"infringed" Means Exactly What?
For years us gun people have claimed that the 2A recognizes an "individual" right to own firearms. Luckily for us, but by only one vote, the highest court in America agreed with us. That was a major win for gun rights enthusiasts, even though the usual suspects here claim that it was once again a loss for gun rights. Strangely, if the SCOTUS HAD ruled against gun rights and ruled that the 2A DID NOT recognize individual rights of firearm ownership, the usual suspects here would STILL have claimed another loss for gun rights. (Although in that case they would have been correct.) But my point here is that no matter what incremental progress we make in regards to taking our gun rights back, (CCW, Castle Doctrine, Pre-Emption, Etc) the usual suspects here will NEVER admit that people like me, who are trying to avoid civil war by working within the system, are making any progress.
But even at that, now that the individual rights recognized by the 2A has to a degree been settled, many here claim that the 2A grants an totally unrestricted, unlimited absence of any and all gun control laws. Even to the point of there being no prohibition against known violent criminals legally buying and carrying firearms. The usual suspects here base their claim, not only on the 2A, but on the word in the 2A of their gun rights not being "infringed."
My question to the C., Asses here who take this position is "Have you ever bothered to actually research what that word "infringed" means?" I have. Even if you check all the available sources back to the 16th century, you will find that the word does not mean "totally uncontrolled gun rights." So, if you cannot provide evidence that the word "infringed" DOES commonly mean "totally without control" then how can you claim you have gun rights without any controls whatever?
But even at that, now that the individual rights recognized by the 2A has to a degree been settled, many here claim that the 2A grants an totally unrestricted, unlimited absence of any and all gun control laws. Even to the point of there being no prohibition against known violent criminals legally buying and carrying firearms. The usual suspects here base their claim, not only on the 2A, but on the word in the 2A of their gun rights not being "infringed."
My question to the C., Asses here who take this position is "Have you ever bothered to actually research what that word "infringed" means?" I have. Even if you check all the available sources back to the 16th century, you will find that the word does not mean "totally uncontrolled gun rights." So, if you cannot provide evidence that the word "infringed" DOES commonly mean "totally without control" then how can you claim you have gun rights without any controls whatever?
0
-
Ok tr, I have a question for you.
What will you do when the final blow is leveled? When prohibition on the RTKBA occurs, where will you be found? I believe I have posed this same question to you in a previous post, but you failed to answer it.
You seem to take immense pleasure in biting the ankles of those on here who espouse a 100% belief in the Constitution. Why? Do you consider that particular stance dangerous? Does the aspect of personal responsibility and full individual liberty frighten you? Is scoffing your way of dealing with tension; that tension having an underlying cause of jealousy, because deep down where you keep your guts, you'd like to have the courage to stand firm on what the Founder's intended, but you don't?
I would render the same answer to your questions in the OP as has been stated by my brethern already, so if you have read their posts, you know what my answers are.
Now, are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to pull another Houdini, and disappear?0 -
Do you really want tr here spewing his incoherent incompetent unconstitutional rubbish?[xx(] 0 -
Hunter,
I understand exactly where you are coming from, but yes, I do want him here, spouting his insanity, and here's why:
Tr, and others like him, represent a major threat to our individual liberty. They have a 'perverted' view of the Constitution, and seem all to ready to share it with others they may come in contact with. By having their likes on here, it allows them to be exposed for what they truly are, and may serve as an antidote to those who have been poisoned by the snake oil being sold.0 -
Very good point ws!!
I've never seen someone so stubborn/too arrogant to admit to being wrong. I guess that shows how powerfull the NRA/political propagana can be to sheeple.0 -
I've never seen someone so stubborn/too arrogant to admit to being wrong. I guess that shows how powerfull the NRA/political propagana can be to sheeple.
Sad, but oh so true.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Very good point ws!!
I've never seen someone so stubborn/too arrogant to admit to being wrong. I guess that shows how powerfull the NRA/political propagana can be to sheeple.
You haven't done much debating with Hairy, have you? [:D]0 -
Hehehehe. Here is yet another question for you asses.
You take the position that no government should make ANY laws attempting to control unlawful firearm use. So what would you do in this situation?
