The second amendment

[F1fan]

So rather than a rational response, you ask me to get
all emotional about a tragedy instead of considering
the larger picture, eh. And perhaps you missed my
several posts advocating red flag laws & procedures.

I ask you to be ethical and moral, and not follow the right wing dogma about gun rights that do appeal to emotions.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was no standing army. Eventually there was one, so the 2nd amendment became redundant. It served its purpose and then the purpose became obsolete. That should be understood.

Right wingers today are interpreting this amendment in ways that do not follow the text or the context of the time it was written.

It's their opinions vs your opinion.
Looks more complicated to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I ask you to be ethical and moral....

Implying that I'm not, eh.
You're quite the conversationalist.

 

[F1fan]

And being ethical and moral means to not ignore the consequences of how we behave and the laws we pass. Murdered citizens are as important as all the victims of police misconduct, yet you seem to ignore these murder victims. Maybe if there were YouTube videos of the aftermath of mass killings so we can understand the real impact of lax gun laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

And being ethical and moral means to not ignore the consequences of how we behave and the laws we pass.

It also means using cogent evidence based arguments
in order to craft optimum public policies....not just
emotion fueled wrongful over-reaction or blindly
spouting left wing propaganda.

I can imply things too.
Do you find it useful?

 

[Truth in love]

To form militias for the security of the state.

Do you think this right extends to mass murderers who kill innocent people? If you don't, then the right is limited.

Murder is illegal. Anyone who commits murder can be tried, convicted and rot in prison or face a firing squad.


To deny one person a right be

Most of these mass killers have no priors, but a history of emotional problems. Yet they still were sold AR15s and went on a shooting rampage. So I'm not sure the right to own such a gun is something to be taken lightly. I suggest more intensive questions be asked of those who want them. Get red flagged, no gun for you. Think of the 21 people at Uvalde before you respond, as they could still be alive today.

I’m declining to worry about 21 people in a nation that butchers a million babies a year and condemns many millions more the terrible abuses. Yeah it sucks a lot when a kid does, but it’s very small compared to the human tragedy in the nation.

Who determines who cannot can’t have a gun?

will we remove these peoples rights to drive, ride a bus, leave their home as well?

 

[F1fan]

It also means using cogent evidence based arguments
in order to craft optimum public policies....not just
emotion fueled wrongful over-reaction or blindly
spouting left wing propaganda.

I can imply things too.

So based on all that can you offer a coherent reason to NOT change gun laws and allow easy gun access as has been policy so far this year?

 

[Revoltingest]

So based on all that can you offer a coherent reason to NOT change gun laws and allow easy gun access as has been policy so far this year?

Such faulty presumptions about my views.
You must've been ignoring my posts on the subject.
Really...if you don't know where I stand...don't just
attribute some straw man claims to me. Please, be
interesting.

 

[F1fan]

Murder is illegal. Anyone who commits murder can be tried, convicted and rot in prison or face a firing squad.


To deny one person a right be


I’m declining to worry about 21 people in a nation that butchers a million babies a year and condemns many millions more the terrible abuses. Yeah it sucks a lot when a kid does, but it’s very small compared to the human tragedy in the nation.

So you won't care about 21 murdered people and you still think you're moral?

Who determines who cannot can’t have a gun?

We the people.

will we remove these peoples rights to drive, ride a bus, leave their home as well?

If they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted and responsible citizens, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[F1fan]

Such faulty presumptions about my views.
You must've been ignoring my posts on the subject.
Really...if you don't know where I stand...don't just
attribute some straw man claims to me. Please, be
interesting.

Your lack of interest in offering solutions tells us enough about your views.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your lack of interest in offering solutions tells us enough about your views.

I've offered many in various threads.
If you don't pay attention, & just assume
that what you don't see is non-existent,
that's a problem.

 

[Truth in love]

So you won't care about 21 murdered people and you still think you're moral?


We the people.

If they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted and responsible citizens, yes. Otherwise, no.

I’m not going to sell out my entire nation over the false pretense that some 2 bit law is going to save lives. The facts don’t support this conclusion and if you think I’m some emotionally minded sellout who would sell my kids rights up the river on the false promise of safety you guessed wrong.

And yes i think standing up to Facism is very moral. It will save far more lives than some half hacked scheme to take away our rights

“we the people” don’t have the right to take away others rights.

 

[F1fan]

I’m not going to sell out my entire nation over the false pretense that some 2 bit law is going to save lives. The facts don’t support this conclusion and if you think I’m some emotionally minded sellout who would sell my kids rights up the river on the false promise of safety you guessed wrong.

And what is your entire nation going to lose with better background checks and screenings? And higher age limits?

And what danger exists that you believe guns protects you from?

And yes i think standing up to Facism is very moral. It will save far more lives than some half hacked scheme to take away our rights

Great, the USA has fought fascism and won. We don't have any fascism in the USA to fight any more. Sp what fascism exists that guns will save you from? Use facts and reason.

“we the people” don’t have the right to take away others rights.

Rights are determined by "we the people". Did you not read the constitution where rights are spelled out?

 

[Truth in love]

And what is your entire nation going to lose with better background checks and screenings? And higher age limits?

And what danger exists that you believe guns protects you from?


Great, the USA has fought fascism and won. We don't have any fascism in the USA to fight any more. Sp what fascism exists that guns will save you from? Use facts and reason.


Rights are determined by "we the people". Did you not read the constitution where rights are spelled out?

I don’t k ow what did three Germans lose letting Hitler take over. What did the the Russians lose with Stalin?
If you think facism is gone and communism too if like to sell you a bridge.

 

[Koldo]

This points out the usefulness of considering the
context, ie, the circumstances of the founders.
Original intent can be gleaned from communication
of their day. After all, we don't take the 1st Amendment
literally...we look at intent, which incudes future forms
of "the press".

I agree.... up to a certain point.
On one hand, we definitely don't want to be blind to the intent of the text. On the other, the agreed upon text is what it is, and we can't resort to what any given person, not even a founder, wanted it to have been instead.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The comma matters.

it does cite a purpose, but the clear 100% unambiguous statement of the right is the people.

But it is infringed, because bear arms are weapons, but I not allowed to carry and use a tactical suitcase nuclear weapon. So if you don't allow me that right, you are against God and will go to Hell, because you are doing Satan's work, sinner and evil human. FREEDOM!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree.... up to a certain point.
On one hand, we definitely don't want to be blind to the intent of the text. On the other, the agreed upon text is what it is, and we can't resort to what any given person, not even a founder, wanted it to have been instead.

It isn't about "instead", but rather
the intention behind the wording.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If the Founders wanted to insure blanket permission to own firearms, why doesn't the Second Amendment simply say, 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Why have the predicate clause, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,'

 

[esmith]

If the Founders wanted to insure blanket permission to own firearms, why doesn't the Second Amendment simply say, 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Why have the predicate clause, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,'

So, does the 1st amendment on free speech cover radio, television, or the internet, I don't see any reference to those media sources in the amendment
So, does the 4th amendment cover your automobile, RV, or means of transportation; I don't see any reference to them in the amendment.

We have no real means to understand what they were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights. We just think we do and some think their interpretation is the correct one.

 

[Truth in love]

But it is infringed, because bear arms are weapons, but I not allowed to carry and use a tactical suitcase nuclear weapon. So if you don't allow me that right, you are against God and will go to Hell, because you are doing Satan's work, sinner and evil human. FREEDOM!!!

I do think we need to limit nukes and other wmd’s as they can’t be used without massive collateral damage. But I should have access to the same weapons as the guys in the military.