"COnstitutional Carry?"

[JumpWing]

Where do you get you knowledge of natural behavior? Hunting programs on the Outdoors Channel? Because you are completely off base. And you do not have a "right" to defend yourself. You might have the freedom to do so if you can, but you have no right to a defense. If someone eats you in your sleep and you do not defend yourself they have not violated any of your rights.

You are also wrong about your rights. Your rights are bestowed upon you by your society. Do people in other countries have the same rights that you enjoy? If they are inalienable then they cannot be removed so they must.

My knowledge base of animal behavior comes from books. Old-fashioned, I know, but they seem to be comparitively reliable even today. I might ask you the same question, however. Are you aware that some wolf packs will abuse the omega wolf so severely that it is sometimes killed? Where's the base sense of right and wrong in that?

People in other countries do indeed have the same rights as I do. Sadly, these rights are not protected in some of those countries. Again, rights are not defined as self-preserving and I've never read or heard anything to suggest that they are.

You argue that if I do not defend myself from being eaten in my sleep, then my rights have not been violated. This suggests my rights hinge on whether or not I at least make the effort to defend them. If I'm interpreting your remark correctly, then many children who have been sexually molested did not have their rights violated because they put up no resistance to the creep who took advantage of them.

 

[Riot]

You can make the statement that all firearms are covered, but you also have to accept that the firearms that existed during the time of the declaration were powder rifles and pistols (excluding artillery because cannons weren't exactly single-man portable) and were very limited.

No one knows how the FF's would have responded had they gotten a glimpse of what technology would bring over the next 200+ years. Also any thoughts of understanding whether they felt this would be a fixed document for centuries or adapted as times changed are also as accurate as tea leaf divining.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." – Thomas Jefferson

 

[2zuks]

It is amazing to me that we live in a time period when medical insurance is considered by some to be a right, but basic selfpreservation is not. lol.

 

[bugeye]

It is amazing to me that we live in a time period when medical insurance is considered by some to be a right, but basic selfpreservation is not. lol.

If you actually have to cough up the cash to pay for the former it pretty much boils down to a loss of the latter.

While it is really easy for us to decide what the 2nd amendment means, and how it should be interpreted letting the law have their way with it is dangerous.

Go look at the opinions of what "to keep and bear arms" means in the cite below and wonder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." The OED dates this use to 1795."

I'm only the messenger, and this isn't my point of view, however, I suspect the law can find anything to be legal at one time or another and fully justify its decisions.

 

[Riot]

Where do you get you knowledge of natural behavior? Hunting programs on the Outdoors Channel? Because you are completely off base. And you do not have a "right" to defend yourself. You might have the freedom to do so if you can, but you have no right to a defense. If someone eats you in your sleep and you do not defend yourself they have not violated any of your rights.

You are also wrong about your rights. Your rights are bestowed upon you by your society. Do people in other countries have the same rights that you enjoy? If they are inalienable then they cannot be removed so they must.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How are you reading from that that we cannot defend ourselves from someone taking away our rights?

The 1st Amendment protects our right to say what we want about our government.

The 2nd Amendment protects our right to fight against our government and overthrow it if we decide it is a tyrannical government.


Again, I respect your opinion, but you are reaching...just because the US Constitution, Declaration of Indepence and the Bill of Rights were organized around the defense of an oppressive government, doesn't mean that you cannot use it's terms against any other group or individual.

 

[JumpWing]

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." The OED dates this use to 1795."

I think this lines up with the Framers' intent; it uses the illustration of "as" a soldier without specifically outlining that it only applies to soldiers. Even so, this supports the idea that every able-bodied male citizen of age is, in fact, a member of the militia, a soldier to be called upon if needed in defense of his Free State.

 

[bugeye]

I think this lines up with the Framers' intent; it uses the illustration of "as" a soldier without specifically outlining that it only applies to soldiers. Even so, this supports the idea that every able-bodied male citizen of age is, in fact, a member of the militia, a soldier to be called upon if needed in defense of his Free State.

That point of view is in the scope of the wikki article I linked, that keeping arms was a duty not just a right. However, my point about the law still stands, it's a rubber ruler, where decisions are supposed to be made on past decisions but sometimes a totally different point of reference is used resulting in just about anything. The supreme court recently overturned a long set of practical precedents (100 years worth by some means of counting) that limited the direct intervention of corporations in the election process. Using this case as an example indicates that the courts are capable of turning the world on its head without taking any responsibility whatsoever for these changes. I noted the range of opinions on the meaning of the terms in the 2nd amendment in the Wikki article to show that some interpretations would allow a constitutional ban on open display of weapons unless you were a part of a military force. Again, this isn't my opinion, I'm just saying the definition of the words and phrases are elastic.

 

[CEF1959]

This started with a very thoughtful post by Playboy Penguin and quickly degenerated into a thread presenting the usual 7th-grade debate class arguments on how to interpret the Second Amendment.

I don't know why this stuff gets hashed out here endlessly with nothing new. I've heard that goldfish only have 8 second memories, so everything seems novel to them. I'm wondering how little some folks have evolved in that regard.

 

[Trlsmn]

This started with a very thoughtful post by Playboy Penguin and quickly degenerated into a thread presenting the usual 7th-grade debate class arguments on how to interpret the Second Amendment.

I don't know why this stuff gets hashed out here endlessly with nothing new. I've heard that goldfish only have 8 second memories, so everything seems novel to them. I'm wondering how little some folks have evolved in that regard.

So to show your superiority you've countered the "7th-grade debate class arguments" With 3rd grade playground name calling? Pttft aren't we the Kettle!

 

[thatkidwho]

Bugeye you do understand that rule affecting corporations was not limited to "business" corporations. It affected all types of corporations, any group legally incorporated such a the NRA Foundation, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, most cities and others.

Not matter how you look at the 2nd amendment it plainly states the people have the right to keep and bear arms. As citizens we have a duty to protect and serve our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. Whether its an invading country, terrorists, domestic terrorists or a tyrannical government. No force can over take a well armed and prepared citizenry. I believe the intent of the founding fathers was to ensure the citizenry would have the rights to protect themselves if they chose. Whether you take away their guns, their rights, their will, you only take away from those you wish to control.

Today with the advances in transportation, the distribution of information and weapons a threat could happen at any time. I feel its even more important that we the citizens be prepared. To me that means having a plan to protect my family and part of that plan is to conceal carry because you never know when a threat will present its self but you can be ensured it will not wait for you to prepare. I've only heard of state constitutional carry. Constitutional carry is taking the founding fathers intent and adapting it to the modern world allowing their citizens to be constantly prepared public. When SHTF it will be in public.

 

[Father of four]

CEF1959, thanks for showing us all your superiority. We seventh graders...

 

[Father of four]

Not matter how you look at the 2nd amendment it plainly states the people have the right to keep and bear arms. As citizens we have a duty to protect and serve our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. Whether its an invading country, terrorists, domestic terrorists or a tyrannical government.

Agreed!

 

[Riot]

So to show your superiority you've countered the "7th-grade debate class arguments" With 3rd grade playground name calling? Pttft aren't we the Kettle!

My thoughts exactly...