Say I accost you on some dark street one night and tell you I have a firearm under my coat and I demand your money. But as a lawful, peaceful citizen you pull your concealed handgun (I say good for you for doing that) and get the drop on me as you phone the police. While waiting for the police you disarm me and take possession of my handgun. When the police arrive they arrest me for attempted robbery ( as they should) but they also arrest you on my complaint that you violated my constitutional rights by taking my firearm.
Think about it. If you believe that CONVICTED violent felons should not be violating any laws when they obtain/acquire/buy their handgun, then on what legal grounds would you take a gun from another person who has not been CONVICTED of any crime yet? Sure, every lawful, peaceful living thing has a natural right of self-defense. That is not part of the issue or part of my question to you asses. But if that attempted ALLEGED robber has a constitution right to his gun, then if you take it you are violating his constitutional right. The very right that you asses claim you will suddenly become militant warriors when your government takes YOUR firearms.
So if you object to anyone taking or trying to control YOUR firearm in any way what-so-ever, and are willing to go to civil war about that, how in good conscience can you violate the constitutional rights of another citizen by taking away their firearm UNDER THE THREAT OF FORCE?
Now some of you will take the easy, lack of thinking way and just describe how they will have already shot and killed the attempted robber so there is no need to violate his constitution rights by taking his firearm. But how will you feel after you have killed him and find that he had no gun? Yeah, anyone who threatens you deserves severe punishment, but aren't you going to feel at least a TWINGE of guilt as the attempted robber stands there with his hands up and you shoot him and then find out he was bluffing and has no gun? Or what if you incapitate him with one shot but he still lives? Are you going to disarm him or just put a few more rounds into him as he lays on the ground?
Some straight answers please.0 -
tr, you are an idiot and I mean that sincerely.
A private citizen doesn't violate your constitutional rights. The Constitution has prohibitions against GOVERNMENT taking such actions.
In a perfect world, the good citizen would have punched your ticket for attempted robbery and done us all a favor.[;)]0 -
At the moment you accost me, you have violated my rights and therefore, yours are forfeit AT THAT MOMENT. Disarming you is after you have forfeited your rights. the end. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Very good point ws!!
I've never seen someone so stubborn/too arrogant to admit to being wrong. I guess that shows how powerfull the NRA/political propagana can be to sheeple.
You haven't done much debating with Hairy, have you? [:D]
Well...Hairy is the exception to every rule. [8D]0 -
I posted this earlier in the thread. Maybe I will get an answer this time.
Ok tr, I have a question for you.
What will you do when the final blow is leveled? When prohibition on the RTKBA occurs, where will you be found? I believe I have posed this same question to you in a previous post, but you failed to answer it.
You seem to take immense pleasure in biting the ankles of those on here who espouse a 100% belief in the Constitution. Why? Do you consider that particular stance dangerous? Does the aspect of personal responsibility and full individual liberty frighten you? Is scoffing your way of dealing with tension; that tension having an underlying cause of jealousy, because deep down where you keep your guts, you'd like to have the courage to stand firm on what the Founder's intended, but you don't?
I would render the same answer to your questions in the OP as has been stated by my brethern already, so if you have read their posts, you know what my answers are.
Now, are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to pull another Houdini, and disappear?
Hehehehe
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]0 -
quote:You take the position that no government should make ANY laws attempting to control unlawful firearm use. So what would you do in this situation?I don't believe that I've seen anyone take that position. Illegal firearm use should be prosecuted and severe penalties applied in timely fashion. Most of us agree that the laws that restrict illegal firearm use are the ONLY ones that should be enacted, rather than infringing upon the 2nd Amendment right of 98% of gun owners because of the misdeeds of 2%. 0 -
RL, agreed. The problem as we all know is with violent crime not being punished properly, not the tools used in those acts. You will never stop the criminal from gaining access to those tools unless he is behind bars/dead. The in-justice process is not by accident. It is part of the plan to disarm us, and it relies completely on ignorance. Therefore it works quite well in this society.
tr is simply GB's purveyor of semantical and straw man arguments. It's how he gets his jollies. Another more common term is "troll".0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
tr, you are an idiot and I mean that sincerely.
