Why not? I mean you may like it that such weapons are not allowed, but that is besides the point. The point is that the ammendment says that this right shall not be infringed upon. Therefore, according to the ammendment, I do have every right to own such a weapon if I desire to do so.
Obey the law and that could be the furthest thing from you mind.
But that is the whole idea behind the ammendment. They wanted law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves from overbearing governments.
The rights to bear arms only go so far as to where they begin to endanger those beyond the self, at which point the rights of those around you begin to become infringed on.
I am not talking about shooting my neighbor, I am talking about the right to own the weapons of my choice.
For instance, you have the right to start a fire, but only if you are not taking an undo chance of setting your neighbor's home ablaze.
And I should have the right to own such weapons but not use them against my neighbor except in self-defense.
If you don't agree with this, then surely you must disagree with the entire "WMD" designation.
I assume that you are alluding to the situation in Iraq. Our constitution covers our citizenry and not those in other nations. The idea behind the 2nd ammendment was mainly to insure that we would not be taken over by a terranical government. Such was that case during the Civil War. No matter which side you took, you were fighting what you saw as a terranical government and thus the need for the use of your firearms.
I suppose you could make the arguement that a WMD by design covers such a large area that your American rights would be infringed upon. I am not sure where you live, but I can see how a WMD going off in my neighborhood could effect you. However, as we saw in the Davidian compound, the government can come after you and we have been weakened to the point of not being able to protect ourselves or our property and that was what the ammendment was meant to protect. It was another one of the checks and balances of government.Â
The point is that passing laws saying I can only own certain types of weapons, they have to be registered, I need a permit to conceal and carry if I am allowed to at all, etc., all in some way or another infringe on my right to own a weapon. The ammendment is clear that there shall be no infringement on this right at all.
It is actually a pretty well written ammendment in that it starts out explaining why you have the right, goes on to what the right is and ends with no laws infringing on that right. Nothing from the local, state or federal government should restrict me at all according to this ammendment. Now you may not wish for me to have certain weapons for whatever reason, but that is irrellevant to what the ammendment is clearly saying.
"Why not? I mean you may like it that such weapons are not allowed, but that is besides the point. The point is that the ammendment says that this right shall not be infringed upon. "
You have the right to acquire all the weapons you want. Just not those.
Rat: Obey the law and that could be the furthest thing from you mind.
Dan: But that is the whole idea behind the ammendment. They wanted law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves from overbearing governments."
"However, as we saw in the Davidian compound, the government can come after you...."
After you have killed four ATF agents and engaged in a lengthy gunbattle with law enforcement and holed up in a compound with women and children threatening mass suicide and God knows what else, yeah, the tyranncal bastards will come after you.
Saint David Koresh: Martyr of the Right!
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 06:53am.]
if the right was intend as only a group right, the wording would not have included "in order to". If the right was only given to a militia, it would have simply said "A militia may possess arms"
Point well taken; I surrender that argument.
I am not talking about shooting my neighbor, I am talking about the right to own the weapons of my choice.
So, you'd be OK with your drunken neighbor keeping a daisy-cutter bomb in his garage? It falls into the category of "arms," after all.
so, you think you have a right to own a nuclear warhead too?
The way that ammendment is worded, yes. I do not wish to have one and there is some really good reasons for me not to have one, but those reason should be addressed with another ammendment to our constitution. The way things are now, there is no constitutional reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have one though.
You have the right to acquire all the weapons you want. Just not those.
Does that statement not infringe in some way on my right to keep and bear whatever arms I wish to?
Then why doesn't it say that?
The part about the militia makes that point quite clearly.
Saint David Koresh: Martyr of the Right!
You are the only one calling him a saint. I just used that event as proof that they can come after you.
Tell me, why was the ATF there to begin with? Was it alcohol, tobbacco or firearms?
So, you'd be OK with your drunken neighbor keeping a daisy-cutter bomb in his garage? It falls into the category of "arms," after all.
