DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:44 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Sure, but it’s pretty obvious if the founders wanted to leave gun rights in the hands of the states, there would be no gun rights amendment.

I understand your argument about militia would change that dynamic, but also remember I don’t agree with that assessment.
not so fast. I adhere, as is known, to the militia intent, but agree that the 2nd was designed so that NO STATE could deny the right to bear arms.

Slick isn't your position on the definition in the 2nd amendment for 'militia' something like a State Guard and not a reference to any able bodied citizen who might come to fight carrying his own weapon that he keeps as a personal property?

And the 2nd was not designed to simply restrict the State!
It was designed to instruct the Federal and State that the right to keep and bear arms lies with the People.
The 9th was to remind them both that just because they only listed a few rights that in no way implies those are the only rights or that the description given is a narrow definition and the government can presume to hold all authority not delineated within a single rights description in the BoR's

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:50 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:Slick isn't your position on the definition in the 2nd amendment for 'militia' something like a State Guard and not a reference to any able bodied citizen who might come to fight carrying his own weapon that he keeps as a personal property?

no, in fact I thought I'd made this real clear. Let me try again: the intent was for all citizens to keep arms around their homes, so they could grab them and gather immediately should a militia need to be formed. There was NEVER, that I've heard, anything around State organization, nor have I ever claimed so. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that the idea of central storehouses would have been geographically and tactically a bad idea.

And the 2nd was not designed to restrict the State! It was designed to instruct the Federal and State that the right to keep and bear arms lies with the People.

it was, and I've never disagreed. My whole point is that this need and idea was in the ABSOLUTE absence of a Federal Standing Army. Nothing from me about States whatsoever. The purpose was to protect the citizens and lands of the nation.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:57 pm**

How can you cling to the notion the 2nd was only put in place of a standing army when there are pages of supporting documents that let you read the discussions between Madison and others where the ultimate compromise was to have the people's right to keep and bear arms absolute as a solution to the danger of a standing army that they allowed?!?

Your interpretation is factually challenged.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:07 pm**

Stupid argument. Look up the definition of a militia.

"All able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:11 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:How can you cling to the notion the 2nd was only put in place of a standing army when there are pages of supporting documents that let you read the discussions between Madison and others where the ultimate compromise was to have the people's right to keep and bear arms absolute as a solution to the danger of a standing army that they allowed?!?

Your interpretation is factually challenged.

no, it is based on: 1) the notion that they might discuss things, but were always pretty lucid about the meaning of what
finally got put to paper
and
2) what got put to paper was limited in exactly the manner I suggest, with the back history given by
me to justify that limited interest.

now, Will, YOU confuse me. How is it different that I state that the 2nd was put in place because of a fear/reluctance to have a national standing army, and what you are claiming the founders discussed?

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:46 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:How can you cling to the notion the 2nd was only put in place of a standing army when there are pages....

....Your interpretation is factually challenged.
no, it is based on: 1) the notion that they might discuss things, but were always pretty lucid about the meaning of what
finally got put to paper
and
2) what got put to paper was limited in exactly the manner I suggest, with the back history given by
me to justify that limited interest.

That is a flat out lie...or you are just pretending to know what they actually said about the 2nd amendment, standing armies and the particular concerns raised by their peers!

callmeslick wrote:now, Will, YOU confuse me. How is it different that I state that the 2nd was put in place because of a fear/reluctance to have a national standing army, and what you are claiming the founders discussed?

Because you said this:

callmeslick wrote:.... My whole point is that this need and idea was in the ABSOLUTE absence of a Federal Standing Army. ?..

It appears you are suggesting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to fill a void that an absence of a standing army creates.
And since you have in the past, numerous times, suggested the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid...BECAUSE OF the might of the standing army....

Tell me how I have your previous comments wrong or recognize you are in conflict with yourself.

The authorization for the federal government to control a militia(standing army) AND the 2nd Amendment were ratified (became law) at the SAME TIME.
The Federalist Papers were being published in newspapers all around the state's at the time the debate was on about the new Constitution and Bill of Rights. The alternate view of the anti-Federalists were published in hand bills and fliers littering the towns and squares.
All this supporting debate documentation is out there for you to read. You claim to know their contents but your interpretation of their intent tells me plainly that you have NOT read it.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:12 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:It appears you are suggesting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to fill a void that an absence of a standing army creates. And since you have in the past, numerous times, suggested the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid...BECAUSE OF the might of the standing army....

You are using the wrong words. The amendment isn't void, it is obsolete. The right to bear arms against the government is valid, but not viable.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:28 pm**

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:39 pm**

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:It appears you are suggesting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to fill a void that an absence of a standing army creates. And since you have in the past, numerous times, suggested the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid...BECAUSE OF the might of the standing army....
You are using the wrong words. The amendment isn't void, it is obsolete. The right to bear arms against the government is valid, but not viable.

Sorry if you are offended but I'm not taking military tactical advice from a pacifist who has no respect for the difficulties of overcoming an insurgency when history is loaded with signs saying Lol! That vision character is way wrong!!"

And of course you had to misrepresent the benefits (scope of the intent) of the 2nd amendment by a huge margin in order to try and prop up your interpretation.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:39 pm**

As long as there are “enemies of a free state” the amendment cannot be obsolete, hell even if one accepts your interpretation or slick’s, there is still no reason the people cannot take up arms to fight an enemy…right along with any regular forces.

Hell I would wager that civilian forces could be at any frontline way before the regular army could be.

What if an enemy dropped some paratroopers in somewhere, are the citizens just supposed to wait around for the regular army to show up…hell no…this is America.

Jeeze…this might even be an easier argument to make then the ones I normally use…

Of course vision has narrowed down all possible enemies to the federal government…lollol

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:54 pm**

Well, I for one am glad that there was someone with a gun who knew how to use it and stopped another savage killing spree in that recent workplace murder story. The cops can't be everywhere all the time.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:05 pm**

“When seconds count…the police are only minutes away.”

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:08 am**

Spidey wrote:Of course vision has narrowed down all possible enemies to the federal government…lollol

Show me where I said that.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:57 am**

vision wrote:Are those thugs employed by the federal government? If so, then yes. If not, then that is out of the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:20 am**

Show me "all possible" as you stated. Can you? Without using your imagination and wordplay? Good luck.

Also, thanks to slick's other thread, we have terrible news that a gun-right's advocate echos my sentiment on the 2nd Amendment:

"The Second Amendment is not for hunting, it's not even for self-defense," Pratt explained in his Leadership Institute talk. Rather, it is "for restraining tyrannical tendencies in government. Especially those in the liberal, tyrannical end of the spectrum."

Shocking!

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:53 am**

I think, Spidey, that it's actually a literary jump to assume that Vision's statement there excludes foreign forces. The statement would be more clear, though, if it were expanded upon. I take it to mean that the 2nd amendment is not concerned with less than political violence, which I think is a mistaken sentiment--security is security, and the security of a state is not separate from the security of its people.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:05 am**

Well I gave him a chance to explain further back, but he chose not to.

"In the scope of" is pretty much an exclusionary term.

These little side arguments are childish at best, some people feel the need to defend themselves down to the very last minutia.

Look through the thread, there is plenty of CONTEXT to define just what he means.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:08 am**

"Especially those in the liberal, tyrannical end of the spectrum."

I'm not disagreeing that liberals are tyrannical, but someone should point out to this guy that liberals aren't the only tyrannical ones. Actually if you examine governments all throughout history and even right now, tyrannical is the rule instead of the exception regardless of political leaning, that is why we need guns. The guy lost it when he tried to pin tyranny on just one subset of politicians, hypocrite.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:11 am**

vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:Of course vision has narrowed down all possible enemies to the federal government…lollol
Show me where I said that.

Show us where you have advocated the alternative to that interpretation of your position...that the 2nd amendment is intended for more than just the narrow focus you implied....

You are just playing word games to dodge the point.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:38 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:You are just playing word games to dodge the point.

Nope. Said it that the 2nd Amendment is not where you look for personal gun rights, but instead gives states the authority to create a well-regulated militia. The states are free to offer you personal gun rights. The states are also free to organize and fight foreign or domestic threats. I thought all you clowns reject federal regulations in favor of the states? That's exactly what I'm saying we have.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:48 pm**

Wow you stretched that definition rice paper thin

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:50 pm**

vision, have you read the documented debate on the subject that was had by the actual creators of the Bill of Rights so you would know what they intended and then decided to go with your own incorrect version of history for some reason?

Or are you just ignorantly making stuff up?

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:00 pm**

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.

this is actually 2 statements

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

much like the first.

the government shall make no laws establishing a religion.
the government shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise there of.
the government shall make no laws taking away your free speech.
the government shall make no laws preventing a free press, etc etc

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:02 pm**

You guys should try to get appointed to the Supreme Court. You have interesting interpretations of the English language.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:11 pm**

vision wrote:You guys should try to get appointed to the Supreme Court. You have interesting interpretations of the English language.

You should just read the documents instead of clinging to straw.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:17 pm**

No need to:

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:22 pm**

flip wrote:But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said:

No bias there...

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:31 pm**

"It is clear that the Framers

Maybe they just read the same discourse that I and Will did when trying to interpret the Founders intentions. It has nothing to do with bias or in your case, opinion. It is obvious to any normal thinking individual that the right to arm oneself is a fundamental right in any free society.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:44 pm**

vision wrote:
flip wrote:But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said:
No bias there...

so what you are saying is you reject what the constitution says about the 2nd, AND you reject what the body set up to interpret the constitution says about the 2nd.

This debate just became pointless, vision will reject the law and insert his own narrow interpretation of it to fit his want

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:02 pm**

Krom wrote:
"Especially those in the liberal, tyrannical end of the spectrum."
I'm not disagreeing that liberals are tyrannical, but someone should point out to this guy that liberals aren't the only tyrannical ones. Actually if you examine governments all throughout history and even right now, tyrannical is the rule instead of the exception regardless of political leaning, that is why we need guns. The guy lost it when he tried to pin tyranny on just one subset of politicians, hypocrite.

That's because anyone's preferred "side" never does anything wrong in their eyes. It's always the other guy's side that screws things up, even sometimes, when it IS their guy's fault.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:26 pm**

CUDA wrote:This debate just became pointless, vision will reject the law and insert his own narrow interpretation of it to fit his want

Just like conservatives and the ACA and anything else they don't want to support that is written into law. Imagine that!

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:40 pm**

Really???

That's the best you can do? That's your best defense????

and FYI the 2nd amendment isnt 2000+ pages long. it's only 1 sentence. 27 words.
Maybe the founding fathers were smarter then politicians today. They didnt need to cut down a national forest to write a law.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:32 pm**

I say this to conservatives all the time, and it looks like I need to say it to liberals aswell.

A judge, regardless of political affiliation, does not let political bias influence his decision making. If he or she did, they would be disbarred.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:11 pm**

CUDA wrote:and FYI the 2nd amendment isnt 2000+ pages long. it's only 1 sentence. 27 words.
Maybe the founding fathers were smarter then politicians today. They didnt need to cut down a national forest to write a law.

So the length of the text determines how it should be treated? Good to know. And it the founding fathers were such geniuses they would have clarified the law in a way that was not debatable. Yes, scholars still debate it, Supreme Court or not. Those same brainiacs from the 18th Century could have also added those other things we eventually improved on, like outlawing slavery and giving everyone the right to vote. Yeah, real genuises.

Drop the romanticism already.

Ferno wrote:A judge, regardless of political affiliation, does not let political bias influence his decision making. If he or she did, they would be disbarred.

Too bad it doesn't actually happen this way. The Supreme Court rules along party lines more often than not. Isn't that why every appointment is met with such hostility? Did we forget about Sonia Sotomayor already?

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:29 pm**

What do you care about the length of the law. You'll just make up what you want to believe anyways.

and FYI they did clarify, and it's already been pointed out to you, and in whats becoming your M.O. you ignored it too.

And classic dodge. You find it increasingly difficult to defend your position so you try to shift the argument to those debating you. FAIL

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:46 pm**

The brevity of the text speaks to the very specific nature of the law and the intent of those who wrote and adopted it as an Amendment. Hence, the complete lack of reference to any purpose beyond ability to muster militias can be taken quite seriously, and essentially suggests any other purposes were dismissed after all the preliminary discussions.
The matter of Supreme Court justices is sort of mixed. Sure, they do get picked with some political input, but most are career jurists, and many have changed with age on the bench. And, unanimity doesn't often happen either, so once again this issue like most is murky. As I once noted, an old friend and distinguished defense attorney(recently departed) told me once that the 2nd and its extent and pertinence was 'especially murky'. And, he argued before the SCOTUS a couple times, so that counts for me. The SCOTUS held for over a century to numerous restrictions and limitations precisely because none of those influenced the formation of a national defense force, and only changed to the modern view of the 2nd in the 1980s.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:13 pm**

vision wrote:Too bad it doesn't actually happen this way. The Supreme Court rules along party lines more often than not. Isn't that why every appointment is met with such hostility? Did we forget about Sonia Sotomayor already?

Those blogs you read are only serving to confuse you.

oh btw, show me one ruling where it was aligned with either conservative or liberal lines.

Posted: **Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:32 pm**

callmeslick wrote:The brevity of the text speaks to the very specific nature of the law and the intent of those who wrote and adopted it as an Amendment. Hence, the complete lack of reference to any purpose beyond ability to muster militias can be taken quite seriously, and essentially suggests any other purposes were dismissed after all the preliminary discussions.
The matter of Supreme Court justices is sort of mixed. Sure, they do get picked with some political input, but most are career jurists, and many have changed with age on the bench. And, unanimity doesn't often happen either, so once again this issue like most is murky. As I once noted, an old friend and distinguished defense attorney(recently departed) told me once that the 2nd and its extent and pertinence was 'especially murky'. And, he argued before the SCOTUS a couple times, so that counts for me. The SCOTUS held for over a century to numerous restrictions and limitations precisely because none of those influenced the formation of a national defense force, and only changed to the modern view of the 2nd in the 1980s.

Slick, do you know who the most knowledgable people were who spoke about the intent?
People who knew much more than you and your dead defense attorney friend?

The guys who actually wrote the Bill of Rights!

And funny thing is they preserved their commentary on their intent on paper that is now available for you to go read and see for yourself how completely wrong you are...
You see back in their day there was no radio or TV....so political momentum to People to back an idea was done by publishing their commentary and the back and forth in news papers.

So why should we listen to you when we already read what they meant from their first hand reporting?

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:15 am**

Will Robinson wrote: Slick, do you know who the most knowledgable people were who spoke about the intent?
People who knew much more than you and your dead defense attorney friend?

The guys who actually wrote the Bill of Rights!

and, they pared it down to 27 words, specifically limiting the purpose stated to forming a militia. You keep conveniently dancing around that, although I must have pointed you back to it a dozen times. Easier, I suppose, for the lazy brain to make stupid comments about me, and disrespectful ones about a deceased person you never knew.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:35 am**

Slick you are reading the sentence wrong. As I said, it's actually 2 seperate statements

DescentBB

another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

Re: another triumph for the 2nd Amendment