The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Really you scream that a yes / no question backed with the threat of five years in jail isn't good enough but somehow we are going to have a qualitative review of a persons sanity based off absolutely no discernible standard of measurement where we pack the DSM5 into what?
It isn't good enough because the question is worthless. We have set standards for many things, medically speaking. Airline pilot medicals have been the same for decades (with some changes on the lenient side). If there's an issue, it gets more testing/more paperwork, but it proves that it can be done. The reason it works is because it is one national standard published on paper that all AMEs have to abide by.

You have no clue about anything in mental health (demonstrated in a previous thread where hacker destroyed you for talking out of your butt about autism). [/quote]
Really? Do tell? I won't doubt his autism case and I'm sure that's personal to him. I also go with my family doctors (father, older brother) and both have said autism is the most frequently mis-diagnosed disorder. Every kid has autism at the slightest hint of a problem, and they get thrown through rigorous testing/treatment for it, when in many cases, it isn't even autism. So please don't bring up autism again, and I'm certainly not interested in discussing it if your family member has it. Irrelevant to the point.

Doesn't stop you from being quick to parrot some gun grabber talking point about people needing to be evaluated to exercise their rights. Never mind how unconstitutional the idea is. It's not even measurable how we somehow evaluate a person for being "sane enough" to own a firearm.
Gun grabber? No, I never said grab ANYBODY'S gun. Everyone with a gun today would still have that gun under what I envisioned. It was for future legal gun purchases. Still no gun grabbing. The only gun grabbing is the guys going out and buying more and more guns.

"It won't be a burden.... You just need to see a psychiatrist for the next 6 months of intense observation and pass a review screening of state certified doctors and then you can get your gun permit."

Yes, perhaps. If that is the case. So as long as that is the national set standard and uniform for everyone.

I'm sure that's gonna be the last restriction you ask for having watched you parrot off lists of stupidity in every other gun thread.

A mental health evaluation? Yes. It would be my only proposed restriction. I do believe mass shootings happen because people have mental issues and their gun-owning families don't do jack about it.

Every restriction you just listed... Like the sex offender registry is based off being convicted of a crime. Not some Orwellian Precrime standard of maybe you'll do something so we have to protect you from yourself. Never mind all those states you mentioning being taken to the woodshed in the last decade over the unconstitutionally of their long standing bans or prohibitions on firearms. Remember it took 30 years of not stopping any crime for DC to finally have its law torn down for its unconstitutionally. Just because that backwards thinking in New Jersey and New York that you can somehow charge people money for and force some kind of demonstration of need to use a right exists today doesn't mean it's day in court isn't coming.

NJ, NY, CA gun laws still stand. They are what they are. We just want a good solution to prevent large public tragedies over and over. Other progressive 1st world nations HAVE gun ownership and they do NOT have the same problem of mass shootings.
 
Why oh Why do you guys keep feeding this troll it just makes my head hurt skipping over his BS........................................... On a lighter note i took Seggy out shooting last week, thats what i call my AR-15 Seggy. Well every time i fired off a round I would yell "GET SOME" man i love the great state of South Carolina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
As for the rights not being able to be "given or taken away", that's actually not true. You see, that's why it's called the Second AMENDMENT. Because it was added. And that's why we no longer have prohibition, because the AMENDMENT was removed. And a side note, I don't think our "creator" had anything to do with the right to bare arms. That's strictly a human idea.
 
As for the rights not being able to be "given or taken away", that's actually not true. You see, that's why it's called the Second AMENDMENT. Because it was added. And that's why we no longer have prohibition, because the AMENDMENT was removed. And a side note, I don't think our "creator" had anything to do with the right to Bear arms. That's strictly a human idea.


FIFY

Again, Saudi women have no right to bare arms, US Citizens have a right to bear arms
 
As for the rights not being able to be "given or taken away", that's actually not true. You see, that's why it's called the Second AMENDMENT. Because it was added. And that's why we no longer have prohibition, because the AMENDMENT was removed. And a side note, I don't think our "creator" had anything to do with the right to bare arms. That's strictly a human idea.

Actually, even though it's called the 2nd Amendment, it is part of the group called the Bill of Rights, which encompasses the first 10 amendments. Those 10 amendments specifically limit government power.

How many of you didn't pay attention during Civics class?
Need a refresher:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
 
question-about-second-amendment-bear-arms.jpg
 
And a side note, I don't think our "creator" had anything to do with the right to bare arms. That's strictly a human idea.
You're correct. It was the belief and the hope of men such as a man who was an inventor and innovator, another man who had to drop out of school at the age of 15 to become a surveyor because his mother could not afford to send him to college, another man who was fluent in seven languages that included English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek and Latin and when he had financial problems, he sold his books for $25,000. These books would be used to start the Library of Congress, another man who only stood at five feet and four inches.tall, another man who was the illegitimate son of a Scottish immigrant father and a British West Indian mother (who happened to be married to someone else), another man who was the primary author of the oldest written constitution still in use in the world - the Massachusetts Constitution, another man who played both the fiddle and the flute and for a time was a tobacco farmer, another man who opposed the Stamp Act and helped to organize the Boston Tea Party.

James Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.

If you care to read what the men I described above wrote/thought, here you go:


Benjamin Franklin:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

Samuel Adams

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

George Washington

“At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the dernier resort. Addresses to the throne, and remonstrances to Parliament, we have already, it is said, proved the inefficacy of. How far, then, their attention to our rights and privileges is to be awakened or alarmed, by starving their trade and manufacturers, remains to be tried.” – Letter to George Mason, Apr. 5, 1769; The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889). Vol. III (1758-1775)

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” – Sentiments on a Peace Establishment in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, May 2, 1783; The Writings of George Washington [1938], edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11

John Adams

“We are told: ‘It is a universal truth, that he that would excite a rebellion, is at heart as great a tyrant as ever wielded the iron rod of oppression.’ Be it so. We are not exciting a rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms, against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion. … Remember the frank Veteran acknowledges, that “the word rebel is a convertible term.” – Novanglus Essays, No. V, 1774 – 1775; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, Volume 4; (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856), 10 volumes.

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6

Thomas Jefferson

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Quoting Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV: Rights, Private and Public, June 1776; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” – Letter to Peter Carr, 1785; The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, Electronic Text Center of University of Virginia

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824; “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XVI, p. 45

“We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Major John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824; Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., 19 vol. (1905)

Thomas Paine

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” – Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775; The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894) Volume 1, Chapter XII

Patrick Henry

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778; “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” Jonathan Elliot, editor, vol. 3, pp. 50-53

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p.168

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p. 386
 
Last edited:
It isn't good enough because the question is worthless. We have set standards for many things, medically speaking. Airline pilot medicals have been the same for decades (with some changes on the lenient side). If there's an issue, it gets more testing/more paperwork, but it proves that it can be done. The reason it works is because it is one national standard published on paper that all AMEs have to abide by.

You have no clue about anything in mental health (demonstrated in a previous thread where hacker destroyed you for talking out of your butt about autism).
Really? Do tell? I won't doubt his autism case and I'm sure that's personal to him. I also go with my family doctors (father, older brother) and both have said autism is the most frequently mis-diagnosed disorder. Every kid has autism at the slightest hint of a problem, and they get thrown through rigorous testing/treatment for it, when in many cases, it isn't even autism. So please don't bring up autism again, and I'm certainly not interested in discussing it if your family member has it. Irrelevant to the point.


Gun grabber? No, I never said grab ANYBODY'S gun. Everyone with a gun today would still have that gun under what I envisioned. It was for future legal gun purchases. Still no gun grabbing. The only gun grabbing is the guys going out and buying more and more guns.



Yes, perhaps. If that is the case. So as long as that is the national set standard and uniform for everyone.



A mental health evaluation? Yes. It would be my only proposed restriction. I do believe mass shootings happen because people have mental issues and their gun-owning families don't do jack about it.



NJ, NY, CA gun laws still stand. They are what they are. We just want a good solution to prevent large public tragedies over and over. Other progressive 1st world nations HAVE gun ownership and they do NOT have the same problem of mass shootings.[/QUOTE]


A bunch of really smart people have been trying for decades to use mental health screening as a predictor of behavior in parole hearings... Every sound study of such has found at best the screenings achieve the same statistical accuracy as flipping a coin.

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4692

Basically what you want is impossible. So say the people evaluating psychiatric methodology.

You refute your point that any national strategy for evaluation can be maintained when you yourself admit to believing that Autism is over diagnosed due to the leeway or misapplication of the DSM5 standards. How is it gonna be any different with violence and guns?

And yes when you call for Australian style gun bans in this country that makes you a gun grabber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nope, but we didn't have a civics class.

We are starting to understand and define why we keep having to go down these rounds.

The explanation most scholars would give is that the first ten amendments aren't rights developed by the founders, hence the whole "granted by our creator" mantra. Essentially they are a collective group of moral ideals and social norms developed from the end of feudalism with influences from other great philosophical documents like Magna Carte or the ideas that had been part of what was considered civilized society far before that date.

For example:
John Adams was a lawyer, and a public attorney. The concept of being entitled to public defense in front of a jury of peers and some form of fair trial with the right to mount a defense and examine witnesses didn't get invented by the new government. Yet even though these court room procedures and practices were an accepted social norm to at the time to say not be tortured and beaten until giving a confession for them the idea that this was a right was so important it was reaffirmed in the 5th amendment.

It was basically a proclamation that these ten amendments (which are part of a much larger document) were so important and so universal in their acceptance in our government that they would be written on the parchment that dictates the limits of our government the same way and with the same gravity as the commandments carried down the Sinai and chiseled in stone. To these men the constitution wasn't merely a recommendation. It was a sacred and holy document that grew not just out of the failures they had witnessed of the monarchy and the tyranny that came with it but of the failures and fall backs into those same mistakes by the newly formed US government during the years of the Articles of Confederation.

Yes they designed the document to expand and evolve, but that was under the idea that it went through the same exhaustive measures to form new amendments as society changed and evolved.

What people like me and others resent is the idea that any one idea amongst these ten sacred ideals is seen as "not really a right" by anyone. If you wanted to remove or restrict an amendment or abridge any of them then fine there is a method to it. But passing meaningless legislation and ignoring standing codified precedent against any of the bill of rights (not just the second amendment) is just wrong. We aren't talking about changing the minimum wage or changing the tax rate for group X. We are talking about amending and abridging rights and to do so requires a much more thorough and exhaustive process than any city council, state senate, governor, or US congress should be allowed to just do on their own. Same as if it was speech or the protection from self incrimination or even the widely outdated and underutilized view that the US government despite imminent domain is not entitled to quarter troops in your home.
 
Last edited:
6 dead in Kalamazoo shootings. Shooter still on the loose.

Townhomes/residential area........ lady shot 4 times.

Cracker jack restaurant..... 3 dead including a child.

Car dealership........ 2 dead, father son.


Police have not caught the suspect.

Worst case scenario............ one gun owner driving around randomly stopping at various public places and executing people.

Saying white male in his 50s driving a dark blue or silver Chevrolet HHR.
 
6 dead in Kalamazoo shootings. Shooter still on the loose.

Townhomes/residential area........ lady shot 4 times.

Cracker jack restaurant..... 3 dead including a child.

Car dealership........ 2 dead, father son.


Police have not caught the suspect.

Worst case scenario............ one gun owner driving around randomly stopping at various public places and executing people.

Saying white male in his 50s driving a dark blue or silver Chevrolet HHR.
Too bad nobody shot back...
 
Too bad nobody shot back...

Dumb answer. That's like saying too bad that cop at the gas station in TX filling his car never shot back, and he had a gun? That officer had 15 holes full of lead pumped in his back.

I've said it time and time again, some of the gun totin individuals who think they'd be Tom Cruise in any situation, newsflash....... in a random and rapidly-escalating active shooter situation, 90% are gonna be unprepared even carrying a gun. They don't have the proper training to properly deal with an active shooter situation.
 
Dumb answer. That's like saying too bad that cop at the gas station in TX filling his car never shot back, and he had a gun? That officer had 15 holes full of lead pumped in his back.

I've said it time and time again, some of the gun totin individuals who think they'd be Tom Cruise in any situation, newsflash....... in a random and rapidly-escalating active shooter situation, 90% are gonna be unprepared even carrying a gun. They don't have the proper training to properly deal with an active shooter situation.
Almost no one does. It is not a common thing. It's so infrequent that it would be a waste of time to be able to deal with it.
 
Back
Top