Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1234022 -

"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. "

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.

Taken from.. http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html

It clearly states.. a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state..
AND
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

MAYBE they meant they were seperate. That would satisfy both arguements. We have a well regulated militia (national guard, police, etc.) and people have the right to bear arms (and protect themselves, as they very much should be able to.)

Makes sense to me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
    #1234024 -

Quote:
Alex, you are reading the words out of historical context and applying very recent and politically motivated interpretations of the terms. Please provide quotes from the founding fathers to back up your interpretations of the meanings of the words 'militia' and 'people' as they relate to the second amendment.


I don't blame you for asking but you know full well he won't and he can't. He'd rather keep telling the same old tired lies.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
    #1234030 -

I hear ya, stupid fucking cunts wanting to make guns illegal. It is Illegal to own a gun in Washington DC. Also, Washington, DC has the highest crime rate. I wonder why.

OJ Simpson's wife tried to get a gun, but she had to wait 5 days and by then she was murdered.


Outlaw the guns and only the outlaws will have them.

Edited by Dilauded (01/20/03 11:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1234044 -

The 2nd Amendment Reads...

"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."

It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the reason being that "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of freedom of the people. If there is any doubt as to the meaning of "militia" it can be inferred easily from this. It does mean a group of well armed and well trained citizens.

I believe that the amendment, if written in contemporary times with the same intent, would read
"Because the people must be able to effectively form groups useful in the resistance against tyranny, the right of the people to own weapons shall not be infringed"

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that it would say,
"The Army and National Guard, being necessary to secure the freedom of the people, shall be permitted to have weapons, but not the general population"




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1234046 -

Quote:
Look up the definition of regulated at the time the 2nd was written... I'll save you the trouble... it meant well equiped.


Whoa.  I just did an internet search and even back in the 18th century, "regulated" meant "regulated".  Are you accusing someone of lying and then doing it yourself???  :wink: I need evidence for this one, because I couldn't find any.   


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Sinistar]
    #1234047 -



--------------------
I'm a huge idiot

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
    #1234062 -

Quote:
The 2nd Amendment Reads...

"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."

It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the reason being that "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of freedom of the people. If there is any doubt as to the meaning of "militia" it can be inferred easily from this. It does mean a group of well armed and well trained citizens.

I believe that the amendment, if written in contemporary times with the same intent, would read
"Because the people must be able to effectively form groups useful in the resistance against tyranny, the right of the people to own weapons shall not be infringed"

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that it would say,
"The Army and National Guard, being necessary to secure the freedom of the people, shall be permitted to have weapons, but not the general population"


I almost completely agree with you. Except your modern day interpretation ignores the "well regulated" part. How would that be translated?


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: X.O]
    #1234070 -

Gotta love that weapon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Dilauded]
    #1234076 -

I don't want to outlaw guns, but there out to be limits on what kind of gun you can have. M-16's should not be in the hands of a bunch of angry, gun-loving rednecks.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: silversoul7]
    #1234110 -

I agree with you there, and weapons like those are illegal for the regular citizen or redneck, i mean Southern Gentlemen. But if anybody really wants a guns like that, join the military and skies the limit.

Dilauded

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: silversoul7]
    #1234123 -

I agree that there must be limits on the type of weapons that people are permitted to have. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, this was not as much of an issue because the most powerful weapons of the time were rifles and cannon. I don't think private citizens should be permitted to own and operate armed fighter jets. I also don't think that they should be permitted to own nuclear weapons. However, I think that an M-16 is not excessive. I think that small arms of any kind should be permitted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: X.O]
    #1234144 -

Doesn't beat... The Raging Bull. .454 Casul BAAAM!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: silversoul7]
    #1234239 -

Would I be considered an angry gun-loving redneck, or a good friend of mine who has about 10 variations of the M-16? Neither of us have ever been convicted or even accused of any crime other than traffic violations. Neither of us are missing any teeth. Neither of us eat squirrel for dinner. Neither of us live in the back country. Neither of us have any anger managment problems, we're both fine upstanding citizens. We both just love to go to the range on a weekend and shoot assault rifles. Before you argue against something so passionately, try it so you know where the opposition is coming from.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
    #1234242 -

.454 Casull has to be my favorite handgun round.  Nothing quite beats shooting through a mature pine tree with a pistol :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1234256 -

Quote:
Rewriting the bill of rights into your own words, and saying that puts the issue to rest is kind of silly to me. Anyone can rewrite it into their own words. Personally, I think it should only be interpreted as is: "a well regulated militia".


A well-regulated Militia...
A question was posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights the other day, regarding this phrase in the 2nd Amendment. Of the responses posted, two stood out as what I would consider "required reading". 8/30/99

Here's one...
> Q: How do the pro-gun people incorporate the clause well-regulated militia
> into the right for citizens in the US to arm themselves privately without
> belonging to a well-regulated militia?

A:
(posted by tpg's Scout - scout@monumental.com)
Simple. First let's look at what the 2nd states.

"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."

OK, first we start off with a subordinate clause which states an opinion. This opinion is not a limitation upon the main clause but rather explains to the reader one of the many reasons for the main clause.

Further when we examine the main clause it is clear that the right to bear arms is that of the people, not the militia, and that this right is not subject to infringement.

OK, but aren't those people only those in the militia?

No, there is no restrictive language within the 2nd to state or even imply that the right of the people is limited to that subgroup of the people called the militia. If they had meant the militia, then they would have said militia. Nor is the people the same as the militia, the militia stems from the people (hence the need for an armed people) but is NOT the same as the people. It's like saying the army comes from the people. It does. However that is not the same as saying the people are the army, since the army is but a subgroup of the people.

Maybe it would be easier if we expressed it in another manner. Let's try the following sentence.

A well read electorate being necessary to the continuance of an informed election, the right of the people to have and read books shall not be limited.

Exact same grammar, just a substitution of different nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs and so on. Given the direct substitution the grammatical construction has not changed.

So tell me, reading that sentence, would you say that only those people that vote should or be allowed to have books. No, because you need to have books to become informed long before you vote, nor can you insure when that person will find it necessary to vote.

So is it with guns. We need an armed population of people from which militias can be formed in times of emergency. Without those armed people, no militia can be formed, thus could not maintain the security of the free state. In fact it tends to happen automatically when in crisis the powers of law and order become over extended or completely fail. Witness neighbors banning together to protect the remains of their homes from looters after a hurricane. Witness shop owners banning together to protect their stores from looting, rioting, and being subjected to being burned down during the LA riots. No one knows when this response will be necessary so it is important that people can ALWAYS response in an effective manner.

Further if we check the writings of the founding fathers it becomes quite clear that the people must retain the means to insure that any government they form remains subservient to their will, which can even mean the use of force to do so. After all they had just finished doing this to regain their liberty. So we see that an armed population insures that the government will listen to the will of the people, one way or another.

Finally, let's examine the BoR, it is a listing of individual rights to be protected from the government. It would be most odd to say to the government, you can't disarm they very people you require to be armed.




--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: silversoul7]
    #1234273 -

Quote:
I don't want to outlaw guns, but there out to be limits on what kind of gun you can have. M-16's should not be in the hands of a bunch of angry, gun-loving rednecks.


Like this 1?


Whats up with that why limit what we can own? Anyway there done out there they can't take them away. Only thing they can do is call them pre bans. Like mine in the pic


--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1234351 -

Quote:
"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."

OK, first we start off with a subordinate clause which states an opinion. This opinion is not a limitation upon the main clause but rather explains to the reader one of the many reasons for the main clause.


Almost true. It explains to the reader not "one of the many reasons", but the reason for the main clause.

You've convinced me to believe that so long as "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of a free state then people have a right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, if they have the intention of being a part of the "well regulated militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state". But I would argue that a militia is NOT necessary for the security of a free state in today's day and age, due to the strength of our military. I realize this is debatable and probably best left as a subject for another thread.


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Edited by GoBlue! (01/20/03 02:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
    #1234490 -

I didn't mean to imply that all gun owners are rednecks. What I meant by that comment is that it's dangerous for that much firepower to fall into the wrong hands.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1234492 -

I need not convince you of anything. It is what it is. A right "of the people".

Whether it is one of many, or the only, it is and until the ammendment is changed or eliminated, it will remain a right "of the people".


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: silversoul7]
    #1234493 -

It is far more dangerous for guns NOT to be in the right hands.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR DENOUNCES ANTI-GUN-OWNERSHIP MOVEMENT MagicalMystery 1,689 14 09/07/05 10:50 AM
by MagicalMystery
* 40 Reasons For Gun Control
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 6,076 31 10/08/13 02:05 AM
by Therian
* Why do you own firearms?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 TheOneYouKnow 5,214 63 03/22/04 10:23 PM
by Ekstaza
* Gun Manufacturers Prevail.. pattern 634 1 03/10/03 12:51 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* The Swiss and their Guns.
( 1 2 all )		 lonestar2004 3,180 21 08/25/05 10:23 AM
by Alex213
* The False Promise of Gun Control
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,125 23 04/16/03 05:53 PM
by pattern
* A cause for concern, My essay on guns. punkhardcore92 1,342 14 03/18/08 03:24 PM
by punkhardcore92
* what is the militia?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 2,649 32 11/12/04 10:03 PM
by retread

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
15,258 topic views. 2 members, 181 guests and 31 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.