The 2nd Amendment

[spartan]

OK, let's try and clear things up then. What is it you are arguing for or against?

[Dolorous Jason]

As long as I am breaking no laws and harming no innocent people with that gun , what right do you have under the constitution ( as it was originally intended ) to write a federal law that tells me no ?

You have no right , so piss off.

The Supreme Court, the body entrusted by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning, disagrees. But of course, no one was arguing against this, right Luminous?

No where in that quote did I say the Feds and thier activist judges didn't recently rule themselves the power to regulate guns. I simply said I don't agree with the ruling. Under original intent the Feds had no power to make gun laws of any sort. The states were free too , but not the feds. The bill of rights was never originally meant to be incorporated. It was a restriction against the federal government and that is all.

"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
Interpretations change all the time , and usually to fit what ever the current activist judges believe will push thier current agendas .


Comrade is confused. He doesn't understand why illum is right when he says he is arguing against a point no one made , and now he is getting angry again .

[Chief Joseph]

Its like he went through the thread and dredged up every disproven argument he could find and just presented them over again. Is there anyone here that hasn't learned their lesson by now and wants to throw more of their time into The Black Hole? Certainly not me.

[Dolorous Jason]

Its like he went through the thread and dredged up every disproven argument he could find and just presented them over again. Is there anyone here that hasn't learned their lesson by now and wants to throw more of their time into The Black Hole? Certainly not me.

LOL. He truly is a collossal waste of time.

[Durango 95]

He's gone over the edge. I called him out as intellectually dishonest a couple of years ago. Nothing's changed.

At this point the kid gives me a headache. The same crap over and over and over.

[Dolorous Jason]

...and just to further shut up this clown's ridiculous claim that the right to bear arms was never viewed by the founders as a means to throw off unwanted government.

From James Madison ( Author of the Constitution ). The Federalist Papers #46:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the su**CENSORED**ion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

This black hole may consume all common sense that enters it's vortex , but it can't re-write history.

[spartan]

Nice Post Jason. I am sure certain half sentences could be picked apart, but the overall direction, tone and intent of the paragraph is clear and incisive. The intent of a militia is to resist tyranny, from wherever it arises, and what's most, militias would not exist if Americans were not already armed and willing to serve.

[CBWx2]

OK, let's try and clear things up then. What is it you are arguing for or against?

The underlying message, stop hiding behind the 2nd amendment to justify your opposition to stricter gun laws. There is no Constitutional basis for it, whatsoever. If you want to keep irresponsible and reckless gun laws in effect just to satiate your desire to own as many of them as you want, then say that. Leave the Constitution out of it. You are only using it to justify your position because without it, you have no tenable argument.

[CBWx2]

Question for you Dolorous Jason, and I even used your real name as not to make this about an attack, but rather to get a serious answer from you, or you too spartan, if you wish to answer. If the Articles of Confederation were deemed to be a sufficient enough document for which to form a lasting form of central governance, why was it replaced by the US Constitution?

[CBWx2]

He's gone over the edge. I called him out as intellectually dishonest a couple of years ago. Nothing's changed.

At this point the kid gives me a headache. The same crap over and over and over.

Hey (cbwx2)

I'll be the first one to tell you that I let some of this stuff get the best of me. But as you say, sometimes it just goes beyond the point of rationality. I really need to hand it to you, your patience is just amazing!! I'm not sure if i have ever seen a forum with such a slanted political point of view. I'm thinking about giving up on the place altogether. I appreciate your posts, I feel as if you're the only one to provide a sense of rationality and perspective on here.

(Durango95)

[olafberserker]

He's gone over the edge. I called him out as intellectually dishonest a couple of years ago. Nothing's changed.

At this point the kid gives me a headache. The same crap over and over and over.

Hey (cbwx2)

I'll be the first one to tell you that I let some of this stuff get the best of me. But as you say, sometimes it just goes beyond the point of rationality. I really need to hand it to you, your patience is just amazing!! I'm not sure if i have ever seen a forum with such a slanted political point of view. I'm thinking about giving up on the place altogether. I appreciate your posts, I feel as if you're the only one to provide a sense of rationality and perspective on here.

(Durango95)

lol, not sure which is funnier.  the fact that you have pushed durango to realize how wrong he was or the fact that it took him this long ......

[spartan]

OK, let's try and clear things up then. What is it you are arguing for or against?

The underlying message, stop hiding behind the 2nd amendment to justify your opposition to stricter gun laws. There is no Constitutional basis for it, whatsoever. If you want to keep irresponsible and reckless gun laws in effect just to satiate your desire to own as many of them as you want, then say that. Leave the Constitution out of it. You are only using it to justify your position because without it, you have no tenable argument.

Fine, here is my stance.

You cannot stop me from owning a firearm as per the 2nd amendment. I can own as many guns and as much ammo as I want under current law. I am also well aware law can change and there is nothing under the Constitution that prevents the regulation of the ownership, sale or purchase of firearms or ammo, unless those laws and regulations make it nigh on impossible to own a gun. I will also fight you on laws I don't like. You do not think owning an ar-15 LIKE weapon is a good thing. I don't give a crap because I do.  Not only do I like them but for me, they serve a useful purpose.

What I like and what I want to do is protected under the 2nd Amendment and the laws that are currently on the statute books. I don't care what you think the 2nd Amendment meant, intended or is translated as; All I care is what the Surpreme court says, and at this time it is on my side. That may change, but until then **CENSORED** you and the horse you rode in on.

Oh, and for the record, all this "Military type/assault weapons" crap? The Military would reject anything that is on the market for civilian use in a heartbeat. There is nothing on the civilianmarket the military would even so much as look at. 

[spartan]

He's gone over the edge. I called him out as intellectually dishonest a couple of years ago. Nothing's changed.

At this point the kid gives me a headache. The same crap over and over and over.

Hey (cbwx2)

I'll be the first one to tell you that I let some of this stuff get the best of me. But as you say, sometimes it just goes beyond the point of rationality. I really need to hand it to you, your patience is just amazing!! I'm not sure if i have ever seen a forum with such a slanted political point of view. I'm thinking about giving up on the place altogether. I appreciate your posts, I feel as if you're the only one to provide a sense of rationality and perspective on here.

(Durango95)

He evolved.

[Durango 95]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

[spartan]

Question for you Dolorous Jason, and I even used your real name as not to make this about an attack, but rather to get a serious answer from you, or you too spartan, if you wish to answer. If the Articles of Confederation were deemed to be a sufficient enough document for which to form a lasting form of central governance, why was it replaced by the US Constitution?

That is a whole new conversation which I believe ought to be in another thread should you want to move forward with it. To be honest it is not something that I have given a whole lot of thought to. In fact I am pretty confident I haven't read them, at least not front to back. My recollection is that the Articles treated each colony as a seperate country, working loosely with the other "countries" (aka colonies) but the Revolutionary War taught them live together or die together. Hence the Constitution. Again, I want to point out that is an understanding and could be totally wrong.