Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass Shooting Las Vegas...
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
The question was way would a "law abiding" citizen use his guns to prevent the government from taking them away. Of course he would not be "law abiding" if they changed the constitution and made guns illegal, but the owner would still believe that the constitution never gave the government the right to take away his right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment just says that the government can't infringe on his right. You can take that away but that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have the right to own a gun. If the government tried to remove his guns, he would be fighting an unjust law.
You would have gun owners across the country using their guns to protect their right to own guns when they came to remove them.
IF you could actually talk the cops or the ATF into actually complying with the "law" and confiscate the guns. I think most would ignore the new law.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostShe turned me into a newt!
But I got better.
Did not."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe Constitution is the supreme law of the land - no, you don't get to pretend rights exist that it specifically denies, even if that denial is by amendment. So at that point, they are no longer law abiding in any sense - they are criminals. Any belief to the contrary is mere self-justification and has no basis in reality.
FYI - I oppose abolition. I'd prefer it but I can't justify it. I am not in favor of repealing the second (dis-incorporating, not repealing).
and I acknowledge that they would be criminals at that point. I am saying they would not care. They would take the position that the US government were the criminals by infringing on their rights and they would rebel. Just like the US did with Britain. We were criminals when we set up our own country. so what?Last edited by Sparko; 10-04-2017, 11:30 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI can't even parse that. What denial? The second amendment says "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 doesn't GIVE the right to bear arms to the people, it acknowledges that they already HAVE that right and the government can't infringe upon it. If you take away the 2nd amendment that doesn't remove the right to bear arms. And if they create a new law that says you can't bear arms it is doing exactly what the 2nd amendment was addressing - infringing upon a right we already have. The second amendment is just a clarification of what we already have. The right to bear arms. Any attempt to take that away is unjust and illegal. The constitution doesn't endow rights, it restricts the government from interfering with the rights we have.
and I acknowledge that they would be criminals at that point. I am saying they would not care. They would take the position that the US government were the criminals by infringing on their rights and they would rebel. Just like the US did with Britain. We were criminals when we set up our own country. so what?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
The question was way would a "law abiding" citizen use his guns to prevent the government from taking them away. Of course he would not be "law abiding" if they changed the constitution and made guns illegal, but the owner would still believe that the constitution never gave the government the right to take away his right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment just says that the government can't infringe on his right. You can take that away but that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have the right to own a gun. If the government tried to remove his guns, he would be fighting an unjust law.
You would have gun owners across the country using their guns to protect their right to own guns when they came to remove them.
IF you could actually talk the cops or the ATF into actually complying with the "law" and confiscate the guns. I think most would ignore the new law.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI can't even parse that. What denial? The second amendment says "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 doesn't GIVE the right to bear arms to the people, it acknowledges that they already HAVE that right and the government can't infringe upon it. If you take away the 2nd amendment that doesn't remove the right to bear arms. And if they create a new law that says you can't bear arms it is doing exactly what the 2nd amendment was addressing - infringing upon a right we already have. The second amendment is just a clarification of what we already have. The right to bear arms. Any attempt to take that away is unjust and illegal. The constitution doesn't endow rights, it restricts the government from interfering with the rights we have.
and I acknowledge that they would be criminals at that point. I am saying they would not care. They would take the position that the US government were the criminals by infringing on their rights and they would rebel. Just like the US did with Britain. We were criminals when we set up our own country. so what?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThis goes back to the fact that the Constitution does not give us the right, it just specifies that it exists. Eliminating the 2nd would not give the government the right to take guns. (Not that that would stop them.)Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostA well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostA well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!
2. it doesn't specify the arms. So who cares if they only had muskets. It means any arms: knives, guns, bows and arrows, canons etc.
3. Do you know how many people were killed with "just muskets?" - better brush up on history.
4. It acknowledges that the people (that's the citizens of the USA, you, me, etc) have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Whether we use that for a militia or target practice, we still have the right.
5. They ARE regulated, as I have said to you already. Lots of regulations. Permits, background checks, limits on types of weapons and ammunition, etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostInteresting that your chart shows the same massive drop since the 1990s. The reason that decade was picked was it also corresponds to when the ownership of firearms started to sharply rise.It is the subject of FBI studies and a PEW report -- but then I guess they were just cherry picking data as wellJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post1. The militia is regulated, not the people or the arms.
2. it doesn't specify the arms. So who cares if they only had muskets. It means any arms: knives, guns, bows and arrows, canons etc.
3. Do you know how many people were killed with "just muskets?" - better brush up on history.
4. It acknowledges that the people (that's the citizens of the USA, you, me, etc) have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Whether we use that for a militia or target practice, we still have the right.
5. They ARE regulated, as I have said to you already. Lots of regulations. Permits, background checks, limits on types of weapons and ammunition, etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostA well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!
Further it was the near universal understanding up until the 20th century that the militia meant the people -- the citizens. I'll be delighted to go over that one again
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostSo it's just a coincidence that your chart starts in the exact year with the highest ever gun homicide rate and omits the preceding years when it was lower? The PEW reports I can find state that while the number of guns in the US is rising, gun ownership is dropping. More guns owned by less people.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:06 AM
|
3 responses
68 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 07:03 AM
|
16 responses
86 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:51 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:51 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
0 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 11:43 AM
|
201 responses
765 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 01:21 PM
|
Comment