Dont Tread On Me

[local 12 proud]

Love him or Hate him, Ted makes some profound and bold statements concerning our Second Amendment rights. Personally I happen to agree with everything he said, I liked him then...'Cat Scratch Fever'.... and I like him now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

 

[Garfield1966]

I guess I'll have to scratch him off my play list.

If you take his argument literally and to it's logical conclusion, I should be able to own tanks, claymores, anti-personal mines, chemical weapons, assault machine guns, AT4's, RPG's and what ever other cool toys are produced. All rights are finite and have restrictions. He would do well to learn that,

I have read nothing to indicate that the writers of the Constitution intended for everyone in todays society to be armed to what ever degree they feel necessary. Given the time that they were in, I find it much more logical than when they write of a militia, they are referring to a fighting force of reserves for military combat. Given that we have a organized fighting force that far surpasses anything they had as far as organization, relative size, and capability, I do not feel that Ted's argument flies any better than the Spruce Goose.

Personally, I would like to see weapons registered just like a car is. Inspected on a yearly basis just like a car is, have titles that must be transfered when sold just like a car. If a weapon is stolen, it must be reported. Of course the NRA would not go for this as this would curtail some right they believe is being violated.

I would rather see a justice system over hauled to punish those who need to be punished and rehabilitate those who show promise.

I wonder if good ole Ted would support executing those gun owners who do not secure their weapons and have children who end up with the guns and kill their friend when showing off the weapon. I noticed he did not address those types of incidents. I wonder why?

 

[local 12 proud]

I guess I'll have to scratch him off my play list.

Your probably more of a chixie dicks fan anyway, In fact I bet you surrender your sack everytime you walk thru the front door, you just come across to me as a hen pecked puss!

If you take his argument literally and to it's logical conclusion, I should be able to own tanks, claymores, anti-personal mines, chemical weapons, assault machine guns, AT4's, RPG's and what ever other cool toys are produced. All rights are finite and have restrictions. He would do well to learn that,

No you should'nt be able to own weapons that are intended for warfare, the weapons you list are strictly used for Military purposes.
and thats not what he was saying at all and you know it, you may want to watch it again unless you choose to remain Ignorant!

I have read nothing to indicate that the writers of the Constitution intended for everyone in todays society to be armed to what ever degree they feel necessary. Given the time that they were in, I find it much more logical than when they write of a militia, they are referring to a fighting force of reserves for military combat. Given that we have a organized fighting force that far surpasses anything they had as far as organization, relative size, and capability, I do not feel that Ted's argument flies any better than the Spruce Goose.

A militia is made up of ordinary citizens and I think the framers made it perfectly clear! Regardless of the document I have a GOD given right to defend myself, my family, and my property against hostilities. PERIOD!!!!!!

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Personally, I would like to see weapons registered just like a car is. Inspected on a yearly basis just like a car is, have titles that must be transfered when sold just like a car. If a weapon is stolen, it must be reported.

We already have laws on the books regarding gun ownership, Those with evil intent will not obey any law you propose!

Of course the NRA would not go for this as this would curtail some right they believe is being violated.

Guess that shows how much you know concerning the NRA.

I would rather see a justice system over hauled to punish those who need to be punished and rehabilitate those who show promise.

We already do sparky, its called three strikes your out!

I wonder if good ole Ted would support executing those gun owners who do not secure their weapons and have children who end up with the guns and kill their friend when showing off the weapon. I noticed he did not address those types of incidents. I wonder why?

Of course Gun owners need to be responsible and if some Idiot leaves his loaded 38 laying out on his night stand with children in the house he is a moron, If that same Idiots child gets the weapon and kills another then the owner (Idiot) should be prosecuted for negligent homocide.

Ted did'nt need to mention those types of incidents because the majority of Legal Gun owners have common sense, you don't take a right away from people because of a few brain dead individuals. Tens of Thousands are killed on our roads every year, so should we abolish autos?

I know in your Idea Utopian world view there would be no wars, no hunger, no poor, no accidents, etc..... but we live in reality and believe it or not Evil does exist!

 

[UAL_TECH]

Love him or Hate him, Ted makes some profound and bold statements concerning our Second Amendment rights. Personally I happen to agree with everything he said, I liked him then...'Cat Scratch Fever'.... and I like him now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

Now 'THAT' is stellar!!!
I agree as well!!!

Thanks!

B) UT

 

[Garfield1966]

Actually I do like the Dixie Chicks as well as numerous other groups. They stood by their statements which is more than I can say for most folks.

Why you feel the need to continue to insult people is beyond me. It only weakens your argument.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Back in the 1700’s muskets and cannons were pretty much all there were and those weapons were meant for war as well as hunting.

If we are to take your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as fact, then there is no limitation on what weapons can be owned.

When I see the second amendment, I emphasize the first part, specifically the “regulatedâ€￾ part. I see the use of that word as meaning a organized military. We as a society have chosen to limit the types of weapons that can be owned by people so it would seem that you are also in favor of gun control.

What I said is that if you take his argument, as well as yours to it’s logical conclusion, there should be no limitation on what weapons can be owned due to the fact that the US Constitution does not stipulate any limits.

The framer never mentioned god in the Constitution so what you think your god gave you is not relevant. Either the 2nd amendment grants you the rights in question or it does not.

If guns are treated like cars it would be much more difficult to deal in illegal weapons.

The intent of a car are a bit different than the intent of a gun. Your comparison seems to be pretty hollow.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Actually I do like the Dixie Chicks as well as numerous other groups. They stood by their statements which is more than I can say for most folks.

So do I

Why you feel the need to continue to insult people is beyond me. It only weakens your argument.

Insult? I missed that one. What was the insult?

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Back in the 1700’s muskets and cannons were pretty much all there were and those weapons were meant for war as well as hunting.

So were rocks, should we ban rocks?

B) UT

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I think the best way to understand the framers intent is to understand the historical underpins of the bill of rights. Unfortunately, historical scholarship has been hijacked for ideological purposes in this bitter argument.

Ever heard of the federalist and anti-federalists? If you haven’t... it is because of their disagreements that we have the bill of rights (closely associated with federalism).

The inclusion of an amendment protecting the right to bear arms was a necessary concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared that the power of the federal government might threaten the states. Essentially, the 2nd amendment was designed to reaffirm state control of the militia and neutralize any fear that the militia might be disarmed by the U.S. government.

It was the protection of states' rights, not individual rights, that prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment. It, like other checks and balances included in the Constitution and Bill of rights, is a final check on potential tyranny on behalf of the US government.

Bearing arms in the militia is legally distinct from bearing or carrying a gun in self defense. Reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right distorts history for ideological purposes. It also turns the Bill of Rights into a constitutional etch-a-sketch in which the 2nd amendment's preamble, tying the purpose of the amendment to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, can be erased by ideological nonsense.

But, this only deals with whether Congress CAN regulate arms that are not being used for the people's duty to participate in the militia. This doesn't say that Congress HAS to regulate your made-up, err... god-given right to have weapons.

I think personal arms should be regulated (i.e. handguns, school zones, concealment, etc...), but I also think that some Texas farmer shouldn't be forced to hand over his rifle just because the government can regulate it. Both sides' main concerns can be adequately provided for through appropriate legislation.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I think the best way to understand the framers intent is to understand the historical underpins of the bill of rights. Unfortunately, historical scholarship has been hijacked for ideological purposes in this bitter argument.

Ever heard of the federalist and anti-federalists? If you haven’t... it is because of their disagreements that we have the bill of rights (closely associated with federalism).

The inclusion of an amendment protecting the right to bear arms was a necessary concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared that the power of the federal government might threaten the states. Essentially, the 2nd amendment was designed to reaffirm state control of the militia and neutralize any fear that the militia might be disarmed by the U.S. government.

It was the protection of states' rights, not individual rights, that prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment. It, like other checks and balances included in the Constitution and Bill of rights, is a final check on potential tyranny on behalf of the US government.

Bearing arms in the militia is legally distinct from bearing or carrying a gun in self defense. Reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right distorts history for ideological purposes. It also turns the Bill of Rights into a constitutional etch-a-sketch in which the 2nd amendment's preamble, tying the purpose of the amendment to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, can be erased by ideological nonsense.

But, this only deals with whether Congress CAN regulate arms that are not being used for the people's duty to participate in the militia. This doesn't say that Congress HAS to regulate your made-up, err... god-given right to have weapons.

I think personal arms should be regulated (i.e. handguns, school zones, concealment, etc...), but I also think that some Texas farmer shouldn't be forced to hand over his rifle just because the government can regulate it. Both sides' main concerns can be adequately provided for through appropriate legislation.

You should run for public office.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Hey Joe

 

[local 12 proud]

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Back in the 1700’s muskets and cannons were pretty much all there were and those weapons were meant for war as well as hunting.

Ive been a Hunter most of my life and have never once needed a cannon to bring down wild game, I did not realize those were approved for taking down bambi. :huh:

When I see the second amendment, I emphasize the first part, specifically the “regulatedâ€￾ part. I see the use of that word as meaning a organized military. We as a society have chosen to limit the types of weapons that can be owned by people so it would seem that you are also in favor of gun control.

Gun-prohibitionists constantly argue that the Second Amendment guarantees only a right of States to maintain militias. In doing so, they ignore not only the plain text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but numerous opinions in which the United States Supreme Court has spoken of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. Proponents of the "states' rights" theory are also silent as to why, despite abundant opportunity, the Supreme Court has never summarily disposed of a Second Amendment claim on the grounds that an individual lacked standing to assert it.

The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is the right of the people, not the States. The very text of the Constitution distinguishes between "the people", "persons" and "States". See, art. I., Sec. 2; art. I, Sec. 3; art. II, Sec. 1. The Tenth Amendment distinguishes between "the people" and "the States" by providing that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1131, 1166 (1991) Prof. Akil Reed Amar of Yale Law School writes:

The states' rights reading [of the Second Amendment] puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states." As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means "states," it says so. Thus, as noted above, "the people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "people" at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens.

http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd9.html

The framer never mentioned god in the Constitution so what you think your god gave you is not relevant. Either the 2nd amendment grants you the rights in question or it does not.

Where did I say The Framers mentioned it?

Had you read my post without those liberal rose colored glasses you would have seen what I said...Regardless of the document I have a GOD given right to defend myself, my family, and my property against hostilities. PERIOD!!!!!!

The intent of a car are a bit different than the intent of a gun. Your comparison seems to be pretty hollow.

Are you suggesting a car cannot be used as a deadly weapon?

Cars don't kill people, People kill people!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is the right of the people, not the States. The very text of the Constitution distinguishes between "the people", "persons" and "States". See, art. I., Sec. 2; art. I, Sec. 3; art. II, Sec. 1. The Tenth Amendment distinguishes between "the people" and "the States" by providing that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1131, 1166 (1991) Prof. Akil Reed Amar of Yale Law School writes:

The states' rights reading [of the Second Amendment] puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states." As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means "states," it says so. Thus, as noted above, "the people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "people" at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens.

Too funny! You have no idea what you just cited. You should have read his entire article before you referred to Professor Akil Reed Amar. He says:

"In emphasizing the structural and populist core of the Second Amendment, I do not deny that the phrase 'the people' can be read broadly, beyond what I have called 'the core.' As with the language of petition and assembly, other concerns can be comfortably placed under the language's spacious canopy. But to see the Amendment as primarily concerned with an individual right to hunt, or protect one's home, is like viewing the heart of the speech and assembly clauses as the right of persons to meet to play bridge, or to have sex."

 

[local 12 proud]

Too funny! You have no idea what you just cited. You should have read his entire article before you referred to Professor Akil Reed Amar. He says:

"In emphasizing the structural and populist core of the Second Amendment, I do not deny that the phrase 'the people' can be read broadly, beyond what I have called 'the core.' As with the language of petition and assembly, other concerns can be comfortably placed under the language's spacious canopy. But to see the Amendment as primarily concerned with an individual right to hunt, or protect one's home, is like viewing the heart of the speech and assembly clauses as the right of persons to meet to play bridge, or to have sex."

I did read the entire article Frog Pad.... I love that, who coined that phrase for you again?

Truth is you can't handle the truth!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmNopAo0PRc

 

[Garfield1966]

OK, lets go with your definition for the time being. What is a “regulated militiaâ€￾? Also, as Lilly stated above, given that most of the amendments deal with states rights, how do you justify the 2nd as giving individual rights?

As for your god given rights. It works like this. The bible says a woman who commits adultery can be stoned. The US legal system says that no one can be stoned under any circumstances. Guess who wins that argument? The US law does. Point being, you said that your god said you defend your family, property ..etc. Since we are in a thread discussing the 2nd amendment, it is logical to conclude that you were justifying your right to own a gun. My point was that should the 2nd amendment (or any other for that matter) be interpreted a different way, what ever rights your god provided you with will not matter.

The court supported segregation at one point was well. The USSC is to a degree a political arm as well. Just look at the appointment process. I honestly do not believe that the court would have the balls to change their interpretation of the amendment. Even if they did, the out cry would be deafening and Congress would amend the Constitution to allow ownership. It is far safer to leave it stand and have minor squabbles as opposed to all out war.

The intent of a car is to provide transportation of goods or people. What is the intent of a weapon? Anything has the potential to be used as a weapon. The difference is that some items are designed to kill, others are co opted in to committing a crime. The comparison in my opinion is not valid.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

I'm sorry, but my opinion on this very important civic issue is too strong to remain silent.

I think Cat Scratch Fever sucks a nut.


- astra

...

(Funny how conservatives never have a problem with idiot celebrities voicing their ignorant opinions when they agree lockstep? ...just a thought that happened to occur to me...)

 

[Garfield1966]

I'm sorry, but my opinion on this very important civic issue is too strong to remain silent.

I think Cat Scratch Fever sucks a nut.
- astra

...

(Funny how conservatives never have a problem with idiot celebrities voicing their ignorant opinions when they agree lockstep? ...just a thought that happened to occur to me...)

Do you have anything, anything at all to substantiate your opinion or is the above statement the limit of your intellectual ability?