As long as he doesn't use it against his neighbors for no reason, it would be his right in the 2nd ammendment. Not a good thing and maybe we should modify that ammendment with another to make such things illegal.
What do you see in the constitution to prevent the neighbor from having such a thing?
"Does that statement not infringe in some way on my right to keep and bear whatever arms I wish to?"
You have the right to keep and bear arms. Just not whatever you want.
"Tell me, why was the ATF there to begin with? Was it alcohol, tobbacco or firearms?"
Probably because he bought $40K worth of firearms and they were curious what he planned to do with them. But why they were there is really irrelevant. He should have complied instead of killing four of the agents.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 09:11am.]
The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
Pretty ambiguous
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.
You have the right to keep and bear arms. Just not whatever you want.
What part of the constitution places any restriction on what arms I can own?
Probably because he bought $40K worth of firearms and they were curious what he planned to do with them.
Does not the 2nd ammendment give him the right to own as many as he wishes? Perhaps he was worried that gov't officials would storm the compound.
Read what the damn thing says, not what you think it means.
A well regulated Militia,
Explains why we need the ammendment. We may need to call upon already trained people to help out the nation or state.
being necessary to the security of a free State,
Why would we need to call upon them? For our security.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nothing can keep me from owning as many arms as I wish and nothing can dictate what kinds of arms I own or limit that right in anyway. It is a right that cannot be infringed upon.
Now if society as a whole doesn't like this, there is ways to ammend the constitution to change it. As it stands, it is clear what the meaning is. This is backed by subsequent statements and writings of the founders as well.
What makes you so sure of their intent? Their words. There are a lot of resources including basic history. Face it jethro, you fish for meaning, quote snippits of text here and there without context and do the same damn thing. Not at all. The Constitution was drafted and it meant specific things. The people ratified it and expected it to be enforced within the parameters of their understanding of it. That is the only way that a republic can ever survive.
So what is actually said in the amendment, specifically, is meaningless to you?  The only way to determine what is actually written, if it is questionable, which often it is not, is to see what the people that wrote it and adopted were trying to accomplish.
Does this make the Constitution a "living" document, Dan? Open to statements outside the four corners on the sheet of paper on which it is written? No it does not make it a living document. It is simply trying to follow the rules, rules that were agreed to in a democratic manner.
Because that's not what I get from conservatives. They tell me that we're a rigid society governed exactly by what's written in the Constitution.
it is not a rigid society. However, the constitution is to rigidly limit the power of the federal government. it appears to me that you think the federal government and society are interchangeable terms. they are not.
JT, you're doing what Madison and many others rightly feared. The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
here is that idiotic crap again. the ninth amendment does not give the federal government any power regarding privacy. Any right to "privacy" is quite limited as set forth in the fourth amendment. furthermore, having a law on the books prohibiting abortion in no way infringes anyone's privacy. people would still be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. then of course the 10th amendment leaves all power not delegated by the constitution to the US or prohibited by it to the states to the states and the people. the justices on the supreme court had no authority to tell the states they could not prohibit abortion.
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.
there was no basis for that decision. The basis for the decisoin was quite well put: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Penumbra:
A partial shadow, as in an eclipse, between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination.
The grayish outer part of a sunspot.
An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree.
If the Court had, through the years, construed the Establishment Clause in accordance with the original understanding of the Framers, these pledge cases -- and similar cases -- would never have gotten off the ground.
The Establishment Clause was designed to prohibit the Establishment of a national religion or a national church. It was not intended to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state, nor prohibit all endorsements of religion by the federal government. And it was emphatically not intended to force government to be neutral between theism and atheism.
Beware of those who, like pieter and crabs, speciously champion the mythical separation of church and state in the name of religious liberty. All too often the result of their advocacy is the suppression, not the expansion of religious liberties.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 11:04am.]
what is a "weapon" is not the same now as it was then.
back then there was no such thing as a hand-held gun that could shoot dozens of people in a matter of a few seconds. Back then the idea of an atomic bomb in a suitcase wasn't conceivable.
that do not understand their job is not to make law.
actually, yes it is.
of course the system I (we, all of us) use has me (us) elect people to represent me (us) when doing it... but the theory is that we are the ones doing it. you too.
and when I manage to get one passed that you think is unjust, I would hope you would defy it.
what is a "weapon" is not the same now as it was then. You do know the Constitution can be amended, don't you?
back then there was no such thing as a hand-held gun that could shoot dozens of people in a matter of a few seconds. Back then the idea of an atomic bomb in a suitcase wasn't conceivable. And if enough people think it is a problem there is a method for changing it. I know that is to much trouble for you and your ilk.
Most of us here in Minnesota ARE members of the Minnesota Militia so I wouldn't use that as an argument in a right to bear arms.
190.06 Militia; members; exemptions.
   Subdivision 1.  Composition. The militia shall consist of:
   (1) all able-bodied citizens of the state and other able-bodied persons residing in the state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, when so authorized by federal law, who comply with the minimum age requirements for federal regular military service under United States Code, title 10, section 505, and who are not more than 45 years of age; provided, that the governor may, when the governor deems it necessary for the defense of the state, extend the maximum age for militia service to not more than 64 years; and
   (2) persons who enlist in, are commissioned in, or are otherwise appointed to the Minnesota National Guard in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation, including enlisted members, warrant officers, and commissioned officers.
   Subd. 2.  Classes. The militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The organized militia shall consist of the following:
   (1) the National Guard;
   (2) the State Guard, which shall comprise all organized components of the militia except the National Guard.
   The unorganized militia shall consist of all other members of the militia.
Prior to the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the courts were still largely populated with originalists, who properly rendered legal interpretation based on construction of the Constitution's "original intent." However, FDR grossly exceeded the Constitutional limits upon the authority of his office and that of the legislature in his folly to end The Great Depression (the latter falling victim to World War II -- not FDR's social and economic engineering). FDR's extra-constitutional exploits opened the door for the judiciary to follow the same path -- to read into the Constitution what was necessary to make it conform to the demands of the prevailing political will.
No actually it isn't. Their job is to decide cases under the law that is and was created by others. If you hadn't damaged your brain you could grasp that.
it's all our jobs to create our laws... it's that "democracy" thing you keep harping on. that a lawyers doesn't get this is awfully odd.
No actually it isn't. Their job is to decide cases under the law that is and was created by others. If you hadn't damaged your brain you could grasp that.
it's all our jobs to create our laws... it's that "democracy" thing you keep harping on. that a lawyers doesn't get this is awfully odd.
That you don't understand the role of judges means you need a remedial civics lesson.
No.
Why not? I mean you may like it that such weapons are not allowed, but that is besides the point. The point is that the ammendment says that this right shall not be infringed upon. Therefore, according to the ammendment, I do have every right to own such a weapon if I desire to do so.
Obey the law and that could be the furthest thing from you mind.
But that is the whole idea behind the ammendment. They wanted law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves from overbearing governments.
The rights to bear arms only go so far as to where they begin to endanger those beyond the self, at which point the rights of those around you begin to become infringed on.
I am not talking about shooting my neighbor, I am talking about the right to own the weapons of my choice.
For instance, you have the right to start a fire, but only if you are not taking an undo chance of setting your neighbor's home ablaze.
And I should have the right to own such weapons but not use them against my neighbor except in self-defense.
there comes a point where a weapon isn't about defense. If you don't agree with this, then surely you must disagree with the entire "WMD" designation.
If you don't agree with this, then surely you must disagree with the entire "WMD" designation.
I assume that you are alluding to the situation in Iraq. Our constitution covers our citizenry and not those in other nations. The idea behind the 2nd ammendment was mainly to insure that we would not be taken over by a terranical government. Such was that case during the Civil War. No matter which side you took, you were fighting what you saw as a terranical government and thus the need for the use of your firearms.
I suppose you could make the arguement that a WMD by design covers such a large area that your American rights would be infringed upon. I am not sure where you live, but I can see how a WMD going off in my neighborhood could effect you. However, as we saw in the Davidian compound, the government can come after you and we have been weakened to the point of not being able to protect ourselves or our property and that was what the ammendment was meant to protect. It was another one of the checks and balances of government.Â
The point is that passing laws saying I can only own certain types of weapons, they have to be registered, I need a permit to conceal and carry if I am allowed to at all, etc., all in some way or another infringe on my right to own a weapon. The ammendment is clear that there shall be no infringement on this right at all.
It is actually a pretty well written ammendment in that it starts out explaining why you have the right, goes on to what the right is and ends with no laws infringing on that right. Nothing from the local, state or federal government should restrict me at all according to this ammendment. Now you may not wish for me to have certain weapons for whatever reason, but that is irrellevant to what the ammendment is clearly saying.
[Edited by on Sep 15, 2005 at 08:40pm.]
not entirely, no.
actually I've always defended the 2nd even though I personally think owning a gun is stupid.
so, you think you have a right to own a nuclear warhead too?
Yawn
"Why not? I mean you may like it that such weapons are not allowed, but that is besides the point. The point is that the ammendment says that this right shall not be infringed upon. "
You have the right to acquire all the weapons you want. Just not those.
Rat: Obey the law and that could be the furthest thing from you mind.
Dan: But that is the whole idea behind the ammendment. They wanted law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves from overbearing governments."
Then why doesn't it say that?
"However, as we saw in the Davidian compound, the government can come after you...."
After you have killed four ATF agents and engaged in a lengthy gunbattle with law enforcement and holed up in a compound with women and children threatening mass suicide and God knows what else, yeah, the tyranncal bastards will come after you.
Saint David Koresh: Martyr of the Right!
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 06:53am.]
What a waste of our hard earned money.
Point well taken; I surrender that argument.
So, you'd be OK with your drunken neighbor keeping a daisy-cutter bomb in his garage? It falls into the category of "arms," after all.
so, you think you have a right to own a nuclear warhead too?
The way that ammendment is worded, yes. I do not wish to have one and there is some really good reasons for me not to have one, but those reason should be addressed with another ammendment to our constitution. The way things are now, there is no constitutional reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have one though.
You have the right to acquire all the weapons you want. Just not those.
Does that statement not infringe in some way on my right to keep and bear whatever arms I wish to?
Then why doesn't it say that?
The part about the militia makes that point quite clearly.
Saint David Koresh: Martyr of the Right!
You are the only one calling him a saint. I just used that event as proof that they can come after you.
Tell me, why was the ATF there to begin with? Was it alcohol, tobbacco or firearms?
Â
So, you'd be OK with your drunken neighbor keeping a daisy-cutter bomb in his garage? It falls into the category of "arms," after all.
As long as he doesn't use it against his neighbors for no reason, it would be his right in the 2nd ammendment. Not a good thing and maybe we should modify that ammendment with another to make such things illegal.
What do you see in the constitution to prevent the neighbor from having such a thing?
"Does that statement not infringe in some way on my right to keep and bear whatever arms I wish to?"
You have the right to keep and bear arms. Just not whatever you want.
"Tell me, why was the ATF there to begin with? Was it alcohol, tobbacco or firearms?"
Probably because he bought $40K worth of firearms and they were curious what he planned to do with them. But why they were there is really irrelevant. He should have complied instead of killing four of the agents.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 09:11am.]
"The part about the militia makes that point quite clearly."
It makes the part of about the militia clearly. They rest of the stuff about heavy-handed govt. is spin.
It says what it says. I assume you're a strict constructionist. Read what the damn thing says, not what you think it means.
