate", in respect to the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to "trained, equipped and disciplined", as affirmed in David McCullough’s historical novel, “1776”.

The day's orders form Sullivan deplored the disorter and unsoldierly behavior displayed in the camps in the eve of battle. Yet soldiers were here, there, and everyswhere, strollin about as if on holiday, some of them miles from the lines. "Carts and horses driving every way among the amry, " wrote Philip Fithian. "Men marching out and coming in... Small arms and field pieces continually firing. All in tumult."

The contrast between such disorder and flagrant disregard for authority and the perfectly orchestrated landing By Howe's troops could not have been more pronounced.

Arriving at Brooklyn, Washington was outraged by what he saw, and in a letter written later in the day, he lectured Old Put (Gen. Israel Putnam) as he might the greenest lieutenant. All "irregularities" must cease at once. "The distinction between a well regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter." (Simon & Schuster; page 161)

Furthermore, to use "regulate", as in to "control the limits of" would be contradictory to the phrase, "shall not be infringed" that resides within the same sentence.

And finally, the purpose of the "Bill of Rights", as intended by the framers of the Constitution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.

No, the Second Amendment didn’t give you the right, you already had the right. And barring an amendment to the Constitution, you’ve still got it.

DARoberts

countrygun
12-19-2012, 15:58
ahem, the phrase "...well regulated" should be viewed in the language of the time it was written an it's meaning then, not an interpretation based on the words as commonly used today.

"well regulated" referred to being equipped, in parity, and with the REGULAR arms of the day" not "hunting rifles, they never used that word, the used "ARMS and ARMED" not "Muskets' not "Rifles" not "Pistols" ARMS. and they included it in the BOR to insure that ability in perpetuity.

oldman11
12-19-2012, 15:59
Well written, well said; and you are very much correct. Obama needs to read this as he thinks he going to restrict our right to have guns. Good luck with that.

Razorsharp
12-19-2012, 16:07
ahem, the phrase "...well regulated" should be viewed in the language of the time it was written an it's meaning then, not an interpretation based on the words as commonly used today.

"well regulated" referred to being equipped, in parity, and with the REGULAR arms of the day" not "hunting rifles, they never used that word, the used "ARMS and ARMED" not "Muskets' not "Rifles" not "Pistols" ARMS. and they included it in the BOR to insure that ability in perpetuity.
I said,
The word "regulate", in respect to the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to "trained, equipped and disciplined"
Is that so far from what you wrote that you felt compelled to add a "correction"?

GAFinch
12-19-2012, 16:28
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

countrygun
12-19-2012, 16:41
I said,
Is that so far from what you wrote that you felt compelled to add a "correction"?

It wasn't a "correction" it was a further explanation.



:panties:



:tongueout::supergrin:

Kirishiac
12-19-2012, 16:43
I like Penn and Tellers take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

cowboy1964
12-19-2012, 16:50
If it someday comes down to the "militia" interpretration then I foresee some states swearing in every citizen into their "militia" who wants to be sworn in. Texas?

English
12-19-2012, 16:56
Razorsharp,
Entirely agreed.

English

Ringo S.
12-19-2012, 16:57
When the Amendment is properly read, it is obvious that it is the Militia that is dependent on the people’s right, rather than the people’s right being dependent on the Militia.
Who cares now? Whatever Supreme court say, that's will be the low....

Jarhead247
12-19-2012, 17:51
Razor - Can I share & give appropriate credit?

427
12-19-2012, 18:55
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Cavalry Doc
12-19-2012, 19:18
It's always been funny to me, but it seems so clear.

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.

Because well regulated militias are necessary, the people's right to have arms will not be infringed. It's not a prerequisite, it's a reason that they wanted the people to have arms, unrestricted by tyrants.

It's easy.


The hard part is how to deal with evil men with arms. Instead of disarming all good men, why don't we empower the good to oppose the evil.

It sure seems simple.

beforeobamabans
12-19-2012, 19:37
When faced with knuckleheads who want to use the militia clause to warp the true meaning of 2A (and won't listen to reason), I take another tact. I believe the true meaning of the federal amendment is informed by state constitutions written later. If militias were central to the right to keep and bear, then one would expect to see them repeatedly referenced in state documents modeled after the national elucidation of rights.

