The Second Amendment does NOT give you the right... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Second Amendment does NOT give you the right...


Razorsharp
01-01-2013, 05:08
NOTE - I'm importing this essay from the "Political Issues" forum, so if you have already read it, I apologize. I'm just spreadin' the word. DAR
_______________________________________________


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

Gallium
01-01-2013, 05:13
Amen, and pass the ammunition.

gwalchmai
01-01-2013, 05:35
Good post, Razor, and a good point with which to start the new year. :thumbsup:

Spiffums
01-01-2013, 06:45
The Bill of Rights grant nothing to We The People besides Protection FROM the government to trample on our inalienable rights. It is always funny when those who want to trample on our rights use the Bill of Rights as a basis for that trampling.

Razorsharp
01-01-2013, 07:36
Good post, Razor, and a good point with which to start the new year. :thumbsup:
Thanks!

Bren
01-01-2013, 07:53
The "natural rights" view is certainly one point of view. However, I believe the reality is, all "rights" are legal rights. Your rights are what you are allowed to do, by those who command enough force to stop you. Natural rights is a nice poetic way of talking about it, but it isn't reality.

Why do we have a bill of rights? Because a government can take away any rights it chooses, so our founders, at the beginning, decided to grant you those.

packinaglock
01-01-2013, 08:01
Amen!

WmHBonney
01-01-2013, 08:06
Nice post. Pretty simple when you put it that way. It's amazing how the gun control folks can twist this around to suit them.:steamed:

Big Bird
01-01-2013, 08:11
The "natural rights" view is certainly one point of view. However, I believe the reality is, all "rights" are legal rights. Your rights are what you are allowed to do, by those who command enough force to stop you. Natural rights is a nice poetic way of talking about it, but it isn't reality.

Why do we have a bill of rights? Because a government can take away any rights it chooses, so our founders, at the beginning, decided to grant you those.


The point you miss by doing so is to ignore the philosophical underpinning of our government--that rights are unalienable. That is they exist regardless of what a government may do to limit those rights.

Its a big misconception many people have and how the language of government has been twisted by people seeking to limit freedom and impose tyranny.

Notice in current political speech how the RIGHTS of government are expressed.. We have the RIGHT to tax. The RIGHT to search.... The RIGHT to regulate. This is wrong.... Governments possess no rights except in respect to one another. What the government DOES possess is POWER.... The POWER to tax. The POWER to search. The POWER to regulate. This is no small distinction and it belies how people have willingly handed over their freedom to the Tyranny of the Federal Leviathon. When the language no longer reflects the truth we are not far from true tyranny.

Rights are inalienable....its a philosophical point. An ideal. Our government is imperfect and often falls short of recognizing the ideal. Indeed its in the process of ignoring it alltogether!

fx77
01-01-2013, 08:33
Which brings u pa very interesting question--What if the dems had the guts to force an issue of RE-ammendimg the constitution to rescind the second ammendment as it stands?
How far could it go?

Bren
01-01-2013, 08:37
The point you miss by doing so is to ignore the philosophical underpinning of our government--that rights are unalienable. That is they exist regardless of what a government may do to limit those rights.


Like you said, a philosophical underpinning - a nice way of explaining, but not reality. There are no universal "rights" - only what WE believe should be universal rights, if we were in a position to grant or deny them. There are no "God given" rights, unless God is just really, really bad a guaranteeing them. There are only the rights you are allowed to exercise by whoever has the power to stop you and chooses not to do so.

Bren
01-01-2013, 08:40
Which brings u pa very interesting question--What if the dems had the guts to force an issue of RE-ammendimg the constitution to rescind the second ammendment as it stands?
How far could it go?

How far could it go? Al the way to a constitutional amendment, of course. However, I doubt they'd get the votes in congress or from the states...but I might be wrong.

Razorsharp
01-01-2013, 08:49
The "natural rights" view is certainly one point of view. However, I believe the reality is, all "rights" are legal rights. Your rights are what you are allowed to do, by those who command enough force to stop you. Natural rights is a nice poetic way of talking about it, but it isn't reality.
Mmmmm... that's the "rights are dispensations from government" viewpoint.