Read what the damn thing says, not what you think it means.
You mean like the right to privacy?
We're debating another subject.
Shit, privacy isn't even mentioned.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 09:28am.]
"If you're going to be "Stict Constructionist" on one, you have to be on the other."
So do you.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
JT, you're doing what Madison and many others rightly feared. The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
pieter b 3/18/05 10:11am
[Edited by on Sep 16, 2005 at 09:31am.]
The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
Pretty ambiguous
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.
Nonsense
You have the right to keep and bear arms. Just not whatever you want.
What part of the constitution places any restriction on what arms I can own?
Probably because he bought $40K worth of firearms and they were curious what he planned to do with them.
Does not the 2nd ammendment give him the right to own as many as he wishes? Perhaps he was worried that gov't officials would storm the compound.
Read what the damn thing says, not what you think it means.
Explains why we need the ammendment. We may need to call upon already trained people to help out the nation or state.
Why would we need to call upon them? For our security.
Nothing can keep me from owning as many arms as I wish and nothing can dictate what kinds of arms I own or limit that right in anyway. It is a right that cannot be infringed upon.
Now if society as a whole doesn't like this, there is ways to ammend the constitution to change it. As it stands, it is clear what the meaning is. This is backed by subsequent statements and writings of the founders as well.
the people who wrote it couldn't have an intent concerning, say, fully automatic weapons. They had the intent for people to keep weapons.
the people who wrote it don't live in the world we live in today. True and the the people have the power to amend the Constitution.
What makes you so sure of their intent? Their words. There are a lot of resources including basic history. Face it jethro, you fish for meaning, quote snippits of text here and there without context and do the same damn thing. Not at all. The Constitution was drafted and it meant specific things. The people ratified it and expected it to be enforced within the parameters of their understanding of it. That is the only way that a republic can ever survive.
So what is actually said in the amendment, specifically, is meaningless to you?  The only way to determine what is actually written, if it is questionable, which often it is not, is to see what the people that wrote it and adopted were trying to accomplish.
Does this make the Constitution a "living" document, Dan? Open to statements outside the four corners on the sheet of paper on which it is written? No it does not make it a living document. It is simply trying to follow the rules, rules that were agreed to in a democratic manner.
It's pretty straightforward the way it is.
I agree with that but it is obvious that you don't know what straightforward means. You really need to get a dictionary.
The people at Ruby Ridge and the Davidians had comtempt for the law. Do you have contempt for the law, Dan?
Because that's not what I get from conservatives. They tell me that we're a rigid society governed exactly by what's written in the Constitution.
it is not a rigid society. However, the constitution is to rigidly limit the power of the federal government. it appears to me that you think the federal government and society are interchangeable terms. they are not.
JT, you're doing what Madison and many others rightly feared. The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
here is that idiotic crap again. the ninth amendment does not give the federal government any power regarding privacy. Any right to "privacy" is quite limited as set forth in the fourth amendment. furthermore, having a law on the books prohibiting abortion in no way infringes anyone's privacy. people would still be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. then of course the 10th amendment leaves all power not delegated by the constitution to the US or prohibited by it to the states to the states and the people. the justices on the supreme court had no authority to tell the states they could not prohibit abortion.
[Edited by on Sep 16, 2005 at 10:37am.]
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.
there was no basis for that decision. The basis for the decisoin was quite well put: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Penumbra:
What a crock of shit!
"There is good reasons to have contempt for the law."
Crabs alluded to that last night, too. Seems you two are on the same wavelength -- contempt for laws you don't agree with.
[Edited by on Sep 16, 2005 at 10:58am.]
If the Court had, through the years, construed the Establishment Clause in accordance with the original understanding of the Framers, these pledge cases -- and similar cases -- would never have gotten off the ground.
