Another attack on the 2nd Amendment - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LaRondo · #46 06-09-2009, 12:56 PM

There ya go:

Buy a Gun - The Gitmos

cmbdiesel · #47 06-09-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

bear arms definitely does NOT mean hunting.. especially back in the 1700s.

And your basis for this proclamation is what?

"keep and bear arms" - does that not specify more than just bearing arms? If you were to keep arms, would not a legitimate use be to hunt with them?

Why especially in the 1700's? Are you suggesting that people didn't hunt then? Maybe the founding fathers were vegan?

Squabble · #48 06-09-2009, 01:13 PM

no need to worry, us pro-gun folks have this on our side now:

http://washingtonindependent.com/46097/pro-gun-gay-groups-take-aim-at-hate-crimes-bill

yeah, that's right, pro-gun gay rights groups. right up my libertarian alley. sleep with whoever you want, own a gun and carry it, no nanny state, no "moral" code. hell yeah!

"Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed"

DieselAddict · #49 06-09-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

On a different note, it is fact that dispite of all the California gun regulations, there was never a time in the history of this state when so many guns have been sold as in the past 7 months.

Doesn't that kind of go against the NRA's argument that gun control laws are taking away people's ability to buy guns?

DieselAddict · #50 06-09-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

Properly armed and able to defend their homes against ANY invading army or force...

Yeah, good luck making that fairy tale into a realistic possibility.

Hatterasguy · #51 06-09-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Legislators who come up with such bills should be immediately confronted with massive lawsuit based on constitutional infringement and presented with the option of being impeached from their congressional seat.

I am not a constitutional lawyer, I wish I was. At least we got the NRA to expose all the misdeeds.

Unfortunately, I see regulations growing like weeds. not only when it comes to the 2nd.

It's the accelerated sellout of this country. I am surprised they still find substance to squeeze out of it, I suppose there is a lot more gain to made from this nation.

On a different note, it is fact that dispite of all the California gun regulations, there was never a time in the history of this state when so many guns have been sold as in the past 7 months.

Yep well said.

Obama is the best gun salesmen in history!

Hatterasguy · #52 06-09-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

And your basis for this proclamation is what?

"keep and bear arms" - does that not specify more than just bearing arms? If you were to keep arms, would not a legitimate use be to hunt with them?

Why especially in the 1700's? Are you suggesting that people didn't hunt then? Maybe the founding fathers were vegan?

People like to frame the 2nd amendment in the light of hunting, and I think that does it a great diservice.

The 2nd amendment was ment to enable the people to protect their rights, by force if voting failed, from outside governments, and our government.

The US government infrigning on this is no different than taking away parts of the 1st. One of the organizations that the 2nd was ment to protect us against is making laws to hinder it.

I don't give a damn if they let me own handguns to hunt deer, the 2nd ammendment isn't protecting my right to kill a deer with a .44 magnum. The 2nd ammendment protects me from Uncle Sam to own a mill spec M14 to defend my rights as part of the CT State Militia as my forefathers did. Just like the 1st protects me if I decide to speak out against the government.

This is why federal registration of gun owners gets me going. The very organization that the 2nd is ment to defend against wants a list of everyone with the ability to assert their rights. If individual states do it thats fine, but not the feds.

cmbdiesel · #53 06-09-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

People like to frame the 2nd amendment in the light of hunting, and I think that does it a great diservice.

The 2nd amendment was ment to enable the people to protect their rights, by force if voting failed, from outside governments, and our government.

The US government infrigning on this is no different than taking away parts of the 1st. One of the organizations that the 2nd was ment to protect us against is making laws to hinder it.

I don't give a damn if they let me own handguns to hunt deer, the 2nd ammendment isn't protecting my right to kill a deer with a .44 magnum. The 2nd ammendment protects me from Uncle Sam to own a mill spec M14 to defend my rights as part of the CT State Militia as my forefathers did. Just like the 1st protects me if I decide to speak out against the government.

This is why federal registration of gun owners gets me going. The very organization that the 2nd is ment to defend against wants a list of everyone with the ability to assert their rights. If individual states do it thats fine, but not the feds.

Never attempted in any way to 'frame' the 2nd amendment in terms of hunting. You and mzsmbs are so quick to assume that anyone interested in applying 'keep and bear arms' to hunting are making a backdoor run at the protection against government afforded by the 2nd, that you miss the obvious. Allow me to quote Larry S. Moore -
"Understanding the Second Amendment is about more than just any one aspect of firearms – whether collecting, hunting, tactical shooting, CMP shooting or concealed carry. It is about understanding our unique American heritage, what our Founding Fathers laid down for us and protecting (what's left) of those freedoms.
My right to own the firearm of my choice is EXACTLY the reason the Second Amendment is ABOUT hunting. If I can't own the firearm of my choice I sure as hell can't go hunting with it. Period."

Full text of that article is here - http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6699

Hatterasguy · #54 06-09-2009, 09:24 PM

From what I have seen I still think its used as a backdoor by some.

The 2nd ammendment is pretty clear when it talks about a well regulated millitia. Also in the context of the time period, hunting was just something done to get food. Naturaly the right to own any fire arm should be protected, but I see the government coming after Dragonuv sniper rifles before a Thompson Center Hawken.

LUVMBDiesels · #55 06-09-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Yup, and so does the Prez and VP.
Obviously the Oath of Office means little.

Actually all Federal employees have to take that oath.

As for HR-45, This bill has been introduced every year since I believe, 1997.

The bill is a scary piece of legislation if you read it through. You guys are right that it dies in committee each time it is introduced. However, some day it might get through committee. Actually I would like to see it go through and get voted on so it can be defeated once and for all...

The argument about driver's licenses does not hold water. Driving is not a right confirmed by the Constitution...

The idea that making it ridiculous for law abiding citizens to possess a firearm will either lead to millions of people becoming "instant criminals" OR reducing gun ownership to only criminals and probably both.

cmbdiesel · #56 06-09-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

From what I have seen I still think its used as a backdoor by some.

The 2nd ammendment is pretty clear when it talks about a well regulated millitia. Also in the context of the time period, hunting was just something done to get food. Naturaly the right to own any fire arm should be protected, but I see the government coming after Dragonuv sniper rifles before a Thompson Center Hawken.

Agreed on both counts. Just not by me.

However, the clarity of the 2nd amendment is not even close to what people on both sides would like. It's ambiguity is what fuels the debate.

MS Fowler · #57 06-10-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

The argument about driver's licenses does not hold water. Driving is not a right confirmed by the Constitution...The idea that making it ridiculous for law abiding citizens to possess a firearm will either lead to millions of people becoming "instant criminals" OR reducing gun ownership to only criminals and probably both.

Lets be REAL clear aboiut this point. The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights recognizes rights that are unalienable; it did not GRANT those rights. The Rights come from the Creator. Government is restricted from infringing on them.

Remember, the Founders were very familiar with living under an all powerful government. They were determined to preserve freedom of individual actions as long as possible. That it lasted 200 years was notable.

Matt L · #58 06-10-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Lets be REAL clear aboiut this point. The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights recognizes rights that are unalienable; it did not GRANT those rights. The Rights come from the Creator. Government is restricted from infringing on them.

Remember, the Founders were very familiar with living under an all powerful government. They were determined to preserve freedom of individual actions as long as possible. That it lasted 200 years was notable.

That's all fine if you believe in a creator. If you don't, you realize that the constitution must be a social contract. That our founders (seem to have) claimed that the rights came from a creator does not automatically make it so. They had other reasons to make the constitution as it was made, and you even mention this.

aklim · #59 06-10-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Lets be REAL clear aboiut this point. The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights recognizes rights that are unalienable; it did not GRANT those rights. The Rights come from the Creator. Government is restricted from infringing on them.

Remember, the Founders were very familiar with living under an all powerful government. They were determined to preserve freedom of individual actions as long as possible. That it lasted 200 years was notable.

Just because you believe and they might have doesn't make it so. Maybe it was just the way the language was or maybe they had some religious backing. Either way, our rights come from the Constitution not some man/woman/thing in the sky.

Hopefully it lasts a little longer.

MS Fowler · #60 06-10-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Just because you believe and they might have doesn't make it so. Maybe it was just the way the language was or maybe they had some religious backing. Either way, our rights come from the Constitution not some man/woman/thing in the sky.

Hopefully it lasts a little longer.

NO!!!
That is exactly wrong. The point is that our rights existed BEFORE there was any Constitution. The Constitution merely recognized those rights.
If you accept the construction that the Constitution actually grants our Rights, then you set up the situation where the government grants our rights, and therefore the government can deny those rights, or change those rights. At which point they cease to be RIGHTS and fall under the definition of privileges.
I, as a self sufficient human being and citizen of the USA have RIGHTS. I do not beg the government to allow me to speak freely, or to assemble freely with people of my oiwn choosing. I worship at the church of my own choosing; not by the permission of the government. The press is free to print whatever it wants without persecution from the ruling classes--except if they strat into areas of lible.
Please understand that these rights exist apart from the government--thatis what makes them rights.
I don't see how there can even be any argument over this. This is so basic to understanding what this American experiment in a democratic republic was all about. If even this basic understanding is lost, then the country is already lost. This is not a partisan issue. Can't we all agree on it?