Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Olivier5,

Its sorta like the Catholic Church and the Bible. The Bible says what the Pope says it says.
SO instead,weve got our Supreme court piling on interpretations. Although, I gotta admit, the 2nd Amendment is the most fucked up , abstruse pos next to the "quartering of Soldiers".

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

They don't have a clue, did you actually read the ravings of our knuckle draggers? They have been brainwashed...and have no clue what independent thinking is...they need the extremists to tell them what to think.....like good little boys

I do more independent thinking in five minutes than you've done in your entire life.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Try to follow. My point was that there doesn't seem to be a constitutional protection for the right of the people to carry a concealed gun.

There is, however, a very clear right to carry a gun in public.

So the government may mandate that the gun be carried either concealed or openly, but the Constitution demands that either one or the other be allowed.

That means if a jurisdiction forbids open carry altogether, and allows concealed carry only by license, the Constitution demands that licenses be readily available to any qualified person who desires one.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Its sorta like the Catholic Church and the Bible. The Bible says what the Pope says it says.
SO instead,weve got our Supreme court piling on interpretations.

Liberals feel that it is OK to interpret the Constitution to mean something other than what it says.

Conservatives stick to what the Constitution actually means.

farmerman wrote:

Although, I gotta admit, the 2nd Amendment is the most fucked up , abstruse pos next to the "quartering of Soldiers".

Nonsense. The meaning is crystal clear in both cases.

The first half of the Second Amendment demands that the government always have a militia.

The second half of the Second Amendment demands that the right to keep and bear arms not be violated.

The Third Amendment forbids the government from forcing civilians to provide room and board to an army except in time of war, and even then only as allowed by statute.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I had to check that thing on quartering of soldiers... Landed on the third amendment. Still seems to me the second is more confused and self- contradictory. The part about militia is downright cryptic. It's also unapplicable and not applied as written, since the people's right to own nuclear arms or anti-aircraft guns has actually been "infringed" ie forbidden.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The part about militia is downright cryptic. It's also unapplicable and not applied as written, since the people's right to own nuclear arms or anti-aircraft guns has actually been "infringed" ie forbidden.

Carrying things to the extreme like that is a big problem in itself.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

It would indeed be absurd to allow the people to own anti-aircraft guns. Therefore the second amendment is not being applied, and should not be applied without a good dose of common sense. It's not applicable as written, not today anyway.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

not today anyway.

I see today we are not supposed to defend ourselves. Today are we going to be intimidated by people with guns who break the laws to give up ours?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Today, some "arms" are far more destructive than the mouskets the US revolutionaries had. For instance nuclear weapons, or anti-aircraft guns, These did not exist in the 18th century. And therefore the second amendment is obsolete. That's a fact. It is not aplied today as written and cannot possibly be applied as written.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

And therefore the second amendment is obsolete.

It is needed now more than ever. Progressives trying to destroy this system decided it was better to pamper criminals, and turn some neighborhoods into shooting galleries. The violence radiates from urban shitholes they created.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Still seems to me the second is more confused and self- contradictory.

There is no confusion and no contradiction.

a) The country must always have a militia.

b) The right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.

Olivier5 wrote:

The part about militia is downright cryptic.

What is so hard to understand about a requirement that the government always have a militia?

Olivier5 wrote:

It's also unapplicable and not applied as written, since the people's right to own nuclear arms or anti-aircraft guns has actually been "infringed" ie forbidden.

That is incorrect. Unless it is repealed, it applies.

Further, the Constitution allows a right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified with a good reason.

Restrictions against private ownership of nuclear weapons can be justified with a good reason.

Does a .50 BMG rifle count as an anti-aircraft gun? There is no justification for restricting them, and therefore people have the right to have them.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It would indeed be absurd to allow the people to own anti-aircraft guns.

Define anti-aircraft gun? Does a .50 BMG rifle count? There is nothing absurd about letting people have .50 BMG rifles.

Olivier5 wrote:

Therefore the second amendment is not being applied,

The NRA is applying it. As soon as Trump nominates replacements for a few of the leftist extremists on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will be applying it too.

Olivier5 wrote:

and should not be applied without a good dose of common sense.

"Common sense" is code for "I like to violate civil rights for fun".

Violating people's civil rights for no reason is not allowed.

However, if you can provide an actual good reason for restricting a right, then (and only then) that restriction will be allowed.

Olivier5 wrote:

It's not applicable as written, not today anyway.

Wrong. The Second Amendment applies until it is repealed.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Today, some "arms" are far more destructive than the mouskets the US revolutionaries had. For instance nuclear weapons, or anti-aircraft guns, These did not exist in the 18th century. And therefore the second amendment is obsolete. That's a fact.

That is incorrect. Civil rights will never be obsolete in America.

Olivier5 wrote:

It is not aplied today as written and cannot possibly be applied as written.

The NRA is applying it as written.

As soon as Trump replaces a few of the liberal extremists on the Supreme Court, our courts will be applying it as written as well.

2 Replies

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29541816_1934016040245097_5176079031230530161_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=1ca11a4fdac5f64b4b6fcd93d7017cf4&oe=5B6E20B8

0 Replies

I say again, there was private ownership of cannons and warships in colonial times and afterwards. The idea of one of us owning an AK or FAL rifle would not have bothered any of the founding fathers. Aside from everything else, a cannon can be loaded up with grape shot...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f190z_UkGTI

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Olivier has shown his desire not to hold an honest conversation. You'll have better luck discussing it with a brick wall.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Olivier is perfectly honest. Oralloy and his whiny obscene perversion of the concept of civil rights is not.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Nah, anyone that puts forth such gems as "It's also unapplicable and not applied as written, since the people's right to own nuclear arms or anti-aircraft guns has actually been "infringed" ie forbidden." isn't being honest. You've obviously been ignoring the actual words he's spewing.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Oralloy and his whiny obscene perversion of the concept of civil rights is not.

Wrong. I am the most honest person you'll ever talk to.

Preventing liberals from violating civil rights for fun is hardly a perversion of those rights.

Falsely accusing me of whining makes you look silly when it is clear that I am doing no such thing.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Nah, anyone that puts forth such gems as "It's also unapplicable and not applied as written, since the people's right to own nuclear arms or anti-aircraft guns has actually been "infringed" ie forbidden." isn't being honest. You've obviously been ignoring the actual words he's spewing.

I would characterize Olivier's statements as very poor arguments (which is why I rebutted them earlier in the thread). But making a bad argument isn't necessarily dishonest.

When people make bad arguments they end up losing the debate.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know