Guns, Guns Guns

HB of CJ wrote:It might also be quite possible that the founding fathers when they wrote the word "STATE", it was NOT the word state meaning a state of the union like Virginia, but the word state meaning a free state of being. A situation. An environment if you wish.

Not a state in the union. After all, how can a state in the union be "free"? How can any government, local, county, or state be "free"? The founding fathers may have been talking about a free state of being of the individual. The people. Just a thought.

That´s probably the best objection you´ve ever managed.

It is however still wrong, as "state" has already been defined in the document as a whole to be the nation, not individual states or anything else.

A free state as in a state not controlled (at all) by the British.

HB of CJ wrote:The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not even that much about the absolute right of self protection. It has everything to do with the ability of the armed population to overcome and overturn a tyrannical government. Difficult for some to understand. Original intent. Carved with ink into parchment.

And you were doing so well... *sigh*

Seriously, the only way you can get that meaning out of it, is by carving apart the sections of text, completely ignoring context or established definitions.

Sorry, that´s an F for FAIL.

HB of CJ wrote:Some would say the US Constitution is a living document. Bull Shit. It means what it says using common written English understood at the time. Over 228 years ago.

A constitution is either a living document, or obsolete, end of story. Anything else means a failed state.

HB of CJ wrote:What is dangerous today is that some politicians make up their own interpretations.

Oh yes, like the gunnuts twisting of the 2nd.

HB of CJ wrote:They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population.

Sorry, but that´s just a your convenient selfdeception. The politicians are not worried in the slightest about THAT.

They know perfectly well that any group large enough to even begin to be a threat will be swiftly and EASILY dealt with by the military.

*splat*

PeterZ wrote:Absolutely! By all means re-evaluate. However, until the Amendments are repealed by a legally accepted mechanism, their meanings are NOT subject to revision. Which is what those that assert it is a living document believe is proper.

Legal interpretation is a matter of applying that constant meaning to novel situations. It is not a matter applying different meanings altogether to routine situations because someone deems to words to hold different meanings than when they were written.

Oh for goodness sake... THEIR MEANINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHANGED FROM WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN!

Get over it FFS.

PeterZ wrote:I don't believe it did.

You can believe WTF you want, that doesn´t make it true.

dscott8 wrote:The Founders were smart folks

They were, and i can only lament how far downhill things have gone from there.

As noted earlier, the "founding fathers" if they saw this debate they would spin enough in their graves that we could have free energy for the whole world for centuries.

dscott8 wrote:However, writings of the Founders indicate that they also wanted to preserve the common-law right of self-defense, a right that is meaningless without the tools to exercise it. This leads to the conclusion that the citizen has the right to own weapons of self-defense (as well as for activities like hunting, which was a survival skill in the 1800s but has been redefined as recreation by the supermarkets on every corner), and that, in my opinion, is where we are having trouble today.

If they actually wanted to write what you claim here, then they would NOT have written it as a SINGLE SENTENCE.

You CANNOT read it as two sentences when it is ONE, where the first part becomes blatantly worthless without the second part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
By itself that is not proper statement for any kind of document of law, and the people who wrote it would never have written it like that if it was meant to be two separate sentences, setting the rules for TWO things.

The first part defines what it is about, the second states establishes the "law".

Henry Brown wrote:
I am sorry for your lose, but a modern gun should not go off under the circumstances you describe. Either: A. the firearm was in poor condition or B. It is a REALLY old gun. I can attest to this. My Dad currently has 2 old .22 rifles that originally belonged to his grandfather (my great-grandfather). Both of these are 80 or 90 years old and will discharge if dropped under the right conditions.

There´s lots of ways guns can be "corrupted" into malfunctioning. Even the very latest most modern ones. Some are more likely others less, but i doubt you can even find a single model that cannot malfunction at all.

Simple example, Swedish M/45 is generally a very reliable and safe weapon, at least once you go beyond the original version(which lacked a feature that under very rare conditions could end up with the spring giving the shooter a knock on the face), however, if you take the spring out and stretch it real good, then put it back in again and load?

Slap it down on the ground, butt first and you can cause it to burn through the whole magazine, because the deformed spring messes both with what works as safety and with the gear that should keep it from firing without having the trigger pressed.

@the E--really I am racist according to you...Could it be that you don't lie my arguments are! Changing the meaning of words or laws to fit a situation means a country is no longer a democracy or republic but sliding towards some type of fascist/totalitarian/despotic type of rule. The Constitution has 2 legal ways of being changed. So if you do not like the Constitution, feel free to spend your time and money to change the document unless you prefer the way Hitler and the Nazis party changed the German republic to a dictatorship!

smr wrote:@the E--really I am racist according to you...

Really? I think you're misinterpreting something here. Please point out a statement of mine where I accused you personally of being racist.

Could it be that you don't lie my arguments are! Changing the meaning of words or laws to fit a situation means a country is no longer a democracy or republic but sliding towards some type of fascist/totalitarian/despotic type of rule. The Constitution has 2 legal ways of being changed. So if you do not like the Constitution, feel free to spend your time and money to change the document unless you prefer the way Hitler and the Nazis party changed the German republic to a dictatorship!

...You do know that the Nazis changed the constitution using entirely legal means, yes? That was the whole point of the NSDAP's early years, to get enough of a majority in parliament to make those changes legally and above-board.

The next time you feel compelled to argue about what the Nazis did and didn't do, please do yourself a favour and research history first.

Folks think about it please. The FBI, CIA, NSA, and whatever other acronym you can conceive are looking for any potential terrorist activity. If an Islamic nutter contacts another Islamic nutter by whatever means to plan a lone wolf or small group attack the odds are they will (and are continually) be stopped. Occasionally one slips through, but not a biggie in the overall scheme of things.
Do you seriously think that they would miss the planning and coordination of sufficient militia groups to overthrow a "tyrannical government"? Even if such a thing as enough militia groups to out fight the US Army/Marines and so forth existed? The whole freedom to bear arms to keep the government in line bit is blown, and has been for over a century.
If you want to use words written by quill pens over two centuries ago as a vehicle for you to keep ownership of guns that can kill dozens of people go ahead, but don't use treason as an excuse.

Tenshinai wrote:Seriously, just how stupid ...

(ignored rest)

Daryl,

More than two centuries ago our Founders attempted to guarantee liberty for their fellow citizens. That guarantee was predicated on restricting government to very specific responsibities and letting sovereign citizens take care of the rest through their States and local polities.

The most important tools to accomplish this were the first 2 curtailments of the Federal government.
1) Government cannot legislate against speech(particularly political speech) or the practice of religion nor can it establish a State religion.
and
2) Government cannot prohibit the ownership of firearms to defend ourselves, our property and our sovereignty.

The first curtailment ensured that we citizens have the tools to persuade our fellow citizens to adopt policies we believe best or in turn be persuaded. The second curtailment is both the symbolic recognition by government that individual citizens hold and protect the sovereignty government uses to claim legitimacy and the real effect of retaining tools for the citizenry to strive to achieve protection against threats.

The Founders recognize nothing is certain. They did recognize that the power to persuade peacefully and the power to resist physical coercion are essential elements to securing liberty. It has worked for us quite well.

Our Constitution does allow the USE of guns to be legislated and restricted. They are so restricted. Gun owners who abuse their rights can lose those rights. As with any tool, guns can be abused. Yet this tool is meant to kill. Kill animals that threaten. To kill humans that threaten our lives and sovereignty. Punishing any abuse harshly is just fine with the vast majority of law abiding gun owners. Taking guns away simply further advantages the human predators in our midst.