Time to protect your 2nd amendment rights! - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Medmech · #31 11-09-2008, 08:51 AM

It took a while to find this link but it spells out exactly what our forefathers intended,

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

Honus · #32 11-09-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

He's been a senator for 3 years he has not had much of an opportunity to vote one way or the other the only bill that would come close to showing his support one way or the other is the conveniently did not vote on was the Prohibiting Funds in the Bill S 1200 from Being Used to Decrease Gun Ownership amendment.

Sounds about right. The OP said that "Obama has voted to restrict our 2nd amendment rights in every vote in the Senate." I was hoping that he would provide some support for that claim.

Quote:

The whole point about the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority, that is why they did it. Very few of us attend protests, circulate petitions, quarter in a persons home, have excessive bail issues, or need one of the many protections of the 5th Amendment but we're all glad they are there.

Agree 100%.

Quote:

And I will add that IMO they did not intend the right to keep and bear arms so joe the gun nut has the right to shoot his AK-47 at pop cans, it was created to keep and bear the power to the people to prevent tyranny and an oppressive government, if anyone wants to take the time to read the many preambles to the constitution this point will be crystal clear and spells out the specific intent of the authors.

That also sounds right, but the devil is in the details. The 2nd Amendment is a particularly tough one to figure out, IMHO.

Honus · #33 11-09-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

It took a while to find this link but it spells out exactly what our forefathers intended,

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

That is a great link.

This quote, I think, illustrates the difficulty in applying the 2nd Amendment to specific, real-world situations:

Quote:

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

What did he mean by "properly"?

Botnst · #34 11-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That is a great link.

This quote, I think, illustrates the difficulty in applying the 2nd Amendment to specific, real-world situations:What did he mean by "properly"?

So that they could defend themselves and their community and if called upon, their state and nation. The framers didn't trust the idea of a professional standing army. They envisioned something closer to the Swiss model.

B

LUVMBDiesels · #35 11-09-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I believe that you missed MTI's point. The 2d Amendment does not say that you have an absolute right to bear any arm you want. You have a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations. The 2d Amendment says that right can't be taken away.

I don't think so. He said that the Bill of Rights is not absolute. In my interpretation of that he meant that the rights listed were not 'carved in stone' but subject to change and re-visitation.

Here is an example:

Proposed Amendment:

SECTION 1: In order to fully secure our homeland the following proposal shall be made

SECTION 2: The following articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed:
Articles 1 through 9
Article 24

SECTION 3: This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

If we start doing this, we can end up scrapping the whole constitution one article at a time. I for one do not want to slide down that slope.

Brian Carlton · #36 11-09-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Its not about guns, its about CONTROL and RIGHTS. When one that you enjoy goes away, you will start caring.

The ONLY thing I'm going to do is watch you fellows blow a gasket when your assault rifles and armor piercing rounds are taken away.

I'm also going to enjoy watching you scream and cry about it.

"Oh.....Obama gonna come take my gun.....Obama gonna take my gun"

Honus · #37 11-09-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

I don't think so. He said that the Bill of Rights is not absolute. In my interpretation of that he meant that the rights listed were not 'carved in stone' but subject to change and re-visitation.

Here is an example:

Proposed Amendment:

SECTION 1: In order to fully secure our homeland the following proposal shall be made

SECTION 2: The following articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed:
Articles 1 through 9
Article 24

SECTION 3: This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

If we start doing this, we can end up scrapping the whole constitution one article at a time. I for one do not want to slide down that slope.

Has someone proposed such an amendment to the Constitution? If something like that were enacted, it would be the end of the United States.

DieselClack · #38 11-09-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That language is absolute. The only way that our right to bear arms can be infringed is by amending the Constitution. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The dispute over the 2nd Amendment is not about whether the right to bear arms can be infringed. The dispute is over the scope of the right itself. If the right were absolute and unlimited, then we each would have the right to own bazookas, tanks, nukes, etc. I don't think common sense or history would support that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Beyond that, I don't think you will find any clear guidance about the precise scope of the right to bear arms. Ted Nugent thinks he's got it figured out, but that's because he's an arrogant blowhard. Hardcore advocates of gun control think they have it figured out, but they are blinded by their hatred and/or fear of guns. The answer is somewhere in between. I don't think anyone, not a single person, can say with certainty where the answer is. It is something that will just have to be worked out, probably in the Supreme Court someday.

Going back to the original post in this thread, we are still waiting for someone to give an example where Obama voted to infringe 2nd Amendment rights.

Yes! Im so glad you asked! Look it up here: http://www.gunbanobama.com and verify the results here:

http://www.congress.org !

The NRA has no reason to lie and even all Lobbyists have have reasons to protect their own positions, but Obama has gone to extremes. He voted 3 TIMES for a law that would forcibly prosecute someone for using a gun for self defense of themselves and family in their own homes even if the intent of the intruder was to commit a homicide! Just how real does it have to get for you?????

A College Student was recently sleeping a little after midnight right here in Arizona when 2 burglars broke in through the front door. They woke the student and were armed with baseball bats and told him they were taking his computer (laptop) jewelry and any other valuables they could find and if he resisted, he would be killed. Well he happened to grab his Ruger M.40 before heading into the living room and shot both of them to death after hearing that!

It so happened that his computer was on and he had a video surveillance system on it that caught the whole thing on disc! it took the police 1 hour to establish this as a justifiable killing because he was trying to protect himself and his property! Obama would have had that man charged with murder and thrown in jail!

What makes you think that criminals are going to lawfully buy guns and go through a background check?? In one state where I lived, the city voted to become a gun free zone and you know what happened? Withing 6 months, all of my roomates (4 of them) were robbed at gunpoint where previously you had a right to carry and that right was taken away!