Why do we have a bill of rights? Because a government can take away any rights it chooses, so our founders, at the beginning, decided to grant you those.
You're incorrect. The founders did not decide to grant rights, they formed a government with the ideal of the people possessing inalienable rights. It's what made America unique.

Many of the Framers of the Constitution objected to the idea of a Bill of Rights. According to the Framers, a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Their intent was, if a power was not enumerated in the Constitution, then the FedGov had no jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Antifederalists were well aware of government's propensity to usurp powers not specifically denied it. This is why we are fortunate to have the Bill of Rights.

Now, if we could only get them to observe it.

Razorsharp
01-01-2013, 08:51
Which brings u pa very interesting question--What if the dems had the guts to force an issue of RE-ammendimg the constitution to rescind the second ammendment as it stands?
How far could it go?
As far as the next election.

Gallium
01-01-2013, 08:56
Over time both the perception and reality of what "rights" we have, and any "rights" .gov have, has morphed into where we are today.

Andy123
01-01-2013, 09:05
Mmmmm... that's the "rights are dispensations from government" viewpoint.


You're incorrect. The founders did not decide to grant rights, they formed a government with the ideal of the people possessing inalienable rights. It's what made America unique.

Many of the Framers of the Constitution objected to the idea of a Bill of Rights. According to the Framers, a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Their intent was, if a power was not enumerated in the Constitution, then the FedGov had no jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Antifederalists were well aware of government's propensity to usurp powers not specifically denied it. This is why we are fortunate to have the Bill of Rights.

Now, if we could only get them to observe it.

I think what Bren is suggesting is that as a practical matter, when you are sitting in the defendant's chair, your fate will be decided by a DA (govt employee) the testimony of an officer or officers (govt employees) with legal issues decided by a judge (govt employee) and defended by an attorney (who is probably being paid for by the government). Only the jury is independent of that corruption.

Of course most cases do not go to a jury (maybe 5%). In the other 95% of the cases, your outcome depends on the decisions and actions of the government workers. I guess one could pray that the creator would come to the jail or courthouse and preserve your rights.

In the end, the least complex explanation is that the law is an exercise of power and force. Everything else is window dressing.

fella
01-01-2013, 09:19
Excellent post.

I'd offer, in addition, that the concept of Liberty, a cornerstone of the foundation of the republic, was outlined by the "founding fathers" as (to paraphrase):

All freedoms possessed by the citizen, so long as his actions do not infringe upon the liberties of others


I believe this concept applies to our issue at least as much as second ammentment interpretation.

FullClip
01-01-2013, 09:33
If the moon-bats in DC do indeed try to pass some crazy gun-control registration, will the individual state constitutions have any weight in the implementation?

In Maine Article 1 of The State Constitution, Declaration of Rights, in section 16 states. "To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

Not too sure about other states, but while the production and sale of new units are under fire from the Libs, I hope this "right" either granted or defined by the State of Maine, depending on how you look at things, is a back-up plan if Obama and his federal cronnies go for a gun-grab plan.

Bren
01-01-2013, 10:02
You're incorrect. The founders did not decide to grant rights, they formed a government with the ideal of the people possessing inalienable rights. It's what made America unique.

Yep, that was the ideal. Yet if they hand't written freedom of speech or religion in there, or they hadn't written that you have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT TODAY.

Therefore, the rights were very easily "alienable" by no more than the founders agreeing not to write them in the bill of rights. So, by including each right, they "granted" it. A right is only a matter of law - nothing but law grants a right and a right is no more or less than the law says it is. Even then, it is only a right as long as the law granting it can be backed up with enough force to preserve the right.

tarpleyg
01-01-2013, 10:33
Gunfacts.info has a pretty good section on the breakdown of the 2nd Amendment.

SouthpawG26
01-01-2013, 10:48
As an outsider looking in (albeit for quite a long time), I fully agree that the 2A doesn't grant you a right, it only explicitly confirms a right that you already had in the first place.

I do however, fear that the "a militia being necessary to the security of a free State" will provide the real fodder for the antis. Because this infers that the arms carried by the militia should at least match those who intend to impose tyranny on free people.

At the time this was written, everyone had nothing better than muskets, and that was basically the apex of the arms race at that time.

Today you'd need, to adhere to the spirit in which the 2A was written (to ensure adequate protection to tyranny), at the very least full auto weapons, RPGs and other explosives, etc.

And once the majority of people are convinced that the 2A needs to be updated to a more current and updated discription of rights and intended safeguards, the door is opened to impose real restrictions.

So, and this I guess is the point I'm trying to make, be very circumspect in insisting on your full rights to the letter, as affirmed (not granted) in the 2A, I fear that adhering to the literal 2A formulation, will actually be used against the pro gun crowd.

racerford
01-01-2013, 12:17
I think what Bren is suggesting is that as a practical matter, when you are sitting in the defendant's chair, your fate will be decided by a DA (govt employee) the testimony of an officer or officers (govt employees) with legal issues decided by a judge (govt employee) and defended by an attorney (who is probably being paid for by the government). Only the jury is independent of that corruption.

Of course most cases do not go to a jury (maybe 5%). In the other 95% of the cases, your outcome depends on the decisions and actions of the government workers. I guess one could pray that the creator would come to the jail or courthouse and preserve your rights.

In the end, the least complex explanation is that the law is an exercise of power and force. Everything else is window dressing.

Even some increasing portion of the jury will be employed by the governemnt at some level or dependent on the government for subsidies (unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc.).

countrygun
01-01-2013, 12:35
Over the course of my life I have watched politicians, lawyers, SCOTUS, and laypeople interpret and misinterpret the Bill of Rights. I have also spent a considerable amount of my own time research the words used by the Framers when they wrote the BOR. Given what I have learned I feel there is something all gun owners, on both sides of the "compromise" issue have missed and yet it seems so obvious. I am not saying I am the only one to point this out, but, apparently it hasn't been done right because too many don't get it. I will try my way of explaining, hang on folks I don't do things by half measures.


"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."


Let's take it one step at a time


"Well-regulated"

By the language of the day in which it was written "well-regulated" referred to the idea of "well equipped", that is, since the "Militia" was concerned with matters of combat they should be armed in parity to those weapons they might encounter on the battlefield in the hands of their opponents.

"Militia"

It refers to the body of the citizens able and wiling to serve as VOLUNTEERS should they feel the cause was just and a need present. They WERE NOT a part of the standing military. They existed as much to protect the citizenry from an oppressive Government as from an "outside threat". The Founders in other writings were very clear about the need for a limited "standing" military that would pose no threat to the rights of the populace under the control of an excessive Government. That is reflected in the next part.

"security of a free State"

"Security" think of it's use in other portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "Secure in their persons from..." If that isn't clear the term "FREE State" might be a clue. They didn't say "The State", "Our State" they specifically chose the term "FREE State" Being secure in a free State certainly includes being secure FROM the State if it attempts to infringe on the freedom of the citizenry

"right of the people"

Now it gets interesting and the choice of these words. Notice that they DID NOT say "the right of the members of the militia". They said "The people" Again, it is a safeguard against any oppressive attempt to define "Militia" by a Government to pick and choose who qualifies for the right. Having arms, and including those in parity with the battlefield arms of the day, in the hands of all of the people precludes restriction by exclusion. At this point let us lay to rest this notion of progress in weaponry has changed the situation. Quite simply look at the Founders and Framers Mssrs. Franklin and Jefferson were well aware of the power of invention. They had seen the benefit of the "Rifle" vs the "Musket" they knew that rapid reloading (via the paper "cartridge of the day) was a critical ability on the battlefield. It is reasonable to assume that they knew that would by improved. Quite in fact the "rifle" was a superior weapon in individual, or coordinated groups, to the Musket of the British, so it make a case that the Founders wanted to encourage the "Militia" to be BETTER armed than potential opponents.

"keep and bear arms"

Again, look up in the terms of their day the phrase "to take up arms". Men did not often "take up arms" to go hunting.


"shall not be infringed."

Obviously this is the point where much ground has been lost. There in lies the danger. Gun rights have been infringed on and, sadly, it has been tacitly accepted.


The entire Amendment pivots on one thing,

"free State, the right

that comma stands in the stead of the word "THERFORE". that which came before it is the justification for the conclusion that follows it. Simply put, the right to "keep and bear arms" exists because of the militia which by dint of the words "well-regulated" must have the ability to raise arms effective in parity or superiority to that which might be met on the battlefield. It is to that end that "hunting" or self defense" arms are not spelled out. They were very close things in that day, but again the Founders knew that would change at some point, just as cannon were not hunting arms but, after the revolution, they were turned over to the local militias to become "the cannon on the courthouse lawn", rather than be kept in the hands of the standing military.

Any right to any arms IS "INFRINGIBLE" without the protection of the existence of a militia to provide the rational for protection from infringement.

We have the "similar to military" firearms because they make every able owner a part of the "Militia" and therefore ensures the rights to all firearms.

DrMaxit
01-01-2013, 15:47
Thank you all for posting in this. Its refreshing to have a better understanding of the constitution.

turretg
01-01-2013, 16:01
The point you miss by doing so is to ignore the philosophical underpinning of our government--that rights are unalienable. That is they exist regardless of what a government may do to limit those rights.

Its a big misconception many people have and how the language of government has been twisted by people seeking to limit freedom and impose tyranny.

Notice in current political speech how the RIGHTS of government are expressed.. We have the RIGHT to tax. The RIGHT to search.... The RIGHT to regulate. This is wrong.... Governments possess no rights except in respect to one another. What the government DOES possess is POWER.... The POWER to tax. The POWER to search. The POWER to regulate. This is no small distinction and it belies how people have willingly handed over their freedom to the Tyranny of the Federal Leviathon. When the language no longer reflects the truth we are not far from true tyranny.

Rights are inalienable....its a philosophical point. An ideal. Our government is imperfect and often falls short of recognizing the ideal. Indeed its in the process of ignoring it alltogether!

Excellent post! I commend you sir you put it perfectly!

Razorsharp
01-02-2013, 08:07
"security of a free State"

"Security" think of it's use in other portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "Secure in their persons from..." If that isn't clear the term "FREE State" might be a clue. They didn't say "The State", "Our State" they specifically chose the term "FREE State" Being secure in a free State certainly includes being secure FROM the State if it attempts to infringe on the freedom of the citizenry

Thumbs up!! I would like to add to the "Security of a free State" provision in the BoR.

The question begs to be asked, "Just what was it that the Framers were concerned that the State be secure against and free from?"

A reading of most any of the historical documents relating to the Constitutional debates, after having already defeated the world's "superpower", reveal that the Framers were mostly concerned with a powerful central government's tendency to assume powers not specifically denied it, to usurp powers not delegated it, and to limit individual freedoms and God-given rights. You know, kinda like what the present-day central government has become.

HKLovingIT
01-02-2013, 08:50
Could "free State" be interpreted to mean man's natural state of freedom and not referring to "state" as used to refer to a governmental or political entity? :dunno:

Razorsharp
01-02-2013, 09:21
Could "free State" be interpreted to mean man's natural state of freedom and not referring to "state" as used to refer to a governmental or political entity? :dunno:
With "State" being capitalized, the correct interpretation would be the State as an entity.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 10:50
"right of the people"

Now it gets interesting and the choice of these words. Notice that they DID NOT say "the right of the members of the militia". They said "The people" Again, it is a safeguard against any oppressive attempt to define "Militia" by a Government to pick and choose who qualifies for the right. Having arms, and including those in parity with the battlefield arms of the day, in the hands of all of the people precludes restriction by exclusion. At this point let us lay to rest this notion of progress in weaponry has changed the situation. Quite simply look at the Founders and Framers Mssrs. Franklin and Jefferson were well aware of the power of invention. They had seen the benefit of the "Rifle" vs the "Musket" they knew that rapid reloading (via the paper "cartridge of the day) was a critical ability on the battlefield. It is reasonable to assume that they knew that would by improved. Quite in fact the "rifle" was a superior weapon in individual, or coordinated groups, to the Musket of the British, so it make a case that the Founders wanted to encourage the "Militia" to be BETTER armed than potential opponents.

If they were so smart to "knew [know that weapons] that would by [sic] improved" don't you think that they would have been smart enough to predict that technology used in the exercise of other rights would improve too?

Razorsharp
01-02-2013, 11:03
If they were so smart to "knew [know that weapons] that would by [sic] improved" don't you think that they would have been smart enough to predict that technology used in the exercise of other rights would improve too?
Well, although actual "printing presses" of the 18th century era are no longer being used, I suppose we still have First Amendment protections of "freedom of the press".

Don't you?

countrygun
01-02-2013, 11:13
If they were so smart to "knew [know that weapons] that would by [sic] improved" don't you think that they would have been smart enough to predict that technology used in the exercise of other rights would improve too?

What's your point?

Franklin most assuredly knew that printing would, being a printer and inventor, and Jefferson used a pantographic pen device to copy his own writings.

So, again, do you have a point?

DanaT
01-02-2013, 11:18
What's your point?

Franklin most assuredly knew that printing would, being a printer and inventor, and Jefferson used a pantographic pen device to copy his own writings.

So, again, do you have a point?

Would you agree that rights are not static based upon only being rights based upon the technology in use at the time the BOR was written?

That is my point. You seem to agree with my question based what you have posted above.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 11:23
Well, although actual "printing presses" of the 18th century era are no longer being used, I suppose we still have First Amendment protections of "freedom of the press".

Don't you?

I would say so. However, it is quite funny as soon as it doesn't fit an agenda, people want to through those rights out the window.

An example, read the thread about an OWSers who had explosive and a "Terrorist Cookbook". "Conservatives" are very quick to shout that they shouldnt be allowed to have those.

I tend to look at rights in a more absolute manner. I think preserving the rights of those who are doing things I dont support as much, or more, important than those I agree with.

One very important aspects of rights is to protect individuals from mob rule. I dont care if 99.999% of people surveyed think purple rifles with round bullets should be banned. We live in a constitutional republic; we do not live in a democracy.

countrygun
01-02-2013, 11:24
Would you agree that rights are not static based upon only being rights based upon the technology in use at the time the BOR was written?

That is my point. You seem to agree with my question based what you have posted above.

Of course, the principles remain intact other wise we could make a very good case for removing the internet from the protections of the First Amendment. It is used to provide information, about bomb making, terrorist communicate on it etc. The Founders didn't mention ARs and they didn't mention web servers either

greentriple
01-02-2013, 11:37
what's amazing and so fun and educative about the posts is that they do what is the very battleground within the Bill of Rights, they interpret meanings and assert personal understanding. What then happens is that individuals, read, assess, study, assess, re-read, assess, discuss, assess, well you get the picture, and then come to their conclusions. If the conclusion reached, and I presume it supports their original position, is agreed to by others, well than those opinions add legitimacy to ones own conclusion and force to the mutual understanding. If the opinion/interpretation is contradicted by others, since that is a direct threat to ones own reasoning and often ideology, the contradictory position is discarded and those possessing it are often ridiculed. This means of reaching conclusions is not a "scientific method" but then how can it be as it deals with the ideals of men/women.

We clearly, or our founding fathers clearly, believe we have in-alienable rights as Americans: "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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Bill of Rights articulates the means by which the inalienable rights are guaranteed, i.e., free speech and assembly, free religion, a well regulated militia of armed citizens, no troops in our homes, no govt. taking our property or searching our homes without a warrant, no forced self incrimination, if the govt. accuses you of a crime you are presumed innocent and have the right to a lawyer, etc, etc, etc,.... And while a govt. is clearly needed as mentioned by the founding fathers it can not be above the people and it serves the good of ALL the people all of home may have their own interpretation of in-aleanable rights. What does this all mean? Well in America the fundamental right needed for democracy and all the other so valuable rights and wants is a free-market-place of ideas. Not just those we agree with but in particular those we do not.

The only interpretation I will take issue is that "well regulated" means armed as is the military. BS!! It means well trained, skilled, disciplined otherwise you get a bunch of dangerous gun-wielding nuts. In fact, history shows that our founders did not like the rabble armed, unless they were trained and led by men like themselves.

countrygun
01-02-2013, 11:50
The only interpretation I will take issue is that "well regulated" means armed as is the military. BS!! It means well trained, skilled, disciplined otherwise you get a bunch of dangerous gun-wielding nuts. In fact, history shows that our founders did not like the rabble armed, unless they were trained and led by men like themselves.

I would like you to point out any evidence to support your assertions about the founders likes and dislikes concerning an 'armed rabble, and your highly erroneous conclusion about the leadership of same. In light of the fact that the continental Army was virtually stripped of it's artillery (the WMDS of the day) and said artillery was placed in the control of the "rabble" in most cases being placed in position in the communities such as on the courthouse lawns. No the Founders feared a regular army far more than they feared the power in the hands of the people.

Glock20 10mm
01-02-2013, 12:00
Which brings u pa very interesting question--What if the dems had the guts to force an issue of RE-ammendimg the constitution to rescind the second ammendment as it stands?
How far could it go?

As far as ***BANG*** not happening cuz'!

DanaT
01-02-2013, 12:18
I would like you to point out any evidence to support your assertions about the founders likes and dislikes concerning an 'armed rabble, and your highly erroneous conclusion about the leadership of same. In light of the fact that the continental Army was virtually stripped of it's artillery (the WMDS of the day) and said artillery was placed in the control of the "rabble" in most cases being placed in position in the communities such as on the courthouse lawns. No the Founders feared a regular army far more than they feared the power in the hands of the people.

And how long does it take on GT to have many claim that the 2A doesnt cover RPGs, fighter jets, etc in the hands of civilians, yet they seem to forget that April 19th, at 7:30am the British entered Concord with two goals: eating breakfast and destroying the American weapons. In fact, they forced a citizen at gun point to show them where the town cannon had been buried.

This was what caused the "shot heard around the world"

It seems to me it is VERY clear that the US was founded on the citizens having militray grade weapons, and yes even the WMDs of the day.

countrygun
01-02-2013, 12:26
And how long does it take on GT to have many claim that the 2A doesnt cover RPGs, fighter jets, etc in the hands of civilians, yet they seem to forget that April 19th, at 7:30am the British entered Concord with two goals: eating breakfast and destroying the American weapons. In fact, they forced a citizen at gun point to show them where the town cannon had been buried.

This was what caused the "shot heard around the world"

It seems to me it is VERY clear that the US was founded on the citizens having militray grade weapons, and yes even the WMDs of the day.

They won't be able to say it here for long. The Founders never envisioned the Internet so it is up for censorship.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 12:33
They won't be able to say it here for long. The Founders never envisioned the Internet so it is up for censorship.

What is here:
Communications Decency Act (CDA)
Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)
Trading with the Enemy Act

Proposed:
Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA)
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA)
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)

Razorsharp
01-02-2013, 13:07
I would say so. However, it is quite funny as soon as it doesn't fit an agenda, people want to through (sic) those rights out the window. (Since you thought it necessary to highlight Countrygun's error, I thought I would reciprocate.)

An example, read the thread about an OWSers who had explosive and a "Terrorist Cookbook". "Conservatives" are very quick to shout that they shouldnt be allowed to have those.

If they were shouting that they shouldn't be allowed to have books, then they were'nt conservatives.

It's sad, but today's politicrats cannot see any further than Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative. As an example, many who opposed George W. Bush's administration, associated him with conservatism. In reality, he ran his administration like a Wilsonian Democrat.

I am reminded of George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

"Four legs good, two legs bad."

Once the populace has that mindset, they can easily be led in any direction the powers-that-be want.

Ever wonder why, regardless of which party is in control, the country continues down the same path as before? There's your answer.

countrygun
01-02-2013, 13:22
(Since you thought it necessary to highlight Countrygun's error, I thought I would reciprocate.)



If they were shouting that they shouldn't be allowed to have books, then they were'nt conservatives.

It's sad, but today's politicrats cannot see any further than Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative. As an example, many who opposed George W. Bush's administration, associated him with conservatism. In reality, he ran his administration like a Wilsonian Democrat.

I am reminded of George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

"Four legs good, two legs bad."

Once the populace has that mindset, they can easily be led in any direction the powers-that-be want.

Ever wonder why, regardless of which party is in control, the country continues down the same path as before? There's your answer.

It's OK, I think he appears to be upset about not being able to obtain certain materials.

He is also overlooking the fact that the child exploitation act (which much of it springs from) was actually a child-labor related action. It was not passed as "censorship" per say but in recognition that children under a certain age lacked the ability to consent to certain business transactions or were open to exploitation . The acts themselves being abuse much as taking a child and putting them to work picking cotton. even if done for free and escaping employment issues it is still exploitation

DanaT
01-02-2013, 13:26
(Since you thought it necessary to highlight Countrygun's error, I thought I would reciprocate.)

Thank you.

But you probably know the differences in use; when you quote something that is wrong, it is generally done to show that you weren't changing what they said.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 13:30
All censorship is done with the "best of intentions" for "society's good."

Anyways, you are making the perfect argument for gun control. Its "for the children."

countrygun
01-02-2013, 13:44
All censorship is done with the "best of intentions" for "society's good."

Anyways, you are making the perfect argument for gun control. Its "for the children."

so, your argument would be that 14year olds should have the ability to have FFLs then ?

syntaxerrorsix
01-02-2013, 13:56
so, your argument would be that 14year olds should have the ability to have FFLs then ?
This is where the State's ability to regulate firearms comes into play. Another hated and heated topic. The BOR is a restriction on the Federal Government all else is left in the hands of the State.

Fed 45 - The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 13:59
so, your argument would be that 14year olds should have the ability to have FFLs then ?

John I, King of France, was younger than that when he inherited the throne.

Napoleon abdicated the thrown in June 1815, after his defeat at Waterloo, to his son, Napoleon II.

countrygun
01-02-2013, 14:03
John I, King of France, was younger than that when he inherited the throne.

Napoleon abdicated the thrown in June 1815, after his defeat at Waterloo, to his son, Napoleon II.

OK, have fun living in Europe, Bye. Do I need to mention to you that the founders put minimum age of the office of POTUS or are you just being your typical jackarse self?

DanaT
01-02-2013, 14:06
so, your argument would be that 14year olds should have the ability to have FFLs then ?

What does my views on age have to do with rights.

I think the country would be in a lot less trouble if we allowed 14 year old children to have FFLs and did not allow AARP members (or anyone within 5 years of collecting SS) to vote.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 14:08
OK, have fun living in Europe, Bye. Do I need to mention to you that the founders put minimum age of the office of POTUS or are you just being your typical jackarse self?

I plan on it. Leave next week.

You figure out part number 2.

countrygun
01-02-2013, 14:18
What does my views on age have to do with rights.

I think the country would be in a lot less trouble if we allowed 14 year old children to have FFLs and did not allow AARP members (or anyone within 5 years of collecting SS) to vote.

Stand by folks, the Bette Davis of GT (DanaT) is in the middle of taking the stage and making the thread all about herself instead of the Second Amendment.

Get your popcorn ready.

Razorsharp
01-02-2013, 14:21
Thank you.

But you probably know the differences in use; when you quote something that is wrong, it is generally done to show that you weren't changing what they said.
That's not what you did.

You responded with this...
If they were so smart to "knew [know that weapons] that would by [sic] improved" don't you think that they would have been smart enough to predict that technology used in the exercise of other rights would improve too?

... to a post that didn't have those grammatical errors. You made the choice to bring those mistakes forward from a previous post.

That's what is known as a cheap shot.

DanaT
01-02-2013, 14:25
That's not what you did.

You responded with this...

... to a post that didn't have those grammatical errors. You made the choice to bring those mistakes forward from a previous post.

That's what is known as a cheap shot.

Sorry, I copied it exactly. I added the parts in brackets to make it clear that CG didnt say that.

I had to change, Knew" to "know" to make it make sense within the context of my sentence and had to make it clear that CG did not type that.

It is reasonable to assume that they knew that would by improved.

Please tell me a way which you would prefer to see something quoted be used in the context of another sentence and still showing what the original author said.

Razorsharp
01-03-2013, 06:36
Sorry, I copied it exactly. I added the parts in brackets to make it clear that CG didnt say that.

I had to change, Knew" to "know" to make it make sense within the context of my sentence and had to make it clear that CG did not type that.



Please tell me a way which you would prefer to see something quoted be used in the context of another sentence and still showing what the original author said.
Just respond to the quote as it is. You were intelligent enough to understand what CountryGun was saying, even with the grammatical errors. I'd say the rest of us are too.

In forums such as this, it is not uncommon to make grammatical errors in the back and forth. In a vast majority of cases, the posts are still intelligible despite the petty errors. To highlight them, in my opinion, is in bad taste.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 08:29
Just respond to the quote as it is. You were intelligent enough to understand what CountryGun was saying, even with the grammatical errors. I'd say the rest of us are too.

In forums such as this, it is not uncommon to make grammatical errors in the back and forth. In a vast majority of cases, the posts are still intelligible despite the petty errors. To highlight them, in my opinion, is in bad taste.

Once again, you are missing the point. The brackets were not pointing out a grammar error. I changed "knew" to "know" and added "that" meant "weapons". Without indicating that I changed his quote, it also becomes a peeing match with someone saying "i didnt say that" and "you put words into my mouth".

And notice, I didnt respond to something, I copied his words, to make a point, into a sentence and paragraph of my own.

Either way, I would have ruffled feathers.

I guess to be more gentle and PC so as to nit hurt feelings, I could have used quiet copy-editing. That said, I would bet that 90% of the people who read this, dont even know what "[sic]" means written in a sentence. They probably think I cannot spell "sick" correctly.

Razorsharp
01-03-2013, 09:25
That said, I would bet that 90% of the people who read this, dont even know what "[sic]" means written in a sentence. They probably think I cannot spell "sick" correctly.
If I thought that 90% of the people who read something I write, couldn't understand it, I wouldn't bother.

BFN
01-03-2013, 10:03
Interesting comments. It must be remembered that the first shots were fired in the American Revolution when the British tried to confiscate weapons from the colonists (militia).

The Constitution and Bill of Rights was inevitable, the battle of Yorktown did not completely ensure independence. The rights were given by the Declaration of Independence, but definition was needed.

Militia can be an individuals protecting themselves, or their family. Militia can be an armed family protecting themselves. Militia can be an armed neighborhood protecting against gangs. "Well regulated" can be a person, family, or group of people who are trained and proficient with firearms.

BFN
01-03-2013, 10:45
Some colonies had independence and rights before the Declaration of Independence. Virginia declared independence from the British monarchy of May 15, 1776. The Virginia Declaration of Rights was the foundation for the Declaration of Independence. As Ben Franklin said, "We must hang together, or assuredly we will all hang seperately." "JOIN, OR DIE" "Sic Semper Tyrannis" "Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God."

DanaT
01-03-2013, 10:46
If I thought that 90% of the people who read something I write, couldn't understand it, I wouldn't bother.

That is your choice.