Who's Right?

[Bithabus]

Some people want to imply that the 2nd cannot be restricted AT ALL. Then those same folks will tell you when it should be restricted.

This isn't necessarily inconsistent. For example, I believe the 2a is (and was intended to be) an absolute but I also believe nuclear arms should be closely controlled. At the same time I recognize denying citizens the right to keep and bear nuclear arms is currently a violation of our rights. The solution is a Constitutional amendment stating explicitly that only weapons of mass destruction can be restricted, and specifically defining what "weapons of mass destruction" means.

 

[TheDan]

If I am convicted of a crime, pay my debt and am released, what other rights do I forfeit?
Do you think that a 12 year old should be allowed to carry a handgun to school? How about a person who has been diagnosed with a severe mental disease?

I'm of the opinion that after a convicted criminal has "paid their debt", they should have all rights restored. How they should pay their debt is another matter. It is a forfeiture of rights because they willingly committed a crime that they knew would result in rights being removed if they are convicted.

I don't have a problem with a 12yo being allowed to carry a handgun. They are not an adult, however, and the parents should be the only people that are allowed to make that call. The parents should also share the responsibility of the child's actions. If someone has a severe enough mental disease, they will have a legal guardian or be a ward of the state. In cases like that, they are the same as children. The legal guardian has the authority and responsibility over them.

Got anymore "what if's"? Keep fishing for your reasonable restrictions, lol...

 

[APatriot]

I believe I own tools!!

 

[MR Redneck]

I'm of the opinion that after a convicted criminal has "paid their debt", they should have all rights restored. How they should pay their debt is another matter. It is a forfeiture of rights because they willingly committed a crime that they knew would result in rights being removed if they are convicted.

I don't have a problem with a 12yo being allowed to carry a handgun. They are not an adult, however, and the parents should be the only people that are allowed to make that call. The parents should also share the responsibility of the child's actions. If someone has a severe enough mental disease, they will have a legal guardian or be a ward of the state. In cases like that, they are the same as children. The legal guardian has the authority and responsibility over them.

Got anymore "what if's"? Keep fishing for your reasonable restrictions, lol...

Dan! This is not " What if's"!!!
What you just mentioned already exist. This 12 year olds carrying guns stuff is legal in Arizona. Last time I was there I saw a pretty lady carrying a open gun and so was here little 7 or 8 year old daughter. I just grinned.
Convicted Criminals can also get their rights back. I have a friend who is a convicted criminal who has 2 CHL's, Full auto weapons and AOW's..
The felons getting their rights back is pretty hard for me to support, but like in my friends case he did his time, payed his debt and proved he wasnt a threat to anyone. Now if you ask me should a child molester have his rights back, I would have to say they should have been killed for doing what they did!
Nonviolent crimes are a different subject. People can go through the courts and get their rights back.

 

[M. Sage]

"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
Think about this quote when considering Bithabus's argument. Speech is only restricted in instances where it can effect another person's rights. It's not possible to keep arms in a manner that would effect another person's rights. Bearing an arm at someone might effect another person's rights, but that's why we have laws against brandishing.

This is honestly the only reasonable restriction one can place on rights. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.

Again Students, there has been absolutely no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.

Way to change the argument. I thought we were discussing original intent. Most judges are political appointees (i.e.: whores) who can't get a decision right on Constitutional grounds.

The 2A bars federal action, and does not extend to the states. The SCOTUS has only "affirmed" individual protection only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

Where the hell have you been for the past four years? Heller v. DC's decision states very clearly that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals absent any militia or military service. More recently, McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment through the 14th. SCOTUS even agrees: the 2A applies to states and localities. Now if they could only figure out what the 2A really means....

Again, allow me to repeat the words of the 2A: "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".

And nowhere does it say "congress" or refer to the federal government. I'll ask you again: Do you think it's Constitutional for states and localities to pass laws that allow them to do things like search without warrants? It's not any different, if you argue it is you're being dishonest.

Again, the states can opt for either a "liberal" or "conservative" definition of the 2A. This position by the SCOTUS is exactly why the permission OR prohibition of OC, for example, has not been challenged in the courts! This is exactly why some gun laws vary state to state. It is the political infrastructure, not the courts, where the fight for, or against, OC must take place.

OC hasn't been challenged in the courts yet. First step was Heller; getting the SCOTUS to recognize that the 2A applies to individuals independent of militia or military activities. The second was McDonald, to have it recognized that the 2A applies to the states and localities. Next we (oops, did I just say "we"? I didn't just mean that as "us gun owners".) go after stupid laws and regulations like bans on OC. But first we'll be hammering stupid crap that states like NY and CA do to people.

