True, BUT therein lies the open door to misinterpretations. You and I have an opinion on what arms are, and we may agree, we may disagree, but the only interpretation that carries legal weight is the definition handed down by the SCOTUS. They are responsible for universal legal interpretation of the Constitution and amendments
Which is what I was about to ask, considering maryjane's reference is to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Neither document references what many of us would take to be the God of Judeo-Christian belief.
Which is what I was about to ask, considering maryjane's reference is to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Neither document references what many of us would take to be the God of Judeo-Christian belief.
I have not been nor will I debate unalienable rights in this thread. Maybe some day, maybe in some other thread? My cooments about WMD and interpretation of the 2nd were from a current legal perspective and the restrictive laws we have to follow. I have not been defending the interpretation, only stating its binding reprocusions.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-26-2014).]
You and I have an opinion on what arms are, and we may agree, we may disagree, but the only interpretation that carries legal weight is the definition handed down by the SCOTUS. They are responsible for universal legal interpretation of the Constitution and amendments
Yes "carries legal weight" . Your point hasnt changed through this entire thread, and it seems as all recognize that, we all have acknowledged that, and said its irrelevant because our rights trump it, but you still argue it as if it is opposite to the point we or I was making. But then you even acknowledged God given rights.
We get it, its illegal to do things the government says is against the law.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-26-2014).]
In your opinion. And I do agree with your opinion. BUT our opinion does not trump the SCOTUS definition of 2nd amendment bearable arms.
I believe that the 2nd amendment has been so defiled and abused that it "says" we have the right to bear arms but in practice it says we have the right to participate in the privilege of owning guns that are on a Government approved list. We can enjoy this privilege as long as we follow all federal laws and even State laws, use the proper ammo and proper ammo holding device's.
I DONT AGREE WITH IT, it has become this way over the years.
Originally posted by 2.5: Yes "carries legal weight" . Your point hasnt changed through this entire thread, and it seems as all recognize that, we all have acknowledged that, and said its irrelevant because our rights trump it, but you still argue it as if it is opposite to the point we or I was making. But then you even acknowledged God given rights.
We get it, its illegal to do things the government says is against the law.
I have given opinions based on what we can't own based on the current laws. I did not say I agree with all of them, infact I do disagree with some of them. Actually a majority of them. I have said that I am not convinced that we ever had the right to own WMD. I have not given my opinion on unalienable rights, just directed a person who mentioned it to a previous post about it.
In your opinion. And I do agree with your opinion. BUT our opinion does not trump the SCOTUS definition of 2nd amendment bearable arms.
I believe that the 2nd amendment has been so defiled and abused that it "says" we have the right to bear arms but in practice it says we have the right to participate in the privilege of owning guns that are on a Government approved list. We can enjoy this privilege as long as we follow all federal laws and even State laws, use the proper ammo and proper ammo holding device's.
I DONT AGREE WITH IT, it has become this way over the years.
With that, I think we can agree that we (all?) actually do seem to agree.
With that, I think we can agree that we (all?) actually do seem to agree.
Thank you.
I dont think I can say it any other way, what we were taught about the Constitution is now obsolete because of the philosophy of "living breathing document ". It is not good enough to learn it once and for all. Nowadays we need to keep up with the changes to it as if were just voted in "so we can see what is on it" and "tweek it or make changes to it as needed"
The new version of the Constitution is changeable or executive order to ignor or avoid it. The politics of the day only pays lip service to the Constitution.
Part of the problem here may be due to the point of view I argued from: the actual application of the Constitution and amendments as legally interpreted by todays srandards. And how the laws of today reflect those changes that were made to the Constitution via amendments or continued " refinement" by interpretation.
Others have been arguing from the "original" intent. I understand this.
I have also said and implied that the original intent does not actually apply today BECAUSE of the changes that have been made over the years. That is why you cant own a full auto rifle or a slave. Times have changed and to some degree changes needed to be made through amendments.
I have also said and implied that the original intent does not actually apply today BECAUSE of the changes that have been made over the years. That is why you cant own a full auto rifle or a slave. Times have changed and to some degree changes needed to be made through amendments.
It did however, via an amendment ( the 2nd mistake our founders made.. allowing any changes past the initial 10 ) say you cant own one.. And before anyone flips a gasket, i do not mean i am for slavery. I am just not for 'additional amendments'. One does not change the foundation of your home just because you want to change the type of window coverings you have.