Indiana's constitution, written after 60 years of experience with the U.S. constitution does a nice job of simplifying the positive declaration of the people's (not militia's) right. Article 1, Section 32 states plainly and simply:

"Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

So, in all honesty, I really don't care how people want to interpret 2A. I live in Indiana and live under it's constitution. I always refer them to Article 1, Section 32 which does a nice job of clearing things up.

Alpine
12-19-2012, 19:40
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Apologies if this is hijacking, but this makes me think. As an american citizen do I have a right to be in the militia? If so, would it be unconsitutional to restrict that right based on age and sex? If not, could Congress repeal this law and thereby eliminate the militia and by extension the 2d amendment?

eta: Congress created the national guard and naval militia, so could surely eliminate them. Why not the unorganized militia too?

Atlas
12-19-2012, 19:47
It's always been funny to me, but it seems so clear.

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.

Because well regulated militias are necessary, the people's right to have arms will not be infringed. It's not a prerequisite, it's a reason that they wanted the people to have arms, unrestricted by tyrants.

It's easy.


The hard part is how to deal with evil men with arms. Instead of disarming all good men, why don't we empower the good to oppose the evil.

It sure seems simple.


:perfect10:

Gunnut 45/454
12-19-2012, 21:40
Alpine
Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:

Gunnut 45/454
12-19-2012, 21:50
Alpine
Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:

SDDL-UP
12-19-2012, 22:17
Somewhere in the Federalist Papers, it was stated that if an individual showed up for militia duty inappropriately equipped, they could be given the proper equipment, then CHARGED for it. THE INTENT of the Second Amendment was crystal clear then, and it is crystal clear now. Do not be fooled - we, as individuals, have rights.

jeanderson
12-20-2012, 06:46
Good post.

The Constitution and other founding documents make it clear that we, the people, are "endowed by our creator" with certain inalienable rights. As you point out, the rights are inherently ours, and are not granted to us by the state.

Liberals just don't get this concept. They think government is the ultimate arbiter of what right you have or don't have.

Razorsharp
12-20-2012, 07:40
Razor - Can I share & give appropriate credit?
Please do. And anyone else that wishes to do the same, go ahead.

Thank you
DARoberts

Razorsharp
12-20-2012, 07:43
It wasn't a "correction" it was a further explanation.



:panties:



:tongueout::supergrin:

When you begin your conversation with "Ahem..", that's tantamount to "Beg your pardon".

I think "smilies" are adolescent.

English
12-20-2012, 09:51
It's always been funny to me, but it seems so clear.

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.

Because well regulated militias are necessary, the people's right to have arms will not be infringed. It's not a prerequisite, it's a reason that they wanted the people to have arms, unrestricted by tyrants.

It's easy.


The hard part is how to deal with evil men with arms. Instead of disarming all good men, why don't we empower the good to oppose the evil.

It sure seems simple.

I am surprised that you think that is the explanation of the sentence. Though the first part comes first, that does not mean it is the most important part of th sentence.

The basis of the Bill of Rights is the rights of the people and not the benefit to government of those rights. The basis of the sentence is, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In other words that right is acknowledged as existing and being in force prior to the Bill of Rights. What does that mean? It means that under the law of England which automaically applied in its colonies there was already a right to keep and bear arms and that the law of the newly established USA should not infringe that right. As a matter of interest the English Bill of Rights brought that into English constitutional law in 1688/9 and also made clear that no pre-existing rights not listed in that document also were to remain as constitutional rights.

The secondary part of the sentence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" does no more than explain the importance of an armed people to the state in defence of its freedom as distinct from the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defence of themselves. It is a most unfortunate grammatical construction and is almost certainly the result of people working within a committee where some did not realy understand the purpose of their work! "Oh, all right then! Put it in if you must!"

The phrase, "A well regulated Militia" means no more than that the militia must be well organized and in itself has no relationship to firearms. The whoe of the first part of that sentence should never have been included at all and the price for its incompetence is being paid now, has been paid for the last three quarters of a century, and will continue to be paid in future.

English

Gunnut 45/454
12-20-2012, 10:46
jeanderson
Thats because most of those anti-gun folks don't believe in the Creator! So they don't recognize him as bestowing those rights on all of man!:steamed:

BenjiEDF
12-20-2012, 10:51
ahem, the phrase "...well regulated" should be viewed in the language of the time it was written an it's meaning then, not an interpretation based on the words as commonly used today.

"well regulated" referred to being equipped, in parity, and with the REGULAR arms of the day" not "hunting rifles, they never used that word, the used "ARMS and ARMED" not "Muskets' not "Rifles" not "Pistols" ARMS. and they included it in the BOR to insure that ability in perpetuity.

That was helpful, thanks bud!

English
12-20-2012, 12:21
jeanderson
Thats because most of those anti-gun folks don't believe in the Creator! So they don't recognize him as bestowing those rights on all of man!:steamed:

That is interesting. I don't believe in a Creator either , but I believe gun rights to be an essential part of a free society. Strangely enough I think the Vikings, who were the last pagans in Europe, belived in the right to keep and bear arms as well. Can you tell me where in the Bible it says that all of mankind has the right to keep and bear arms?

English

barbedwiresmile
12-20-2012, 12:28
We aren't born with 'rights', nor are they guaranteed by a piece of paper. We have only the rights we can (or choose to) defend - only the rights we have the will to fight for.

As such, we have largely lost the tenth & fourth amendments, and are likely to lose the 2nd.

Anyone confused by the process by which this happens need only scroll through the pages of GTPI.

It is very challenging to defend one's freedoms against the state when the majority of republicrats value freedom 'selectively'.

Razorsharp
12-27-2012, 09:25
I find it amusing when those who wish to impose further restrictions on the right to bear arms, find themselves to be clever in finding a way around the 2nd Amendment.

They will say something along the lines of, "Well, since the 2nd Amendment says we can't ban guns, we'll just ban ammunition."

Trouble with this "logic" is the 2nd Amendment does not mention "guns" either, it says "arms". Ammunition is part and parcel of arms.

DARoberts

humanguerrilla
12-27-2012, 13:55
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” -- George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress

DMaddox
12-27-2012, 17:02
I think George had it right!

kirgi08
12-27-2012, 17:52
Alpine
Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:

Alpine
Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:

You can say that again.'08.:whistling:

certifiedfunds
12-27-2012, 18:09
Alpine
Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:

Aren't you one of the people here who supports the unconstitutional war on drugs and federal regulation of marijuana? What part of the COTUS grants the fed that power?

certifiedfunds
12-27-2012, 18:12
How many constitutional defenders here support the National Park system?

Cavalry Doc
12-27-2012, 18:19
I am surprised that you think that is the explanation of the sentence. Though the first part comes first, that does not mean it is the most important part of th [sic] sentence.

The basis of the Bill of Rights is the rights of the people and not the benefit to government of those rights. The basis of the sentence is, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In other words that right is acknowledged as existing and being in force prior to the Bill of Rights. What does that mean? It means that under the law of England which automaically [sic] applied in its colonies there was already a right to keep and bear arms and that the law of the newly established USA should not infringe that right. As a matter of interest the English Bill of Rights brought that into English constitutional law in 1688/9 and also made clear that no pre-existing rights not listed in that document also were to remain as constitutional rights.

The secondary part of the sentence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" does no more than explain the importance of an armed people to the state in defence of its freedom as distinct from the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves. It is a most unfortunate grammatical construction and is almost certainly the result of people working within a committee where some did not realy [sic] understand the purpose of their work! "Oh, all right then! Put it in if you must!"

The phrase, "A well regulated Militia" means no more than that the militia must be well organized and in itself has no relationship to firearms. The whoe [sic] of the first part of that sentence should never have been included at all and the price for its incompetence is being paid now, has been paid for the last three quarters of a century, and will continue to be paid in future.

English


Dude, first, try spell checking once in a while. Especially if you are going to go by the moniker "English". Second, sssssllllllooooowwwww down a bit, and read what I wrote.

The operative portion of the sentence is: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part of the sentence was never meant to be a prerequisite, nor was it ever meant to limit the last part of the sentence.

Because they understood that a militia was a necessary part of a free state, the people had to be allowed to keep and bear arms. Without the people being able to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia would not have been possible, nor would a free state.


Go back and read what I posted again, and if you still have concerns, come on back.

:wavey:

HexHead
12-27-2012, 18:28
I find it amusing when those who wish to impose further restrictions on the right to bear arms, find themselves to be clever in finding a way around the 2nd Amendment.

They will say something along the lines of, "Well, since the 2nd Amendment says we can't ban guns, we'll just ban ammunition."

Trouble with this "logic" is the 2nd Amendment does not mention "guns" either, it says "arms". Ammunition is part and parcel of arms.

DARoberts

That's because liberals act under the assumption that they're just so ****ing clever.

NMG26
12-27-2012, 18:31
Dlsmnstm

Gunnut 45/454
12-27-2012, 19:46
English
The Bible is riffe with examples of God giving man the tool/weapons to defend themselves! Maybe you sould read it, think of Mosses, David etc. And yes even us lowly Americans!:rofl:

certifiedfunds
12-27-2012, 21:56
I see post 32 was ignored

and 27 for that matter

kirgi08
12-27-2012, 22:34
Ease up,reality is a cruel mistress.'08.

English
12-28-2012, 03:15
English
The Bible is riffe with examples of God giving man the tool/weapons to defend themselves! Maybe you sould read it, think of Mosses, David etc. And yes even us lowly Americans!:rofl:

I think you misunderstand me. I am in favour of almost everyone being armed by right. My only grey area is how young the cutoff should be made. 7 year olds? Probably not. 8 year olds? Maybe subject to parental consent.

This would probably result in more children shooting other children but there are costs to all good things.

I don't know why some Americans feel so inferior, but it is time you and they got over it.

English

Gunnut 45/454
12-28-2012, 12:33
English
We already have laws stating who can legally own , carry a firearm 18 for rifles 21 for pistols. Children under direct adult supervision can use firearms as young as 5 for hunting and target compititions! :supergrin: I wasn't allowed to go hunting alone until I was 16.

certifiedfunds
But I see you support the Drug cartels an wish them free reign on letting them sell to drugs freely to our children! Right? So your for letting them easy access arcoss our borders? Maybe armed convoyes to every major city?:rofl:
Maybe if your so butt hurt about these Unconstitutional laws you should petion the SCOTUS to over turn them- good luck!

certifiedfunds
12-28-2012, 12:47
English
We already have laws stating who can legally own , carry a firearm 18 for rifles 21 for pistols. Children under direct adult supervision can use firearms as young as 5 for hunting and target compititions! :supergrin: I wasn't allowed to go hunting alone until I was 16.

certifiedfunds
But I see you support the Drug cartels an wish them free reign on letting them sell to drugs freely to our children! Right? So your for letting them easy access arcoss our borders? Maybe armed convoyes to every major city?:rofl:
Maybe if your so butt hurt about these Unconstitutional laws you should petion the SCOTUS to over turn them- good luck!

I asked you a simple question. As a constitutional chest beater and a supporter of federal regulation of marijuana, what portion of the COTUS empowers the fed to do this?

And don't blame me for the cartels. You people created them.

kirgi08
12-28-2012, 13:24
Capitalism created them.'08.

mj9mm
12-28-2012, 13:30
semantics, fortunately, the Japanese, in 1940, understood better than many current day Americans and didn't come any closer than Pearl Harbor.

certifiedfunds
12-28-2012, 13:37
Capitalism created them.'08.

Same way capitalism created Al Capone

kirgi08
12-28-2012, 14:43
Pretty much.'08.

Razorsharp
12-29-2012, 06:31
How many constitutional defenders here support the National Park system?
Don't know how many support the National Park system, but I bet it's more than those who support a welfare system that spawns and propagates a class of parasites that willingly vote to undermine the Constitution.

Moron Lube?? What's that? Something your "partner" uses on you?

Cavalry Doc
12-29-2012, 06:59
I think you misunderstand me. I am in favour of almost everyone being armed by right. My only grey area is how young the cutoff should be made. 7 year olds? Probably not. 8 year olds? Maybe subject to parental consent.

This would probably result in more children shooting other children but there are costs to all good things.

I don't know why some Americans feel so inferior, but it is time you and they got over it.

English

8 year old kids??? Are you proposing that they be allowed to carry outside of supervision with parental consent.

Now you are just being facetious. Most Americans feel a bit more superior than they should. As an average group, we are lacking in humility, the opposite of an inferiority complex. Don't be too upset, we beat Britain in two wars, and had to rescue it twice in the last century. They couldn't even pull off the Falklands war without out help. But they are generally good fellows. They didn't whine like the French did in '86.



