- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2nd amdt spinn off, "well regulated militia"
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
my god you are thick man, the Bills are pre-existing god given rights, why would they have included it if it was a government right?
1
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Ok. Well, the well establish standard to infringe on constitutional rights has been established. There is also a long line of cases interpreting the 2nd amendment. What's your argument in light of those rulings and the longstanding standard?
"Rulings" have been reversed.
I'm looking for an ironclad argument protecting my right to keep and bear arsm, and I'm simply not seeing it.
I have too often seen people complacent in their beliefs of their rights be suddenly shaken awake and realize they've evaporated. "They can't DO that!!!1!" And yet it's done.
I believe the language in Article 1, Section 8, the Bill of Rights and the first Militia Act to be sufficiently vague as to cause some amount of consternation on my part.
My concerns remain unassuaged in this thread.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Well the burden is on the person trying to overrule longstanding precedent and longstanding standards of scrutiny. Saying you aren't convinced it is ironclad is not persuasive. In order to overturn precedent you should have a more compelling argument than "I haven't been convinced"
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:42 pm to Strannix
quote:
my god you are thick man
No, I'm a scientist. That makes me a skeptic. I want direct proof. I'm just not seeing it.
quote:
why would they have included it if it was a government right?
No one has yet provided me with a CLEAR reason to include the militia clause in the 2nd Amend.
All reasons given would much more easily be explained by excluding the Militia clause - specifically, if it's an unqualified God-given Right, why wasn't it written as:
Amendment II: The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Simple, straightforward, and no cracks to get a crowbar in.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Saying you aren't convinced it is ironclad is not persuasive. In order to overturn precedent you should have a more compelling argument than "I haven't been convinced"
What in the frick?
I am not makling an argument, I'm looking for reassurance that the BOR protects me and my guns. I'm not finding it.
But as so often happens, what I'm seeing is a bunch of people (with some exceptions) that are just giving me the same knee-jerk reaction bullshite under the assumption that I want to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
Let me make this clear:
I OWN GUNS.
I DO NOT FEEL SECURE THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVIDES ENOUGH PROTECTION OF THAT RIGHT.
I AM LOOKING FOR IRONCLAD EVIDENCE THAT MY RIGHT IS SECURE.
I AM NOT SEEING IT.
So stop treating me like some anti-gun liberal that wants "gun control" because I AM NOT.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm looking for reassurance that the BOR protects me and my guns. I'm not finding it
I really feel for you friend
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:54 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
I really feel for you friend
Good luck with your complacency.
'Cause most of what I've seen in this thread looks like a bunch of guys just trying to convince themselves.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:59 pm to Bard
quote:
postulating that the 2nd Amendment applied only to a militia that many today claim (erroneously) was to be under some form of government regulation, flies completely contrary to the very existence of the Bill of Rights.
Exactly. Thank you.
The Bill of Rights is an affirmation of the rights of individuals to be as free as possible from intrusion by the government. It is not a listing of "collective rights" as liberals are so fond of saying.
The Founders didn't initiate a war so that only government approved groups of people could bear arms, the idea is absurd.
LC
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:02 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I AM LOOKING FOR IRONCLAD EVIDENCE THAT MY RIGHT IS SECURE.
No piece of paper ever guaranteed any man jack shite, if that's what you are looking to put your faith in you will be sorely disappointed.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:20 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:quote:
postulating that the 2nd Amendment applied only to a militia that many today claim (erroneously) was to be under some form of government regulation,
Exactly. Thank you.
Except that Article 1, Sec 8 of the USC, along with the first Militia Act completely contridict this assertion.
quote:
The Founders didn't initiate a war so that only government approved groups of people could bear arms, the idea is absurd.
They also didn't form a nation under the idea that an armed mob was the ultimate law.
There's a balance.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:23 pm to Strannix
quote:
No piece of paper ever guaranteed any man jack shite, if that's what you are looking to put your faith in you will be sorely disappointed.
No, that's not what I'm looking for. I want to see proof that the 2A doesn't simply apply to militias as described in the USC and Militia Act of 1792.
OldWar has provided evidence that the definition of the Militia has changed with the Act of 1903, but still no one has provided ireffutable proof that the 2A doesn't simply apply to Militias as described above.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
still no one has provided ireffutable proof that the 2A doesn't simply apply to Militias as described above.
quote:
Amendment II: The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Simple, straightforward, and no cracks to get a crowbar in.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Amendment II: The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Simple, straightforward, and no cracks to get a crowbar in.
Only that's not what it says.
I think there's people that REALLY REALLY want to believe something in this thread that isn't as clear as they want to believe.
Considering what a former USSC justice has come out and said, most of this thread just looks like wishful thinking. I'm afraid Stevens' opinion has more weight than all the 'experts' in this thread combined. And that concerns me.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:45 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm afraid Stevens' opinion has more weight than all the 'experts' in this thread combined.
1) I can't find that quote anywhere.
2) if he actually said it, did he say it in a dissenting opinion of a SCOTUS case? Because that would prove the point that it is an individual right.
Eta: sorry... thought you were talking about the Burger quote. The meme from the other thread
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:58 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
The meme from the other thread
It's not just a "meme".
quote:
Justice Stevens’ new book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution...Stevens believes the Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to protect “keeping and bearing arms for military purposes.”
So a former Supreme Court Justice believes that, I'm not worried, the experts on the PoliRant say it isn't so.
Hmmmm...
How could he believe that if it's as cut and dried as so many on here want to believe?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 10:25 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I OWN GUNS.
And I don't. My choice. As you have yours for now.
But you seem to trying to debate why the authors didn't write something more to your liking rather than debating what they did write. Its a dodge, because its based on speculation rather than text. You'll not be pacified, if comfort is what you really seek.
We weren't there to know what they meant (though other contemporary writings can provide context). We can only read what they wrote and study the majority opionions.
From those, I'd say you are good
Posted on 5/30/14 at 10:33 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:He's right.
the Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to protect “keeping and bearing arms for military purposes.”
For "military purposes" in the eyes of the founders entailed the people having an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 10:44 pm to Strannix
quote:
No piece of paper ever guaranteed any man jack shite,
"No paper can hold the iron, it must come from men."
Chief Ten Bears
Posted on 5/30/14 at 10:58 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
WildTchoupitoulas
Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment was included as a means to foil an over-reaching federal and/or state government as well as to defend against foreign invaders?
Posted on 5/31/14 at 12:36 am to Bard
WildT, I don't think you realize it, but the notion that a right in the constitution is given only if government exists is a wide departure from the founders' philosophy./
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News