Where do you rewrite the Constitution of the United States? What do you not get about "and these rights shall not be infringed"?

The whole idea of not infringing upon your right to keep and bear arms was so your government would not be able to enslave it's own people through tyranny and militarisation! God help us if your stupid enough to go along willingly!

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

The supreme Court ruled in favour of gun owners in Washington DC to keep and bear arms in their own homes just a couple of months ago. What brought this to the attention of the Supreme Court was a case in which a man killed an intruder who happened to break into his home high on drugs and threatend to kidnap and rape his 11 year old daughter!

And for those of you who don't like certain weapons like automatic rifles, here's this: A gun ban has NEVER been successful at eliminating those types of weapons, in fact just the opposite happens! When these guns are licensed, you know who and where the owners are! When they are illegal, only the criminals have them and their numbers explode! We can't even find all the illegal aliens living here. what makes you think that our government, the same one who couldn't find their a$$es with both hands can find all these weapons you want to ban? Only law abiding citizens have ever given up their right to keep and bear arms!

Medmech · #39 11-09-2008, 11:41 AM

The part about the 2nd amendment that strikes me the most is its specific intend to keep citizens armed to keep the government in check with a citizen militia. Back then the military had very few special weapons that a citizen could not fund and own themselves, since their intent is well known I wonder what they would write in 2008. I'm unsure about the outcome because their intent was to abolish a large central government....that part didn't work out so well.

Brian Carlton · #40 11-09-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

The part about the 2nd amendment that strikes me the most is its specific intend to keep citizens armed to keep the government in check with a citizen militia. Back then the military had very few special weapons that a citizen could not fund and own themselves, since their intent is well known I wonder what they would write in 2008. I'm unsure about the outcome because their intent was to abolish a large central government....that part didn't work out so well.

Finally, a post with some sense.

How's those assault rifles going to fare against a mortar shell and a tank?

When the government comes to get you.........NONE of your guns are going do anything but delay the inevitable.

Everything else is just BS.

DieselClack · #41 11-09-2008, 11:50 AM

The Constitutional amendment guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms always realised that you were going to have some weapons the other side wouldn't. The idea was that your government would not be able to run over you without heavy resistance! You had the ability to fight and die for your rights and the second amendment guaranteed you a position of pushing back if your were walked on! That was what was meant by "though shall not tread upon me"! It is the delay and threat of a citizens resistance that tells your governemt your not going into the night without a fight!

Nuclear weapons, well if those go off we are all done! An aqrmed citizenry could even force a government to reconsider setting off nuclear weapons resulting in our ultimate destruction. Our second amendment rights gave us the right to defend ourselves and a voice our government could not take away even if we were outgunned!

Lopok at Africa. At one time all the citizens of Botswana carried a rifle. It was understood that everyone had a rifle to hunt with, protect themselves and the means to fight back any hostile enemy. Once a totalrian government came in and forcibly removed the farmers right to own rifles, these people were slaughtered because they had no means to fight back and protect themselves and now anyone with a slight clue can see the results!

If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. I'm proud to be in the latter category if you force me into it!

DieselClack · #42 11-09-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Finally, a post with some sense.

How's those assault rifles going to fare against a mortar shell and a tank?

When the government comes to get you.........NONE of your guns are going do anything but delay the inevitable.

Everything else is just BS.

Really? Selfe defense like the situations I mentioned above is just BS? Man are you out to lunch!

Medmech · #43 11-09-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That is a great link.

This quote, I think, illustrates the difficulty in applying the 2nd Amendment to specific, real-world situations:What did he mean by "properly"?

If I re-read The Works of Alexander Hamilton I will conclude that he meant tanks, bazooka's or anything to defend yourself but its hard to tell because he was a military ass kicker and pacifist at the same time..pretty complex even by todays standards.

DieselClack · #44 11-09-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

If I re-read The Works of Alexander Hamilton I will conclude that he meant tanks, bazooka's or anything to defend yourself but its hard to tell because he was a military ass kicker and pacifist at the same time..pretty complex even by todays standards.

That is true, but the greater context I see here is that no mateer what happens, the citizens will not be forced into the position of going down without a fight!

Any Tyrannist will seriously reconsider attacking an opponent when it is clear that an opponent has the right and means to fight back!

Sometimes when a true peace cannot be established, a truce in the form of a stalemate can in itself be a victory!

azimuth · #45 11-09-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That is a great link.

This quote, I think, illustrates the difficulty in applying the 2nd Amendment to specific, real-world situations:What did he mean by "properly"?

I think given the intent to prevent tyranny, one could logically postulate that 'properly' means that the individual has the right to any arms likely to be used against him by the State. Period.

We see that Law enforcement has reasonable access to fully automatic rifles and semi automatic sidearms. They use flash bang grenades, armored personel carriers, snipers, chemical weapons and no knock warrants. Incremetally, we've witnessed the militarization of the police; a condition expressly prohibited by the constitution. If the intent was to suppress the the natural tendency for authority to wax overwhelmingly powerful, then either we need uninfringed access to what they have, or they need to surrender the use of those devices.

Some folks argue that civilians do not need missiles and nukes. They use that piece of logic to illustrate an unreasonable and dangerous extremist perspective that civilians only need bolt action hunting rifles chambered in neutered calibers. I agree that since the State has yet to use nukes and missiles against the population, then civilians do not need them to defend against the State. But it is a distortion of logic to assert that because civilians don't need WMDs, that we also must wield pitchforks and Garden Weasels against a militarized police force.

Do guns suck? Meh, not in and of themselves. There have been weapons in society since the earliest man. I would be willing to destroy all of my weapons the instant after everyone else destroys theirs. Since a rational person cansee that this will never happen, then weapons-guns being the state of the current art-are necessary tools for defense and providence. They are only dangerous in the wrong hands.