Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

I'm afraid it's not a misconception, but the predominant point od view of the law.

The Constitution does not give rights to the people. The people own all the rights and give certain rights to the federal government. Whatever they don't is retained by them. The amendments were added to make sure that the government could not use its granted powers to curtail certain rights. Each amendment has to be looked at as a whole. Most of the amendments, for example the 1st, have no limitations on their proscriptions, but the second does. And it's important enough to come before the proscription itself. You are allowed to own and bear arms forthe prupose of supporting a strong militia.

If there's anyting we need to be conservative about it's the Constitution (lately, we seem to have forgotten that). Until the Constitution is amended, the 2nd amendment has the militia provision, and you can't ignore it. It says what it says and nothing LESS.

Which is more or less what we are doing, because the national guard is run by the government it takes the protection of the people out of the hands of the people, thus negating the purpose of a militia all together. Thats why I dont understand the counter arguement that we have the national guard so we have to be armed, we have seen how the national guard has been used time and time to oppress our people.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

The reason we have free speech is because we cannot be silenced and have the ability to forcefully defend our position.

The reason we still have free speech is because of those that were willing to die for for it, whether or not they owned guns, but I agree they also fought for the other rights.

I think someone who burns our flag should only be able to do so if they are wrapped up in the flag at the time

What I find ironic is how some people who get so excited about the flag are willing to see the Constitution trampled. You and I pledge allegiance to the flag, but our leaders pledge to protect and defend the Constitution, and I'm appalled at some of the things that our government has been doing lately. It's a lot worse than burning the flag.

I have no problem with those who hate guns and never want to own one, but please dont try and take them away from me

And I feel the same way about other things people do, like trying to legislate their idea of morality or religion.

Just remember us gun owners, or many of us at least would be proud to die defending our rights.

And I would be proud to die defending the rest of our rights.

Until the Constitution is amended, the 2nd amendment has the militia provision, and you can't ignore it. It says what it says and nothing LESS.

Well, that was certainly delivered with confidence and authority. Except, it is still just another opinion. I really hope that when the time comes to decide what it really means that you are the one that is wrong.

Think there is a difference between a militia and a government operated standing army? just a thought.

As for the argument for or against gun ownership, I think new coverage of the recent release of the PS3 can aptly prove, discredit, make, counter, solidify or render moot every point put forth in this thread so far.

You are absolutely 100% correct. And there you have it... ban PS3's and it eliminates every single one of those multiple problems you brought to our attention.

Wow, this discussion has strayed far from the original topic.

The biggest problem I see with the stricter interpretations of the militia clause has to do with the way in which the Constitution enumerates rights. The Constitution grants the government a limited set of powers, and all other powers not specifically given to the government are retained by the state governments the people. Now, as to rights, the idea is similar. The rights listed in the Constitution are not granted to the people; rather, this is simply a recognition of the people's pre-existing rights, reminding the government to keep its mitts off.

That's a critical difference. The Constitution does not grant the right to free speech. It simply affirms that you already have it. Same with search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and keeping and bearing arms.

Feng Li...

The variance in topic is probably my fault as this is what I said in the first post:

Seems like "debatable" threads always get a share of gun ownership being mentioned when they have nothing to do with the original topic. Well, everyone can get it out of their system now. Let's do all of them. Guns, politics, and abortion. Let's see how long it stays civil.

In the meantime, has anyone changed their mind about gun ownership from when the thread first started?

Not even one?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I really don't get the whole Guantanamo thing. They were caught bering arms against the soldiers of the US while acting for the losing side in a war. They are for sure Guilty of that and it is quite often fatal, no trial needed.

Why so many of them were brought over her I don't know they should either be shot or let go not debated over and certanly not given the same rights as a citizen.

I'm sorry, you're misinformed. There has not yet been a successful conviction out of thousands of prisoners.

What I think he is talking about is the new law. It allows habeas copus to be suspended and permits certain acts that were previously considered torture. But there's no need to worry about it. If a court doesn't hold it unconstitutional soon, the next Congress will take care of it.

Ah, right. 30 pages later, I must have forgotten about that... :-)

It's been my experience that single instances of discussion don't change people's minds about this; it's a very gradual process, which is why it's so important to keep having the discussion.

What I have seen convert people instantly is a trip to the range. I think so much of the anti-gun position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding (primarily the result of TV, movies, and other media), of what guns are and how they function. Actually being taught to fire a gun is the best means of corrective education, and also promotes the (regretfully, oft-neglected) safety aspect.

Originally Posted by dylandog

If the Founders knew that Americans in the 21st century were debating whether a man has the right to be armed and protected against the criminal element (what they'd have called brigands and bandits) they'd think we were nuts. They'd probably agree with Bill that only a dreamily naive pansy-ass would say otherwise. But they wouldn't understand what any of this has to do with the 2nd amendment. The right of home- and self-defense has its roots in English common law, not the American constitution.

That's absolutely right. The 2nd amendment is focused on militia, because they would never questioned that you had a right to own and use guns as an individual. Their lives depended on it every day. That's why the Constitution only mentions use for militia.

So, the 2nd amendment does protect your right to own and use arms, just not for the reason you think.

I'm sorry, you're misinformed. There has not yet been a successful conviction out of thousands of prisoners.

Hmm... any of them being prosecuted for anything yet?

Joe... can't remember your area of expertise as an attorney. Is it criminal law or accounting/real estate?

because they would never questioned that you had a right to own and use guns as an individual. Their lives depended on it every day.

Now we're talkin'... I like that part