EDIT: and to show how important this stuff is to me, yes, i have a copy of the Constitution and bill of rights hanging on my office wall at home ( fake parchment, and of course MUCH smaller than the original ). I also have both, + the federalist papers + a whole host of other documents with me at all times, in my e-book reader. Which i never leave home without. It is the only 'law' that i personally acknowledge as valid. And one of the few 'things' i actually capitalize when referenced
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-26-2014).]
And the point? We have been talking about private citizens rights all along, i dont think that statement above that this is about 'citizen militia' ( like the one that secured our freedom ), and not 'government militia' was in question. ( unless i missed a post .. )
Cutting off the argument, that individuals are not a militia, that usually ensues.
It did however, via an amendment ( the 2nd mistake our founders made.. allowing any changes past the initial 10 ) say you cant own one.. And before anyone flips a gasket, i do not mean i am for slavery. I am just not for 'additional amendments'. One does not change the foundation of your home just because you want to change the type of window coverings you have.
EDIT: and to show how important this stuff is to me, yes, i have a copy of the Constitution and bill of rights hanging on my office wall at home ( fake parchment, and of course MUCH smaller than the original ). I also have both, + the federalist papers + a whole host of other documents with me at all times, in my e-book reader. Which i never leave home without. It is the only 'law' that i personally acknowledge as valid. And one of the few 'things' i actually capitalize when referenced
OK, it is important to and you are passionate about it. This is both cool and admirable. I again have to say the original has been tampered with. The original version is not recognized by our current system. The current system makes laws based on the modified version of the Constitution. Both the "good or needed"The changes along with the ugly and politically motivated changes.
Origin: before 900; Middle English; Old English earm; cognate with Gothic arms, Old Norse armr, Old Frisian erm, Dutch, Old Saxon, Old High German arm ( German Arm ) arm; Latin armus, Serbo-Croatian rȁme, rȁmo shoulder; akin to Sanskrit īrmá, Avestan arəma-, OPruss irmo arm; not akin to Latin arma arm2
Related forms armed, adjective
arm·like, adjective
Can be confused: alms, arms.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
arm2 [ahrm] Show IPA
noun
1. Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.
2. arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.
verb (used without object)
3. to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
verb (used with object)
4. to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.
5. to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.
6. to cover protectively.
7. to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.
8. to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments.
Idioms
10. bear arms,
a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross.
11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare.
13. up in arms, ready to take action; indignant; outraged: There is no need to get up in arms over such a trifle.
Origin: 1200–50 for v.; 1300–50 for noun; (v.) Middle English armen < Anglo-French, Old French armer < Latin armāre to arm, verbal derivative of arma (plural) tools, weapons (not akin to arm1 ); (noun) Middle English armes (plural) ≪ Latin arma, as above
handle them like cars register & re-register every year with updated ballistics checks carry insurance on them to pay for the damage they will do licenses to aquire licenes can be revoked keys to use them
anyways - you will NEVER stop someone from getting a gun, because a gun is super simple machine, that ANYONE with basic skills can fabricate.
Let's consider applying your "licensing rules" to some other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, shall we???
SPEECH: -register & re-register every year with updated checks to make sure you speak and write correct vocabulary and don't offend ANYONE -carry insurance on your mouth and pen to pay for the damage they will do when you offend someone -licenses to speak and write -license to speak and write can be revoked (by who and under what criteria???) -key to unlock the muzzle on your mouth and the handcuffs on your hands to use them
VOTING: -register & re-register every year with updated checks to make sure you vote the way the politicians currently in power want you to -carry insurance on voting rights to make sure you can pay for the lawsuit brought against you by the candidate who lost the election who you voted against -licenses to vote (I think we already had something like this a number of years ago where you had to own property in order to be able to vote, and you had to also be a certain gender and skin color to be able to vote - I don't recall that working out too well for a good portion of the population; maybe that's why we got rid of it) -license to vote can be revoked (by who and under what criteria???) -key to the voting booth
Let's consider applying your "licensing rules" to some other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, shall we???
other than hypocrisy, i have never understood how violating one rule ( shuch as speech ) gets certain people all riled up " you can't to that we have that right" but at the same time they are "sure, the state can restrict that, its not a real right" if its the 2nd.
In the context of this thread what comes to mind first is outdated and highly ambiguous wording. To me, much of the US constitution sounds rather Shakespearean.
I guess the 2nd amendment would be written differently today, maybe like that:
A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The purpose and composition of said militia shall be [insert here]. The regulation of said militia is the responsibility of [insert here] and must include [insert here].
The people of the United States of America shall have the right to freely acquire firearms, to keep them in their homes in a safe manner and to carry them in public. The purpose of this right is [insert here]. The definition of "firearms' for the purpose of this article is [insert here]. The following groups shall be excluded from said right: [insert here]. While the basic right shall not be infringed, any additional regulation that may become necessary in the public interest is the responsibility of [insert here] and must be approved by [insert here].
Of course I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I think that would make things much easier already...
I think the 2nd Amendment, as it is actually written, is quite clear - as explained in this video:
I think the 2nd Amendment, as it is actually written, is quite clear - as explained in this video:
Seems the people ( in general, not just here ) that support the 2nd say its quite clear, however the people that are against it conveniently claim its not.
While i am one who thinks it ( and the rest of the bill of rights ) is carefully written and quite clear, for those that feel its not, they can always read the supporting documents.
Seems the people ( in general, not just here ) that support the 2nd say its quite clear, however the people that are against it conveniently claim its not.
While i am one who thinks it ( and the rest of the bill of rights ) is carefully written and quite clear, for those that feel its not, they can always read the supporting documents.
People who don't personally agree with any statement, written law or right or otherwise, will always claim they are not clear. This is nothing new in history.
The Constitution was written to be the master framework that supersedes all other laws. Since its ratification, politicians have been trying to edit the meaning of it by authoring new laws but they don't seem to understand the only thing that can change the Constitution is the Amendment Process which is clearly explained within said document.
The problem is the Supreme Court of the United States' job is to impartially decide whether new laws contradict the Constitution. All too often what we see instead are personal and political biases of Supreme Court and other lower Justices trying misinterpret actual Constitutional meaning. In other words, the Constitution says something like: 2+2=4, and all too often we have people who come along wanting to rewrite that to make it mean 2+2=5; which we know is not correct - but that doesn't stop them from trying to do it anyway. It's just too bad we can't find actual impartial justices to sit on the high court. The system is corrupt with human bias and error.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 06-27-2014).]
Computer software (even A.I. based) has to be first written by humans. IE: you'll never eliminate the inherent human error from the system.
Zoe did a good job on mine.
kidding aside, most hard core AI people believe that it will happen spontaneously on its own. We wont actually build it. Then it will evolve on its own.
People who don't personally agree with any statement, written law or right or otherwise, will always claim they are not clear. This is nothing new in history.
The Constitution was written to be the master framework that supersedes all other laws. Since its ratification, politicians have been trying to edit the meaning of it by authoring new laws but they don't seem to understand the only thing that can change the Constitution is the Amendment Process which is clearly explained within said document.
The problem is the Supreme Court of the United States' job is to impartially decide whether new laws contradict the Constitution. All too often what we see instead are personal and political biases of Supreme Court and other lower Justices trying misinterpret actual Constitutional meaning. In other words, the Constitution says something like: 2+2=4, and all too often we have people who come along wanting to rewrite that to make it mean 2+2=5; which we know is not correct - but that doesn't stop them from trying to do it anyway. It's just too bad we can't find actual impartial justices to sit on the high court. The system is corrupt with human bias and error.
The politicians of today have beat you to the punch with a solution to your math analogy. They call it common coar.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-27-2014).]
People who don't personally agree with any statement, written law or right or otherwise, will always claim they are not clear. This is nothing new in history.
Or they'll just claim it means what they want it to mean. They accuse pro-gun rights supporters of doing the same.
As the analogy I quoted here illustrates, it's pretty clear what it means if you change the topic to reading and writing books from owning weapons. Even the SCOTUS has said it's an individual right, but that's still not enough for those determined to erode our rights further.
I think all this time you must have been deliberately not paying attention to my reasoning. Of course people are the problem, not the guns themselves. The question is how to minimize the risk the combination of guns and irresponsible people pose to others. You and I just get to different conclusions regarding this question and we have different priorities.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 06-28-2014).]
I think all this time you must have been deliberately not paying attention to my reasoning. Of course people are the problem, not the guns themselves. The question is how to minimize the risk the combination of guns and irresponsible people pose to others. You and I just get to different conclusions regarding this question and we have different priorities.
We do have different reasoning.
I find it ironic that you are atheist and at the same time don't support evolution.
I find it ironic that you are atheist and at the same time don't support evolution.
What you don't seem to understand about evolution is that it's not necessarily about the survival of the individual but about the survival of the species.
