OK. Do you think we can get Trump to declare a NE to divert funds to fixing this problem? That would be good.
Hey wing nuts no one is coming for your guns
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
OK. Do you think we can get Trump to declare a NE to divert funds to fixing this problem? That would be good.
p.s. If you like podcasts, you should listen to the one called Dr. Death, since you seem to have an interest in this topic.
The serious conversation is that the Constitution is explicit. There's zero room to "interpret" the phrase "shall not be infringed".
Most people don't like this idea so they are willing to ignore the Constitution.
You haven't answered my question. You can't go out and legally buy a fully automatic weapon without first getting a FFL. Does that requirement infringe upon your right to bear arms? It is a yes or no question.
I'm giving you an example of individuals being directly responsible for other people in far greater numbers than guns since you were so quick to toss aside the sugar comment.
I have answered. The only correct answer possible is yes. Shall not be infringed means the government gets no say in the matter at all.
OK, so how do you reconcile the fact that the law exists and that it is unconstitutional? Why has it not been overturned by the courts? How did it become a law in the first place?
And, most importantly, considering that the law exists, is it possible (not likely, but possible) that a similar law could be enacted in the future, that would require citizens to jump through an extra hoop prior to purchasing a semi-auto weapon? Not a law requiring that current owners of semi-autos have to change anything, but a law that requires a special license, or a data base registration if you want to legally buy a semi-auto.
I reconcile it by not lying to myself.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
All laws that attempt to regulate arms in any manner, regardless of the social good they may provide, would be unconstitutional because they are by definition an infringement.
The question that you are afraid to ask here is whether you care if the existing laws are constitutional or not. Given the discussions here, it's safe to say that 90% of people don't.
I'm not afraid to ask or answer that question. I admit that I don't believe our founding fathers had the ability to see the future and that they may not have considered every possible permutation when writing the Constitution. That is one of the reasons that amendments are added to the original document.
I don't think that "most people" is accurate. I think it is just a large, vocal group
Of course the Founding Fathers had the ability to see that weapons would improve exponentially. The constitutional era was the golden age of technological advances in weapons.
If you had money back then, you could afford to buy exponentially better and more deadly weapons than the government had in service. Contrary to what you think, you could buy multi-shot weapons and semi-automatics even back in the 1780s.
If the pubic is willing to allow it. The problem with the lefts demands now is the public is against it.
In light of a primary purpose of the 2nd amendment to defend against an oppressive government, would they have wanted the public to be able to own equivalent weapons to the government?
That's specifically WHY they wrote a Constitution - so protections would remain as things changed.
They definitely were not weak on the concept of perceived safety vs guaranteed liberty.
This is one of the biggest lies you've been told. By the same logic, you shouldn't have free speech beyond screaming on a street corner or a hand cranked printing press.
Good question. Been what do you think the point of the 2nd Amendment was? Hunting? Home protection? Or the ability to rebel against tyranny?
Hard to say what exactly they were thinking or what they were capable of imagining. I think it is likely that they were drafting a document for their present and that they hoped would remain in place for X amount of years, but that 200+ years was hard for them to envision.
I agree with the primary reasoning of defense against an oppressive government. But, I don't think that it can be ruled out that they were also concerned with home protection and hunting. Both were likely considered to be liberties that they cared about.
Let's say we can take a time machine, fetch the FF, and bring them to the present. We then run through the Constitution, and explain to them how each point affects Americans today.
Is it possible that they might look at the 1st A, and say, "We nailed it on this one. This turned out exactly how we intended it would"
Is it also possible that they might say the same thing about the 2nd A? (clearly, your answer is yes).
Is there any chance that they might look at the 2nd A, and say something like, "Oh, wow. We had no idea that the world would look like this. Maybe, we need to rethink this one a little bit".
It really doesn't matter. As I said, I'm not looking to overturn the 2nd. I do believe that changes to current law can be made without doing that, however.
I mean, if you think you are currently protected against an oppressive government, because of the weapons you own, I don't agree. The government will always have something bigger and badder, and can put you in in the ground if they so desire. You might take some of their minions with you, but you will end up just as dead or just as interred in the end.
I honestly think they would look at the world today and wish they had put less ambiguous language in the 2A so that hypothetical conversations like this wouldn't occur.
In no way do I think hard men who just defeated the world's baddest empire would be worried about anything beyond equipping American citizens to keep it from happening again.
There are a lot of things I could be wrong about. I would put this at the bottom of that list in descending order of likelihood.
The FF's concept of natural law (the BoRs) is the affirmation that humans have positive rights endowed by a creator and not entitled by the state. That those rights where the exact same in the days of Aristotle and Cisero thousands of years ago and infinitely into the future.
There is no argument to be made that they didn't plan for what might happen in 2019.
@Been Jammin
What does the word “bear” mean? If a person can’t carry the “arms”, then nobody would have the right to keep them, correct? That would seemingly take care of a lot of your concerns.
What does the word “bear” mean? If a person can’t carry the “arms”, then nobody would have the right to keep them, correct? That would seemingly take care of a lot of your concerns.
Yep. To suggest that innovative guys like Franklin wouldn't have been able to see past the days of black power is dumb and suggestive that they would never be able to see printing progressing past wooden blocks and presses either.
Isn't President Trump using a National Emergency in this situation trashing Article 1 of the Constitution?
I think he sees a parallel path where he doesn't have to use funds appropriated via the national emergency. The current 1.7 gets him building into this fall most likely and then its time to negotiate the next budget.
Nope. Congress conferred this power to the president in the 1976 National Emergencies Act.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter34&edition=prelim
He's not trashing any part of the Constitution.
I do'nt want to get into a 2nd amendment debate because it is your constitution and foreigners have no right to try and change it. But if I remember correctly my poly science class and correct me if I am wrong. 2nd amendment was brought into bill of rights basically to have a well regulated militia and also as a deterrent to the federal army to attack any state.
Incorrect. Individual rights for a collective good. Not collective rights.
You are wrong.
There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.
Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The operative clause is the actual protected right. "Right of the People" is used 3 times in Bill of Rights. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
The prefatory clause is the lead-in that announces a purpose for the operative clause, not the purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. All of the period material surrounding the debate of the Second Amendment shows that the government is the restricted party, not the People. "Free State" refers to the state of being free, not one of the 13 colonies.
The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to remain free from government oppression, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
