The 2nd Amendment - Page 13 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

OM603 · #**181** 06-26-2014, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Neither is an impediment to either. I see nothing wrong with needing to prove you are a citizen to vote, nor do I see anything wrong with needing to prove you are legally allowed to own a firearm. Nobody ever killed anyone with a hanging chad.

Because you're a racist?

cmbdiesel · #**182** 06-26-2014, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

.....For a right, you don't need the permission of government to exercise it. This is the point of Heller. The state may regulate how you move it about and use it, but has no say in you owning one (unless you have lost your rights through some misbehavior on your part).

Now we all know (or should know) that none of the rights of the constitution are absolute. You don't have a perfect right to own any weapon. Nukes are out. Etc. There is some minor infringement on owning a fully automagical firearm, but if you have the cash and pass the background check, you can own it. And a suppressor. Etc.

Very reasonable post, but it raises the question...
Has not the 2nd already been infringed?

How can 'Shall Not Be Infringed' be such a stalwart defense if it has already happened?

Botnst · #**183** 06-26-2014, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Very reasonable post, but it raises the question...
Has not the 2nd already been infringed?

How can 'Shall Not Be Infringed' be such a stalwart defense if it has already happened?

Of course it is infringed, all rights are infringed if we agree that no right is absolute. This is the nature and heart of liberty.

Jim B. · #**184** 06-26-2014, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OM603

"shall not be infringed"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Of course it is infringed, all rights are infringed if we agree that no right is absolute. This is the nature and heart of liberty.

There are countless citizens that in fact believe the right to own any firearms is absolute.

Period.

No limitations, whatsoever, and NO concomitant responsibility.

Wayne La Pierre/NRA head guy, seems to have been a champion of this belief.

I think there are plenty of 2nd amendment fanatics would gladly toss the entire Constitution into the garbage can, AND all the amendments,

IF ONLY the 2nd Amendment - and NOTHING else, was left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Let's move to suspend the constitution.

^^^^^ QED. ( quod erat demonstrandum )

(I hope I am very very wrong about that though)

OM603 · #**185** 06-26-2014, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

There are countless citizens that in fact believe the right to own any firearms is absolute.

Period.

No limitations, whatsoever, and NO concomitant responsibility.

Wayne La Pierre/NRA head guy, seems to have been a champion of this belief.

I think there are plenty of 2nd amendment fanatics would gladly toss the entire Constitution into the garbage can, AND all the amendments,

IF ONLY the 2nd Amendment - and NOTHING else, was left.

^^^^^ QED. ( quod erat demonstrandum )

(I hope I am very very wrong about that though)

Scary, huh?

davidmash · #**186** 06-26-2014, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Shows how wrong you already are.

OK, I am fine with you thinking I am wrong. That way I know I am right.

Botnst · #**187** 06-27-2014, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

There are countless citizens that in fact believe the right to own any firearms is absolute.

Period.

No limitations, whatsoever, and NO concomitant responsibility.

Wayne La Pierre/NRA head guy, seems to have been a champion of this belief.

I think there are plenty of 2nd amendment fanatics would gladly toss the entire Constitution into the garbage can, AND all the amendments,

IF ONLY the 2nd Amendment - and NOTHING else, was left.

^^^^^ QED. ( quod erat demonstrandum )

(I hope I am very very wrong about that though)

I think the 2nd is the most important amendment. It puts final protection of the guarantees of the constitution into the hands of the citizens.

Without the means and potential and threat of violent resistance and revolution, government promises are ultimately unenforceable.

elchivito · #**188** 06-27-2014, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OM603

Because you're a racist?

Care to explain?

elchivito · #**189** 06-27-2014, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Of course it is infringed, all rights are infringed if we agree that no right is absolute. This is the nature and heart of liberty.

Clearly we don't agree that. For some the right to bear arms is absolute. Forget those other rights, this is special.

Dudesky · #**190** 06-27-2014, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

There are countless citizens that in fact believe the right to own any firearms is absolute.

Period.

No limitations, whatsoever, and NO concomitant responsibility.

Wayne La Pierre/NRA head guy, seems to have been a champion of this belief.

I think there are plenty of 2nd amendment fanatics would gladly toss the entire Constitution into the garbage can, AND all the amendments,

IF ONLY the 2nd Amendment - and NOTHING else, was left.

^^^^^ QED. ( quod erat demonstrandum )

(I hope I am very very wrong about that though)

Did some reading regarding FEMA and suspension of the Constitution. Seems it is a pretty powerful creation and responsible to no one. This blurb, if true, shows a dark side for sure.

Quote:

Some people have referred to it as the "secret government" of the United States. It is not an elected body, it does not involve itself in public disclosures, and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars. This government organization has more power than the President of the United States or the Congress, it has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution. Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress. It was a product of a Presidential Executive Order. No, it is not the U.S. military nor the Central Intelligence Agency, they are subject to Congress. The organization is called FEMA, which stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Originally conceived in the Richard Nixon Administration, it was refined by President Jimmy Carter and given teeth in the Ronald Reagan and George Bush Administrations.
FEMA* Executive Orders

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

OK, I am fine with you thinking I am wrong. That way I know I am right.

Yeah...that's why what you claim has already been done and found unconstitutional.

Diesel911 · #**191** 06-28-2014, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyb

If only we regulated guns the way we regulate cars today. Guns would have to pass national safety standards, they would be subject to recalls. They would be tested intermittently to demonstrate their performance. People would have to take a firearms safety class and pass an exam demonstrating their skill in safely operating a weapon before getting a license to use a firearm. They would have to register their guns every two years and pass a repeat safety inspection before being able to renew their firearm registration.

They would be required to carry insurance covering gun accidents and injuries. And if they used a firearm while under the influence, they would lose their firearms and license indefinitely at great cost to themselves.

Yes, let's compare guns and cars.

They do this In My State but if you are a Military Veteran they say you have all that safety training.

Apparently no amount of Training gets someone to drive a Car Safely if they do not want to.

We don't have Car Safety Checks in My State. I guess they have them in other States where Cars frequently Rust.

Car registration is supposed to pay for the upkeep of the Roads and Traffic related things so there is no like justification for Fire Arms.

There is no Firearms accident Insurance because compared to Car Accidents they are minuscule. If you use a Car as a weapon and run over someone I doubt if the Insurance pays; it would be the same with a Gun.
I have not read of any Civilians being harmed by defective Guns. But, there has been mechanical issues with them and they were indeed called back.

Ruger Made a Revolver (The Old Style Blackhawk) that functioned much like the Colt Frontier Revolver; meaning if the Hammer rested on a live round if the Hammer was struck it could fire the Gun. Ruger later invented a new set of Parts that fix that and voluntarily replaced those parts on all guns that People sent and the Parts and Labor were free.

Besides that Fire Arms are simple devices compared to a Car and when they get out of order the seldom case harm in the hands of Civilians so they don't need safety Inspections.

All of the Big Name Fire Arm companies are extremely dedicated to making good fuctionally safe products to the extent that no Government Regulation is needed. You cannot say the same with the Automobile Industry.

Unless you plan living someplace totally alone no one can protect you from People that want to do you Harm. It is just that simple. People are the Problem not Things.

Diesel911 · #**192** 06-28-2014, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Regulations such as mentioned above do not infringe the right to own.

in·fringe [in frínj]
(past and past participle in·fringed, present participle in·fring·ing, 3rd person present singular in·fring·es)
v
1. vt disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement 2. vti encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way infringing on our personal freedom

en·croach [in krṓch, en krṓch]
(past and past participle en·croached, present participle en·croach·ing, 3rd person present singular en·croach·es)
vi
1. trespass on something: to intrude gradually or stealthily, often taking away somebody's authority, rights, or property is encroaching on civil liberties
2. exceed proper limits: to exceed the proper limits of something

Diesel911 · #**193** 06-28-2014, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OM603

Because you're a racist?

Please explain the correlation between Proof of being a Citizen and Race.
Also you don't need to be a Citizen to own a Fire Arm. You only need to be a Legal Resident.

Diesel911 · #**194** 06-28-2014, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Of course it is infringed, all rights are infringed if we agree that no right is absolute. This is the nature and heart of liberty.

It has to do with Freedoms not being Free. There is and will always be an ongoing struggle over what infringement entails.

What infringement entails is what the Voting Public believes it is.

The News Media is where most People get the bulk of their Information despite the fact that News Medias focuses on creating controversy by pulling on Peoples emotional and reactionary Chains so the can make Money off of the effects.

When People are emotional and reactionary Logic goes out the Window and the Editorialized News becomes a fact in the Minds of some and that sways Public Opinion.

I don't like the Media trying to Pull My Chain but a lot of People love it.

anthonyb · #**195** 06-28-2014, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I think the 2nd is the most important amendment. It puts final protection of the guarantees of the constitution into the hands of the citizens.

Without the means and potential and threat of violent resistance and revolution, government promises are ultimately unenforceable.

I would argue that in a representative government, what protects the guarantees of the constitution are an intact legal system, a robust public discourse and knowledgable electorate. Which, in my mind, makes the first amendment the most important amendment.

In this country's history, at least, the second amendment has played an inconsequential role in the enforcement of constitutional rights on the part of individual citizens or citizen groups. It was not a major player in women's suffrage, in gaining blacks the right to vote or to remove segregation in schools, in affirming a woman's right to choose abortion, or in expanding the rights of gays to marry. Or any other major constitutional question of the last 200 years. And I don't think a bunch of individuals owning guns is going to be the route by which we dismantle the NSA's mass surveillance apparatus.

If anything, the proliferation of firearms has made it possible (but also necessary, because guns are SO prolific) to protect citizens from EACH OTHER.

Where do guns help people fight the government? Places like Syria and Libya and Iraq. If we ever got to that point, I think the constitution would be the last of anyone's worries.