I know the strategy and what the five year plan is because I know the people who made and are implementing that plan. You want to treat me like I'm some dumbass yokel who thinks he's an activist because he's got an NRA card in his wallet? Think again, yokel.

From time to time, I see amateurs like you vault themselves into the spotlight and try their hand at activism or court action and I wince. People who take action with your "I know everything!" attitude and lack of real knowledge and experience have set us back in the past and will again in the future. I strongly suggest you step off to the side, keep paying your NRA dues (they actually do help) and limit yourself to "rah rah rah! Go our team!" for the time being.

You can have any opinion you wish, even if such an opinion is based on meager attempts to compound discussion of the 2A with other amendments.

Really? You don't see why I did that? First you bring up original intent and deny that there was any intent that such an Amendment would apply to the states, when I use evidence and reason to back my counter argument, you just throw it out?

Something isn't right here. Are you a liberal?

Opinion must to Knowledge.

Then I strongly suggest you go get yourself some of that knowledge you speak of. Your opinions are weak and are not backed up by the plain facts.

 

[MR Redneck]

I believe I own tools!!

First you mention pro gun movement and the lack of, now you changed it to owning tools.
I lack neither, I just simply dont post everything that im doing.
So far what you claim your going to teach is nothing but BS.

 

[M. Sage]

That is where the fallacy in this thread lies. Some people want to imply that the 2nd cannot be restricted AT ALL. Then those same folks will tell you when it should be restricted. Some admit the conflict, others try to hide it by calling it something else. Like a forfeiture.

Obviously nothing exists without restriction. There always will be, and sometimes there really should be restrictions. The real question should be "what is reasonable?"

We have to look at the Founders and their intent behind the 2A to decide that.

 

[APatriot]

First you mention pro gun movement and the lack of, now you changed it to owning tools.
I lack neither, I just simply dont post everything that im doing.
So far what you claim your going to teach is nothing but BS.

The Progressives think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are BS too. Hey, stick to your opinions. When you can provide an intellectual response to the arguments I have set forth concerning the 2A, individual rights vs. states rights, please respond. Your constant platitudes and general statements do not provide substance, particularly in regard to "depth". But, you are not alone. Ignorance of our Founding is rampant throughout our society. The statists and their "tools" have done a good job, but "their gig is up".

 

[MR Redneck]

The progressives think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are BS too. Hey, stick to your opinions. When you can provide an intellectual response to the arguments I have set forth concerning the 2A, individual rights vs. states rights, please respond. Your constant platitudes and general statements do not provide substance, particularly in regard to "depth". But, then you are not alone. Ignorance of our Founding is rampant throughout our society. The statists and their "tools" have done a good job, but "their gig is up". It is just the way it is.

Go back a read my original post. That will teach you how to argue what the founding intellectuals intended for us to define the 2A with.
You argument are nothing more than opinions. Show some facts! Facts are original Text!
When I look to define the meaning behind the original intent our founding father had, I look for their opinion, not yours. I posted this thread to simply share my methodologies in attempt to end debate, not create it.
The messages our founding farthers wrote are also our directions.

 

[APatriot]

This is honestly the only reasonable restriction one can place on rights. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.



Way to change the argument. I thought we were discussing original intent. Most judges are political appointees (i.e.: whores) who can't get a decision right on Constitutional grounds.



Where the hell have you been for the past four years? Heller v. DC's decision states very clearly that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals absent any militia or military service. More recently, McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment through the 14th. SCOTUS even agrees: the 2A applies to states and localities. Now if they could only figure out what the 2A really means....



And nowhere does it say "congress" or refer to the federal government. I'll ask you again: Do you think it's Constitutional for states and localities to pass laws that allow them to do things like search without warrants? It's not any different, if you argue it is you're being dishonest.



OC hasn't been challenged in the courts yet. First step was Heller; getting the SCOTUS to recognize that the 2A applies to individuals independent of militia or military activities. The second was McDonald, to have it recognized that the 2A applies to the states and localities. Next we (oops, did I just say "we"? I didn't just mean that as "us gun owners".) go after stupid laws and regulations like bans on OC. But first we'll be hammering stupid crap that states like NY and CA do to people.

I know the strategy and what the five year plan is because I know the people who made and are implementing that plan. You want to treat me like I'm some dumbass yokel who thinks he's an activist because he's got an NRA card in his wallet? Think again, yokel.

From time to time, I see amateurs like you vault themselves into the spotlight and try their hand at activism or court action and I wince. People who take action with your "I know everything!" attitude and lack of real knowledge and experience have set us back in the past and will again in the future. I strongly suggest you step off to the side, keep paying your NRA dues (they actually do help) and limit yourself to "rah rah rah! Go our team!" for the time being.