Maybe we should talk about the third amendment for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be

nursetim
12-29-2012, 07:20
semantics, fortunately, the Japanese, in 1940, understood better than many current day Americans and didn't come any closer than Pearl Harbor.

That's not exactly accurate. They invaded the Aleutian islands and we repeled them.

HexHead
12-29-2012, 07:25
You already had the Right. The 2nd amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing that Right.

nursetim
12-29-2012, 07:30
I think you misunderstand me. I am in favour of almost everyone being armed by right. My only grey area is how young the cutoff should be made. 7 year olds? Probably not. 8 year olds? Maybe subject to parental consent.

This would probably result in more children shooting other children but there are costs to all good things.

I don't know why some Americans feel so inferior, but it is time you and they got over it.

English

It was a whole different game in the 18th century. I'd trust an 8 year old from that era with a fire arm as firearms were as common as knives back then, there was no taboo associated with them. Now? Not so much thanks to our lovely media machine that has somehow been usurped by liberals scared of their own shadows.

cajun_chooter
12-29-2012, 07:37
have you noticed most of our lawmakers in Washington do not believe in the constitution ? they pick & choose what laws they want ...

its time for us to take back government... politicans are not
"serve us" they serve themselves.. maybe its time for a
revolution.. and that is exactly why the second admendment is being undermined..

certifiedfunds
12-29-2012, 22:59
Don't know how many support the National Park system, but I bet it's more than those who support a welfare system that spawns and propagates a class of parasites that willingly vote to undermine the Constitution.

Moron Lube?? What's that? Something your "partner" uses on you?

Looks like it lubed you up


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

certifiedfunds
12-29-2012, 23:00
English
We already have laws stating who can legally own , carry a firearm 18 for rifles 21 for pistols. Children under direct adult supervision can use firearms as young as 5 for hunting and target compititions! :supergrin: I wasn't allowed to go hunting alone until I was 16.

certifiedfunds
But I see you support the Drug cartels an wish them free reign on letting them sell to drugs freely to our children! Right? So your for letting them easy access arcoss our borders? Maybe armed convoyes to every major city?:rofl:
Maybe if your so butt hurt about these Unconstitutional laws you should petion the SCOTUS to over turn them- good luck!

Still waiting. Do you only support and defend the parts of the Bill of Rights you like?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

English
12-30-2012, 08:59
8 year old kids??? Are you proposing that they be allowed to carry outside of supervision with parental consent.

Now you are just being facetious. Most Americans feel a bit more superior than they should. As an average group, we are lacking in humility, the opposite of an inferiority complex. Don't be too upset, we beat Britain in two wars, and had to rescue it twice in the last century. They couldn't even pull off the Falklands war without out help. But they are generally good fellows. They didn't whine like the French did in '86.



Maybe we should talk about the third amendment for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be

This is a good time to appologise for an earlier mireading of one of your posts, since you are now misreading one of mine. I did say "some" Americans. That does not imply the majority. It certainly does not imply that Americans should feel inferior and, in general, I think they are right to feel superior. With regard to your last rescue, that is WWII, perhaps you should be feeling guilt and gratitude rather than superiority. If the USA had not been so tied up in isolationism it woud have acted sooner against a major threat to its own eventual safety. As it was, if the British had not been able to hang on as long as it took the USA to join the war, the USA would have had no base from which to attack Hitler and Hitler would have consolidated his hold on Europe. Europe as a fascist militaristic state intent on conquering the world would not have been a good thing for the USA.

With regard to 8yr olds carrying, I find this very difficult. Many children are preyed upon by criminals of one kind or another who have the advantage of physical stength. If it is right for adults to be able to defend themselves, why should it not be right for children to be able to defend themselves? There are lots of implications to this and I don't have a simple answer, but it would involve a major shift in the perception of responsibility and penalties.

English

Glockgeezer
12-30-2012, 09:45
Depends on your definition of "gun"! Bill Clinton.