A private citizen doesn't violate your constitutional rights. The Constitution has prohibitions against GOVERNMENT taking such actions.
In a perfect world, the good citizen would have punched your ticket for attempted robbery and done us all a favor.[;)]
+1
I won't waste my time any longer with these ridiculous questions.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote:You take the position that no government should make ANY laws attempting to control unlawful firearm use. So what would you do in this situation?I don't believe that I've seen anyone take that position. Illegal firearm use should be prosecuted and severe penalties applied in timely fashion. Most of us agree that the laws that restrict illegal firearm use are the ONLY ones that should be enacted, rather than infringing upon the 2nd Amendment right of 98% of gun owners because of the misdeeds of 2%.
Just out of curiousity - how did you come up with these numbers? I mean you just put an estimated 1.5-2 million gun owners into the same category with criminals.0 -
Rockatansky, I suppose I was not clear. I read awhile back that there are approximately 200 million guns in the US, and that 2% of them are used annually in commission of crimes. It follows that 98% are not.
It may be inaccurate to assume that 98% were the property of law-abiding gun owners and 2% were not, but it certainly looks that way to me!0 -
Rocklobster:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
quote:In 2007, offenders used firearms in 68.0 percent of the Nation's murders, 42.8 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.)
Total violent crime was around 1,400,000. Honestly, I am too lazy right this second to do the math and extract exact number from the tables, but it still doesn't add up to 2% of gunowners, which is different from 200,000,000 of guns in the US.
Besides, I am pretty sure that estimated 200,000,000 guns has very little to do with firearms used in crimes. Alright, let's calculate this, pulling data from FBI:
16,929 murders, 10,086 firearms were used.
445,125 robberis, 158,240 firearms were used.
729,733 aggravated assaults, 155,963 firearms were used.
Total violent crime (other than rape):
1,191,787 to 324,289. The number we were looking for was 324,289. Assuming 200,000,000 firearms, we come up with the number 0.1621445% of them used to commit crime.
If you dig further, you'll find out that there are only very few murders that are committed by sort of law-abiding citizens (usually accidents and domestic violence) who obtained their firearms through legal channels.
Does it make sense? [:)]
I am just saying that the number 2% sounds awfully high and seems like something that brady bunch would try to propagate.0 -
No doubt you're right. It's possible that what I read was old data and could very well have come from a source that is less than gun-friendly. I believe that the stats included all crimes, violent or not, and probably accidental gun-related incidents.
Your stats do an even better job of underlining the point that all gun owners should not be penalized for the misdeeds of a small percentage of the group.0 -
tr fox,
There are some of us here who have not lost touch with reality, most are not as vocal as those who have lost touch with the real world.[;)]0 -
Actually it's a warped sense of reality and a twisted liberal worldview.
The Founding Fathers of the blessed Constitution were also persecuted by those with these liberal views that were too afraid to stand up to tyranny and who chose to sell out to the enemy and instead of fighting the monster became traitors.0 -
Good one Jarhead. That is the best description of Obama I have heard recently![;)] 0 -
Again the 5th grade ideology, fyi it makes you look really immature and fwiw you and your group would look more professional being more professional.
Yes thank you it is a good description of Obama and his minions some of which are here on these forums and are not whom they claim to be, but are individuals that distort the truth because they are "sell outs" to the current gov.0 -
This bears repeating;
quote:Juggernaut
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 1:30:24 PM
Actually it's a warped sense of reality and a twisted liberal worldview.
The Founding Fathers of the blessed Constitution were also persecuted by those with these liberal views that were too afraid to stand up to tyranny and who chose to sell out to the enemy and instead of fighting the monster became traitors
Any man that supports governmental control of firearms is quite accurately described in the above post.
They are no friend of the Constitution..NOR gun owners that love freedom. They aid and abet the continuing destruction of America.0 -
This post brings us back to the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. Knowing the reason for the 2nd Amendment was for the people to have the weapons to DEFEND themselves from our government explain how the government has the power to regulate what weapons we may have if the reason we have them in the first place is to protect ourselves from the GOVERNMENT? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments