The 2nd Amendment

[Durango 95]

Oh, so you agree that expanded gun rights have lead to more violence? And you support them anyway? Wow. I didn't think you'd make it that easy.

You could only come to that conclusion by purposely ignoring the premise of your own argument.

[Durango 95]

I smell the last few fumes of pig sh*t in every response he musters.

On the one hand he claims that all he wants is to do is moderate the gun laws just a bit and that if his few changes are made that will provide the bliss he needs in his self admitted socialist heart. 

Then on the other hand he's spent weeks trying to rationalize how the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what everyone thinks it does. That it has a different meaning than what we all realize. That it has no place in today's world.

Uh huh....Does the term a pig in poke sound familiar?

[Dolorous Jason]

His arguments may suck , but don't let that discourage you.  It's still all just one big collectivist party to Comrade CBW. 



Leave your guns at the door.

[Bayfisher]

Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer's Account, Company Owner Claims
“After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review -- her exact words were -- ‘We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.’”(emphasis added)

McMillan Group International was reportedly told that its business was no longer welcome after the company started manufacturing firearms – even after 12 years of doing business with the bank.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/bank-america-freezes-gun-manufacturers-account-company-owner-claims

[tripblood]

[Durango 95]

Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer's Account, Company Owner Claims
“After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review -- her exact words were -- ‘We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.’”(emphasis added)

McMillan Group International was reportedly told that its business was no longer welcome after the company started manufacturing firearms – even after 12 years of doing business with the bank.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/bank-america-freezes-gun-manufacturers-account-company-owner-claims

Hmm that's kind of strange. The owner of the company says that his sales have increased by 500% and the bank froze his account? Seems counter to what a bank is in business to do. When a bank freezes an account it quite often means there is fraud or litigation involved. They're obviously motivated to grow deposits as much as possible. Seems like we are not being told the whole story. The explanation he said he was offered on why they froze it seems a bit dubious as well.

[VinBucFan]

The 2nd Amendment says was the current US Supreme Court says it says. The current US Supreme Court -- one of the most conservative courts in recent history -- did no favors for gun advocates. A sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a TOTAL gun ban as unconstitutional, BUT  the small majority went on to then point out the LIMITATIONS to the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

The Court then went on to reiterate that the right is limited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If you read the decision, you would not feel good about your continued ability to own assault rifles and other weapons whose only purpose is to kill on a large scale.  Gun advocates do not have a close ally in the most conservative Court in recent history, a court that could only gather the smallest majority to strike down nothing other than an outright total ban.

Here's the decision for anyone that wants to know the actual state of the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[tripblood]

What about flamethrowers?


Hell ya

[Bayfisher]

Forget the napalm.  You need one of these car alarms. This is what you need when you have no way of defending yourself. Forward!

[CBWx2]

The 2nd Amendment says was the current US Supreme Court says it says. The current US Supreme Court -- one of the most conservative courts in recent history -- did no favors for gun advocates. A sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a TOTAL gun ban as unconstitutional, BUT  the small majority went on to then point out the LIMITATIONS to the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

The Court then went on to reiterate that the right is limited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If you read the decision, you would not feel good about your continued ability to own assault rifles and other weapons whose only purpose is to kill on a large scale.  Gun advocates do not have a close ally in the most conservative Court in recent history, a court that could only gather the smallest majority to strike down nothing other than an outright total ban.

Here's the decision for anyone that wants to know the actual state of the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

This is basically the point I was making that dumb and dumber can't seem to grasp. The 2nd amendment grants the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. That is the actual liberty afforded.

The perceived liberty that they are claiming is "fundemental" is only so in their minds, and that is the perceived liberty to own as many guns of any and every caliber and as much ammunition as you desire without the government being able to monitor or regulate it so that they are sufficiently armed to overthrow the US government whenever they see fit.

No where in this thread or any other have I held any position in opposition to the liberty granted in the 2nd amendment. So I can only assume that they either don't know what the 2nd amendment actually says, or they do, and are just being dishonest about it for the sake of political expediency. At this point, neither would surprise me.

[Durango 95]

The 2nd Amendment says was the current US Supreme Court says it says. The current US Supreme Court -- one of the most conservative courts in recent history -- did no favors for gun advocates. A sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a TOTAL gun ban as unconstitutional, BUT  the small majority went on to then point out the LIMITATIONS to the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

The Court then went on to reiterate that the right is limited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If you read the decision, you would not feel good about your continued ability to own assault rifles and other weapons whose only purpose is to kill on a large scale.  Gun advocates do not have a close ally in the most conservative Court in recent history, a court that could only gather the smallest majority to strike down nothing other than an outright total ban.

Here's the decision for anyone that wants to know the actual state of the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

This is basically the point I was making that dumb and dumber can't seem to grasp. The 2nd amendment grants the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. That is the actual liberty afforded.

The perceived liberty that they are claiming is "fundemental" is only so in their minds, and that is the perceived liberty to own as many guns of any and every caliber and as much ammunition as you desire without the government being able to monitor or regulate it so that they are sufficiently armed to overthrow the US government whenever they see fit.

No where in this thread or any other have I held any position in opposition to the liberty granted in the 2nd amendment. So I can only assume that they either don't know what the 2nd amendment actually says, or they do, and are just being dishonest about it for the sake of political expediency. At this point, neither would surprise me.

That's his stock in trade.

November he supports expanding gun rights but by mid December he has an awakening and now wants to contract gun rights.

[Dolorous Jason]

The 2nd Amendment says was the current US Supreme Court says it says. The current US Supreme Court -- one of the most conservative courts in recent history -- did no favors for gun advocates. A sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a TOTAL gun ban as unconstitutional, BUT  the small majority went on to then point out the LIMITATIONS to the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

The Court then went on to reiterate that the right is limited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If you read the decision, you would not feel good about your continued ability to own assault rifles and other weapons whose only purpose is to kill on a large scale.  Gun advocates do not have a close ally in the most conservative Court in recent history, a court that could only gather the smallest majority to strike down nothing other than an outright total ban.

Here's the decision for anyone that wants to know the actual state of the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Everyone already knows what the ruling was , PB boy.

I don't believe anyone here is arguing that our current government doesn't think it has the power to do whatever the hell it wants .It creates powers for itself out of thin air everyday.  They recently ruled Obama Care is legal , despite the 10th amendment. They ruled Dred Scott was legal.  We are not saying they can't do it....of course they can , they do whatever they please. We are arguing that they are wrong if they do so. We are saying restrictions should not increase.

Change out 2 more justices and you could get a majority ruling to say "well regulated militia" means military use only , and allow the ban of guns altogether. What does it mean at the end of the day? It means nothing , except to show that our constitution is a useless piece of paper to be interpreted however our current hired activists please .

The ruling is not what we are debating here.


But keep fighting the good fight of stripping away rights with Comrade CBW. It's all for the greater good of the collective.

[spartan]

The 2nd Amendment says was the current US Supreme Court says it says. The current US Supreme Court -- one of the most conservative courts in recent history -- did no favors for gun advocates. A sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a TOTAL gun ban as unconstitutional, BUT  the small majority went on to then point out the LIMITATIONS to the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

The Court then went on to reiterate that the right is limited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If you read the decision, you would not feel good about your continued ability to own assault rifles and other weapons whose only purpose is to kill on a large scale.  Gun advocates do not have a close ally in the most conservative Court in recent history, a court that could only gather the smallest majority to strike down nothing other than an outright total ban.

Here's the decision for anyone that wants to know the actual state of the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

This is basically the point I was making that dumb and dumber can't seem to grasp. The 2nd amendment grants the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. That is the actual liberty afforded.

The perceived liberty that they are claiming is "fundemental" is only so in their minds, and that is the perceived liberty to own as many guns of any and every caliber and as much ammunition as you desire without the government being able to monitor or regulate it so that they are sufficiently armed to overthrow the US government whenever they see fit.

No where in this thread or any other have I held any position in opposition to the liberty granted in the 2nd amendment. So I can only assume that they either don't know what the 2nd amendment actually says, or they do, and are just being dishonest about it for the sake of political expediency. At this point, neither would surprise me.

I said this on day 2 page 2:

The supreme court has already decided the Govt can set guidelines. When it ruled against Chicago it said you can put in place rules and regulations but not so that it makes it impossible to own a firearm. There was also the "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994. Nobody is saying it cannot be done

Everybody concedes the Govt has a right to regulate. If this is "all" you were trying to prove you just totally wasted 15 pages and 3 weeks waffling away. If it is not "all" you were trying to prove, what is it then?

[Chief Joseph]

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have totally refuted an argument no one made. Is anyone truly surprised by this?

[CBWx2]

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have totally refuted an argument no one made. Is anyone truly surprised by this?

My bad. I wasn't aware that no one made the argument that a federal ban or stringent federal oversight of firearm distribution was unconstitutional, or that the Constitution grants the liberty for guns to be obtained for any purpose, up to and including overthrowing the government.

I frequently find myself in admiration of the Constitution's framers. They understood that you rule an armed populace only by their consent. And they put it into the Constitution to insure this balance was not lost to the good intentions of the misguided.

They put no such thing into the Constitution.

..and if you go back and look at the reason the founders were so insistent about having a 2nd amendment it was for this reason alone. Protection against a tyrannical government. It was the poison pill that allowed us to get out of this thing if it ever went horribly wrong.

Not only was the 2nd amendment  not for this reason alone, it wasn't for this reason at all. All it requires is for one to read the 2nd amendment and the Constitution as it relates to the 2nd amendment to see that.

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?

The constitution? Oh that old thing.....that has no place in today's world.

Since neither Vince or myself has proposed anything that is at odds with any rights or liberties afforded to us in the Constitution, I can only assume that Durango either doesn't know what the 2nd amendment actually says, or does, and is just being dishonest about it for the sake of political expediency

Yeah, Vince, it's not like it would be a guerilla war or anything.

Guerrilla war, or armed insurrection, is one of the primary things that the 2nd amendment expressly states that it's purpose is to protect the public against. History and precedent has shown this expressed purpose being invoked time and time again. The "history professor" must have missed this.

They're for protection from our own government, you raging imbecile.

Again, show me anywhere in the Constitution, or subsequent case law where this is written, or even implied.

So you believe in the right to bear arms , so long as those arms kill an amount of children you deem reasonable. The fact that the constitution could be amended to better suit your "guns are too dangerous" logic is a strawman.

It doesn't require an amendment, since the Constitution puts no restriction on banning specific firearms. Just gun ownership in general. For someone who purports to love the Constitution so dearly, perhaps he should do a better job trying to understand the thing.

As someone that admires the brilliance of the constitution I stand up on behalf of gun owners. Not because I am a staunch gun supporter but because I believe in their right to keep and bear arms. Assault rifles included.

There is nothing proposed by either Vince or myself in this thread or the other that is in conflict with the liberties afforded to us in the Constitution. For someone who purports to love the Constitution so dearly, perhaps he should do a better job trying to understand the thing.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
  - Thomas Jefferson

Words never uttered by Thomas Jefferson being used to support a liberty never granted in the 2nd amendment. I suppose there is a certain level of consistency there.