Cavalry Doc
12-30-2012, 09:58
This is a good time to appologise for an earlier mireading of one of your posts, since you are now misreading one of mine. I did say "some" Americans. That does not imply the majority. It certainly does not imply that Americans should feel inferior and, in general, I think they are right to feel superior. With regard to your last rescue, that is WWII, perhaps you should be feeling guilt and gratitude rather than superiority. If the USA had not been so tied up in isolationism it woud have acted sooner against a major threat to its own eventual safety. As it was, if the British had not been able to hang on as long as it took the USA to join the war, the USA would have had no base from which to attack Hitler and Hitler would have consolidated his hold on Europe. Europe as a fascist militaristic state intent on conquering the world would not have been a good thing for the USA.

With regard to 8yr olds carrying, I find this very difficult. Many children are preyed upon by criminals of one kind or another who have the advantage of physical stength. If it is right for adults to be able to defend themselves, why should it not be right for children to be able to defend themselves? There are lots of implications to this and I don't have a simple answer, but it would involve a major shift in the perception of responsibility and penalties.

English

It's obvious we have a different perspective of which country owes the most to the other. That's fine. Without the abuses by the British early on, we (as a nation), may never have stepped out on our own.

As to the part of your post that I added emphasis to above, perhaps you should review the human condition. There are many reasons that certain decisions are reserved for certain ages. Much of it has to do with brain development and decision making ability. I think you are being intentionally obtuse, if not, let me know, because if that is your real position, I'm going to have to seriously reconsider how much value I place in your positions.

English
12-31-2012, 07:35
It's obvious we have a different perspective of which country owes the most to the other. That's fine. Without the abuses by the British early on, we (as a nation), may never have stepped out on our own.

As to the part of your post that I added emphasis to above, perhaps you should review the human condition. There are many reasons that certain decisions are reserved for certain ages. Much of it has to do with brain development and decision making ability. I think you are being intentionally obtuse, if not, let me know, because if that is your real position, I'm going to have to seriously reconsider how much value I place in your positions.

Be in no doubt that I am glad that the USA did step out on its own or that I am appalled by the English stupididy and abuse that led to you doing so. On the positive side for the English, if it were not for them, all of what is now the USA and Canada would probably now be speaking French and French rule would have made it much harder for you to become the free nation you have become.

I am very aware of the problems with brain development you refer to but there are problems either way. I would have trusted any of my children to be armed at eight above many adults at 30. The idea of many 15 year olds being armed is quite frightening! As someone above said, the culture has changed with regard to what is expected of eight year olds. Just as the introduction of right to carry laws did not produce the expected blood on the streets of Florida but did produce an abrupt improvement in standards of driving behaviour, it is hard to predict how bullying, beating up children by older children, pedophillia, robbery of children and so on would change and how many effectively innocent children would be shot.

I did say "maybe" eight year olds with parental consent. Such informed consent would depend on how the child has been trained and how emotionally stable the child is. The risk is that an armed child mis-uses his power and gets shot as a result. The benefit is that other risks are reduced. As I said, I really don't know the answer but I don't see why it should be 21. Neither do I see that allowing teachers or lecturers would be enough of a safeguard against the likes of Lanza or Cho at Virginia Tech.

There is no age limit that makes an individual trustworthy with a weapon and yet other considerations make us conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to a low crime society and a free state. The negative consequence of that is that anyone at any random time might start shooting people without sound reason, but the positive is that they would not manage to shoot very many and would then be removed from the population. That seems to be a worthwhile cost benefit ballance.

The BoR does not place limits of any kind on the right to keep and bear arms and yet state governments have seen fit to do so and have been allowed to get away with it. Some of those limits are entirely sensible. Why should an ex-convict be allowed legal arms to defend himself against criminals? Why should the insane be so allowed? And there we run into an immediate problem because it is the government which defines insanity and such definitions have been typical of the ways in which governments abuse their power.

There are no easy answers to this because all policy choices have costs as well as benefits. At the very least I would allow any student in higher education who has no history of taking psychoactive drugs to go armed. That right would be removed immediately from anyone found to be drunk or to have used rereational drugs of any kind. That brings the age limit down to 18 or even 16 with other constraints. What age would you choose and why?

English

Cavalry Doc
12-31-2012, 08:57
Wow. Just wow. :upeyes:

Please tell me you are just being sarcastic. A poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum??

The vast majority of 8 year old children are not prepared to make life and death decisions, or comprehend the permanence of pulling a trigger of a firearm aimed at a human being, or the cascade of events that follows.

You're being silly, or ....... Well, I'll wait and see first.

:popcorn: