The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

ATN_Pilot said:
Exactly! And that's all that the NRA does. Someone tries to steal our rights, then the NRA fights back. Glad you finally get it.
Click to expand...

I think the way you/the NRA interpret 'your rights' are different than the founding fathers envisioned.
 
Seggy said:
I think the way you/the NRA interpret 'your rights' are different than the founding fathers envisioned.
Click to expand...

You've made that clear enough, although your reasoning remains a bit mystifying. The analogy, though, would be that managment interprets the collective bargaining rights of unions differently than you do. Unions lobby to protect the system of collective bargaining which they believe the law intended. The NRA lobbies to protect the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which they believe to be correct. Where's the difference? As far as I can tell so far, your answer will be something along the lines of "Yeah, but we're Right and they're Wrong!". This sort of answer defeats the entire purpose of having a system of Law and Government in the first place, and is, in a word, juvenile.
 
Boris Badenov said:
You've made that clear enough, although your reasoning remains a bit mystifying. The analogy, though, would be that managment interprets the collective bargaining rights of unions differently than you do.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time with contract interpretations.

Unions lobby to protect the system of collective bargaining which they believe the law intended.
Click to expand...

Yep

The NRA lobbies to protect the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which they believe to be correct.
Click to expand...

Yep

Where's the difference? As far as I can tell so far, your answer will be something along the lines of "Yeah, but we're Right and they're Wrong!". This sort of answer defeats the entire purpose of having a system of Law and Government in the first place, and is, in a word, juvenile.
Click to expand...

I think you need to have better reading comprehension. I can view the 2nd Amendment differently than others.
 
Seggy said:
I can view the 2nd Amendment differently than others.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe the second amendment exists? I mean... interesting that gun ownership is on the same par as free speech. Why would the founding fathers not want this right to be infringed by the government? In your opinion....
 
ryan1234 said:
Why do you believe the second amendment exists? I mean... interesting that gun ownership is on the same par as free speech. Why would the founding fathers not want this right to be infringed by the government? In your opinion....
Click to expand...

In my opinion they wanted a National Guard system controlled by the state governments. This view is supported how the South succeeded before the Civil War and how they formed the Confederate Army. Also, notice 'well-regulated' is stated before arms in the 2nd Amendment? I think you and other supporters of the 2nd Amendment are conveniently ignoring that. They didn't want you, ATN_Pilot, bunk22, pullup, and Hacker15e to form a militia and make a determination if the government is infringing on their rights. The founders wanted you to use the power of the vote to control that.

Furthermore, they could have never have envisioned the weaponry today and the flippant view we have towards our weapons. Look how Canadians view their guns compared to us in the United States. Both countries have a high owning gun per capita, however there is a completely different outlook towards them. Quite frankly, Canadians view Americans as 'crazy' towards guns. The blinder view towards the 2nd Amendment by you and others on here shapes that view.
 
Seggy said:
I think the way you/the NRA interpret 'your rights' are different than the founding fathers envisioned.
Click to expand...

So, who is the 'Constituional scholar', again?

Seggy said:
Furthermore, they could have never have envisioned the weaponry today...
Click to expand...

...nor the electronic methods/mediums we use to exercise our freedom of speech, religion, or assembly....nor cars or buildings or email accounts in which we are to be secure in from unreasonable search and seizure...nor apartment buildings in which soldiers could not be forcibly quartered in....

...and yet nobody is suggesting that these other Amendments are outdated or irrelevant or nonapplicable today because of technological changes in society that the Framers could have never foreseen.

So why is it that you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unique and different than the rest of the enumerated rights?
 
Forgot, JayAre, jhugz, and WacoFan would be in the militia as well.

...nor the electronic methods/mediums we use to exercise our freedom of speech, religion, or assembly....nor cars or buildings or email accounts in which we are to be secure in from unreasonable search and seizure...nor apartment buildings in which soldiers could not be forcibly quartered in....

...and yet nobody is suggesting that these other Amendments are outdated or irrelevant or nonapplicable today because of technological changes in society that the Framers could have never foreseen.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of law that prohibit true freedom of speech. Furthermore, there are thousands of laws that deal with today's electronic methods.

So why is it that you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unique and different than the rest of the enumerated rights?
Click to expand...

Why don't you take the blinders off and see that there are laws that do restrict the 1st Amendment and deal with new advances in electronic methods.

Hacker15e said:
So, who is the 'Constitutional scholar', again?
Click to expand...

You do understand I very clearly stated a true example in this country's history where citizens felt that their rights were being infringed on and how they organized their state militias to try to take care of it. The JC Gun Militia is not what the Founders meant. How would the JC Gun Militia figure out the government was infringing on their rights when WacoFan and ATN_Pilot can't even agree on simple political policy such as good health care for the citizens?
 
Seggy said:
In my opinion they wanted a National Guard system controlled by the state governments.
Click to expand...


Okay, I am breaking my silence for this. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights, specifically enumerated things the government could not take away from the people. But in the case of firearms, they really meant the Congress should pass no law infringing on the right to bear arms upon.... the government?

I'm pretty sure that @JayAre, @jhugz, and @WacoFan would be exactly the militia they had in mind.
 
Seggy said:
There are thousands of law that prohibit true freedom of speech. Furthermore, there are thousands of laws that deal with today's electronic methods.
Click to expand...

Just as there are currently thousands of laws that restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Seggy said:
The JC Gun Militia is not what the Founders meant.
Click to expand...

Seriously, the blatant hypocrisy of this kind of statement is astounding.

Personally, I don't care if you have a particular interpretation of the constitution or of the Framers intent; if you have an angle that you can back up with some kind of logical argument or evidence, then by all means go for it...but your constant 'Constitutional scholar' ad-hominem mockery when others present such arguments, and then turning around and supporting your argument by stating your personal interpretation of what the Framers meant is asinine.
 
Hacker15e said:
Seriously, the blatant hypocrisy of this kind of statement is astounding.

Personally, I don't care if you have a particular interpretation of the constitution or of the Framers intent; if you have an angle that you can back up with some kind of logical argument or evidence, then by all means go for it...but your constant 'Constitutional scholar' ad-hominem mockery when others present such arguments, and then turning around and supporting your argument by stating your personal interpretation of what the Framers meant is asinine.
Click to expand...
Especially when his personal interpretation is directly in contravention with what a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America think.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Okay, I am breaking my silence for this.
Click to expand...

You've broken your silence in other political threads :)

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights, specifically enumerated things the government could not take away from the people. But in the case of firearms, they really meant the Congress should pass no law infringing on the right to bear arms upon.... the government?
Click to expand...

I am not saying they should take away guns, we just need more common sense towards them.

I'm pretty sure that @JayAre, @jhugz, and @WacoFan would be exactly the militia they had in mind.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Also, no one has addressed the way the South formed their Confederate Army. It wasn't a bunch of individual militias with rag tag names, it was state by state.

Finally, you may feel the infringement of your rights differently than ATN_Pilot. It is a very grey area of what an individual person's interpretation is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top