The Establishment Clause was designed to prohibit the Establishment of a national religion or a national church. It was not intended to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state, nor prohibit all endorsements of religion by the federal government. And it was emphatically not intended to force government to be neutral between theism and atheism.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050916.shtml
I really like the last paragraph:
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 16, 2005 at 11:04am.]
"There is good reasons to have contempt for the law."
Crabs alluded to that last night, too. Seems you two are on the same wavelength -- contempt for laws you don't agree with.
what is a "weapon" is not the same now as it was then.
back then there was no such thing as a hand-held gun that could shoot dozens of people in a matter of a few seconds. Back then the idea of an atomic bomb in a suitcase wasn't conceivable.
actually, yes it is.
of course the system I (we, all of us) use has me (us) elect people to represent me (us) when doing it... but the theory is that we are the ones doing it. you too.
and when I manage to get one passed that you think is unjust, I would hope you would defy it.
[Edited by molegrass on Sep 16, 2005 at 11:40am.]
what is a "weapon" is not the same now as it was then. You do know the Constitution can be amended, don't you?
back then there was no such thing as a hand-held gun that could shoot dozens of people in a matter of a few seconds. Back then the idea of an atomic bomb in a suitcase wasn't conceivable. And if enough people think it is a problem there is a method for changing it. I know that is to much trouble for you and your ilk.
Most of us here in Minnesota ARE members of the Minnesota Militia so I wouldn't use that as an argument in a right to bear arms.
190.06 Militia; members; exemptions.
   Subdivision 1.  Composition. The militia shall
consist of:
   (1)
all able-bodied citizens of the state and other
able-bodied persons residing in the state who have or shall have
declared their intention to become citizens of the United
States, when so authorized by federal law, who comply with the
minimum age requirements for federal regular military service
under United States Code, title 10, section 505, and who are not
more than 45 years of age; provided, that the governor may, when
the governor deems it necessary for the defense of the state,
extend the maximum age for militia service to not more than 64
years; and
   (2) persons who enlist in, are commissioned in, or are
otherwise appointed to the Minnesota National Guard in
accordance with applicable federal law and regulation, including
enlisted members, warrant officers, and commissioned officers.
   Subd. 2.  Classes. The militia shall be divided into
two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.Â
The organized militia shall consist of the following:
   (1) the National Guard;
   (2) the State Guard, which shall comprise all organized
components of the militia except the National Guard.
   The unorganized militia shall consist of all other members
of the militia.
Prior to the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the courts were still largely populated with originalists, who properly rendered legal interpretation based on construction of the Constitution's "original intent." However, FDR grossly exceeded the Constitutional limits upon the authority of his office and that of the legislature in his folly to end The Great Depression (the latter falling victim to World War II -- not FDR's social and economic engineering). FDR's extra-constitutional exploits opened the door for the judiciary to follow the same path -- to read into the Constitution what was necessary to make it conform to the demands of the prevailing political will.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20050916.shtml
it's all our jobs to create our laws... it's that "democracy" thing you keep harping on. that a lawyers doesn't get this is awfully odd.
What laws have you created then?
all of the ones that my representative lawmakers have made since I was of voting age.
you do understand that they work for us, right?
So it's your fault that we do all these evil things you are always harping on. Shame on you!
So crabweed created many of his so-called "unjust" drug laws now on the books.
LOL! You can't make this stuff up, folks!!
it's called taking responsibility for your government, warts and all.
See 9682, hypocrite. TFF!
see "you are a dumbass", Torpedo
[Edited by molegrass on Sep 17, 2005 at 11:19am.]
it's all our jobs to create our laws... it's that "democracy" thing you keep harping on. that a lawyers doesn't get this is awfully odd.
That you don't understand the role of judges means you need a remedial civics lesson.
it's called taking responsibility for your government, warts and all.
Judges are voters and part of "the people", aren't they?
Exactly how many of your "unjust" drug laws did you create since voting age, crabweed?
exactly how fucking stupid can you possibly be, Torpedo?