Really? You don't see why I did that? First you bring up original intent and deny that there was any intent that such an Amendment would apply to the states, when I use evidence and reason to back my counter argument, you just throw it out?

Something isn't right here. Are you a liberal?



Then I strongly suggest you go get yourself some of that knowledge you speak of. Your opinions are weak and are not backed up by the plain facts.

Of course the Heller case clearly provided individual's the right to possess firearms for self-defense and in-the-home within federal environments, but beneath the umbrella of the original intent of the Founders in regard to citizen militia. SCOTUS used this umbrella thankfully to broaden individual rights within "federal enclaves".

In regard to originality with the Founders, fear of a centralized tyranny by a central government was the Founders concern, therefore the 2A was in regard to counterbalancing federal power. States rights in regard to the 2A was not part of the original intent of our Founders. As to McDonald, the SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to make their case. The original intent of the 2A was insufficient alone, therefore substantiates my case original intent of the Founders did not include states. I don't argue such a decision by SCOTUS was wrong, just that the original intent of our Founders did not include the 2A to apply to states.

I am all for individual gun rights. I just argue with those who singularly use the 2A beyond the Founders original intent to support their opinions of what they think the 2A should mean. In other words, Heller and McDonald are good law, and they expand our individual liberties. However, they were needed because the 2A standing alone was insufficient simply because of the narrow view of our Founders (no fault of their own) when the 2A was constructed.

I know. I am a tough and smart SOB. You are experiencing this scenario. Enjoy.

 

[Texan2]

This is honestly the only reasonable restriction one can place on rights. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.



Way to change the argument. I thought we were discussing original intent. Most judges are political appointees (i.e.: whores) who can't get a decision right on Constitutional grounds.



Where the hell have you been for the past four years? Heller v. DC's decision states very clearly that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals absent any militia or military service. More recently, McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment through the 14th. SCOTUS even agrees: the 2A applies to states and localities. Now if they could only figure out what the 2A really means....



And nowhere does it say "congress" or refer to the federal government. I'll ask you again: Do you think it's Constitutional for states and localities to pass laws that allow them to do things like search without warrants? It's not any different, if you argue it is you're being dishonest.



OC hasn't been challenged in the courts yet. First step was Heller; getting the SCOTUS to recognize that the 2A applies to individuals independent of militia or military activities. The second was McDonald, to have it recognized that the 2A applies to the states and localities. Next we (oops, did I just say "we"? I didn't just mean that as "us gun owners".) go after stupid laws and regulations like bans on OC. But first we'll be hammering stupid crap that states like NY and CA do to people.

I know the strategy and what the five year plan is because I know the people who made and are implementing that plan. You want to treat me like I'm some dumbass yokel who thinks he's an activist because he's got an NRA card in his wallet? Think again, yokel.

From time to time, I see amateurs like you vault themselves into the spotlight and try their hand at activism or court action and I wince. People who take action with your "I know everything!" attitude and lack of real knowledge and experience have set us back in the past and will again in the future. I strongly suggest you step off to the side, keep paying your NRA dues (they actually do help) and limit yourself to "rah rah rah! Go our team!" for the time being.



Really? You don't see why I did that? First you bring up original intent and deny that there was any intent that such an Amendment would apply to the states, when I use evidence and reason to back my counter argument, you just throw it out?

Something isn't right here. Are you a liberal?



Then I strongly suggest you go get yourself some of that knowledge you speak of. Your opinions are weak and are not backed up by the plain facts.

I was so waiting for a response to this post....

 

[Renegade]

.....

 

[APatriot]

I was so waiting for a response to this post....

Frankly it was easy, but then you wouldn't really know what that is about.

 

[Texan2]

in many cases I do rely on others....i have no problem admitting that. although I am not sure what that has to do with this thread.

 

[APatriot]

in many cases I do rely on others....i have no problem admitting that. although I am not sure what that has to do with this thread.

Of course you don't. Lol.

 

[MR Redneck]

Of course the Heller case clearly provided individual's the right to possess firearms for self-defense and in-the-home within federal environments, but beneath the umbrella of the original intent of the Founders in regard to citizen militia. SCOTUS used this umbrella thankfully to broaden individual rights.

In regard to originality with the Founders, fear of a centralized tyranny by a central government was the Founders concern, therefore the 2A was in regard to counterbalancing federal power. States rights in regard to the 2A was not part of the original intent of our Founders. As to MacDonald, the SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to make their case. The original intent of the 2A was insufficient alone, therefore substantiates my case original intent of the Founders did not include states. I don't argue such a decision by SCOTUS was wrong, just that the original intent of our Founders did not include the 2A to apply to states.

I know. I am a tough and smart SOB. You are experiencing this scenario. Enjoy.

Tough and smart? Oh Brother!
Firts, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 to enforce Constitutional Rights for Freedmen! The 14th amendment was forced on the States and states must comply. The 14th amendment had everything to do with the 2nd amendment during post civil war Texas!
This shit is all in Baylor Law Archives! You claim to be a Baylor law student so get the shit right buddy. I study Texas law history to gain knowledge, not a title.
The 2nd amendment is as enforcable on the state level as the 14th amendment is. All United States Constitutional Amendment Apply to the States. If they didnt do you think women would get to vote? Do you think black people would be ridding on the front seat of buses?
The problem with gun right at the state level is the people we have all been depending on to protect them. People in Texas and everywhere else make money everyday off your 2nd amendment rights!
Look at what has happened in Arizona in the past 5 year. The AzCDL was established as a nonprofit organization. A few guy's were sick and tired of liberal laws trashing up their rights so they decided to form a citiense defense league. None of the memeber make a dime off the organization , neither do the lobbyist!
Within 5 years Arizona amendend nearly all of the BS and is now a Constitutional Carry State!
When people get involve with their right at the state level, they will have Constitutional Rights at the state level.
I visit with Texas Repersentative from all over the state nearly everyday. What I say is true and what im doing will soon show results!

 

[APatriot]

Tough and smart? Oh Brother!
Firts, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 to enforce Constitutional Rights for Freedmen! The 14th amendment was forced on the States and states must comply. The 14th amendment had everything to do with the 2nd amendment during post civil war Texas!
This shit is all in Baylor Law Archives! You claim to be a Baylor law student so get the shit right buddy. I study Texas law history to gain knowledge, not a title.
The 2nd amendment is as enforcable on the state level as the 14th amendment is. All United States Constitutional Amendment Apply to the States. If they didnt do you think women would get to vote? Do you think black people would be ridding on the front seat of buses?
The problem with gun right at the state level is the people we have all been depending on to protect them. People in Texas and everywhere else make money everyday off your 2nd amendment rights!
Look at what has happened in Arizona in the past 5 year. The AzCDL was established as a nonprofit organization. A few guy's were sick and tired of liberal laws trashing up their rights so they decided to form a citiense defense league. None of the memeber make a dime off the organization , neither do the lobbyist!
Within 5 years Arizona amendend nearly all of the BS and is now a Constitutional Carry State!
When people get involve with their right at the state level, they will have Constitutional Rights at the state level.
I visit with Texas Repersentative from all over the state nearly everyday. What I say is true and what im doing will soon show results!

You appear to be a "scatter brain". Within the context of my post I stated the 14th amendment was used by SCOTUS as support to the 2A in deciding the McDonald case in 2A application to the states, because it was obvious the 2A could not stand alone. Why? Because it was not the original intent of the Founders that the 2A apply to states. Dude, seriously, you just spew "stuff" outside of any context whatsoever. Give the "google" button a rest.

 

[MR Redneck]

You appear to be a "scatter brain". Within the context of my post I stated the 14th amendment was used by SCOTUS as support to the 2A in deciding the McDonald case, because it was obvious the 2A could not stand alone. Dude, seriously, you just spew "stuff" outside of any context whatsoever. Give the "google" button a rest.

Your talkin in favor of restricting the 2nd amendment. Know the subject before you blabber off next time.
Restricting the 2nd amendment at the state level is no different than restricting peoples right to vote at the state level or restricting the right of a person to ride the front seat of a bus at the state level.
Seriously, Dude,how did you ever get into Baylor if you cant even follow the subject text of a Redneck?

 

[APatriot]

Your talkin in favor of restricting the 2nd amendment. Know the subject before you blabber off next time.
Restricting the 2nd amendment at the state level is no different than restricting peoples right to vote at the state level or restricting the right of a person to ride the front seat of a bus at the state level.
Seriously, Dude,how did you ever get into Baylor if you cant even follow the subject text of a Redneck?

Again, I am not restricting anything. Where have I argued restricting the 2A? Try to retain what you read. For example, I didn't go to Baylor. I informed you my son is a student at Baylor. I am an MBA from the University of Southern California.

 

[M. Sage]

LOL, USC. That explains his debate style...

You appear to be a "scatter brain". Within the context of my post I stated the 14th amendment was used by SCOTUS as support to the 2A in deciding the McDonald case in 2A application to the states, because it was obvious the 2A could not stand alone. Why? Because it was not the original intent of the Founders that the 2A apply to states. Dude, seriously, you just spew "stuff" outside of any context whatsoever. Give the "google" button a rest.

... you mean that McDonald case that you forgot about earlier?