guns

[brett636]

OK, if your argument is that the constitution doesn't say you can commit murder, then show me where it says you can keep a gun in your home? Show me where it says you can Sport shoot? Show me where it says you can keep guns for collection? Show me where it says you can carry a weapon on the streets for self defense? Show me where it says you can shoot an injured animal lying on the road? I doesn't say a lot of things, brett and that knife cuts both ways.

Right here:

 

[The Other Side]

Right here:

You still haven't shown me anything. You show me a sentence, which on its face describes a Militia and the actions of that militia, and yet, you believe you are showing me proof that somewhere inside this fragmented sentence, YOU SEE a right to OWN a gun, a right to have a GUN in your home, a right to carry a GUN on the streets, a right to target practice, a right to SPORT shoot, a right to own multiple weapons unregulated and this you believe you READ between the words "A" and "INFRINGED". The commas mean nothing to you, syntax means nothing to you and the most important part of what you show, the PREAMBLE means nothing to you. What I asked you to show me, were the words that define what a "private" person has in the forms of GUN RIGHTS in the second amendment. Ill accept you cant.

 

[BrownArmy]

Just so we're clear:

The second amendment is just that, the second amendment to the original Constitution.

It's an amendment; i.e. after the fact, the Constitution was amended.

I don't care much for this conversation about guns, but I love how the 'Constitution' crowd throws around the second amendment like it's the Forefathers' dying wish.

It's an amendment...we amended the Constitution several times, and we can amend it again (and we will).

If you have such a stiffy about the second amendment, then you clearly agree that the Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect the will of the people?

For the record, I'm all for the second amendment. I'm just not sure how it relates to background checks, etc.

If we can require background checks for drivers' licenses, voting registration, employment, mortgage loans, ad infinitum, why is it that we can't require background checks for gun ownership, and what does that have to do with the second amendment?

 

[brett636]

Just so we're clear:

The second amendment is just that, the second amendment to the original Constitution.

It's an amendment; i.e. after the fact, the Constitution was amended.

I don't care much for this conversation about guns, but I love how the 'Constitution' crowd throws around the second amendment like it's the Forefathers' dying wish.

It's an amendment...we amended the Constitution several times, and we can amend it again (and we will).

If you have such a stiffy about the second amendment, then you clearly agree that the Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect the will of the people?

For the record, I'm all for the second amendment. I'm just not sure how it relates to background checks, etc.

If we can require background checks for drivers' licenses, voting registration, employment, mortgage loans, ad infinitum, why is it that we can't require background checks for gun ownership, and what does that have to do with the second amendment?

Its painfully obvious that you are missing some key points behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You see, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights itself is a reflection of natural law. Natural law is basically the rights that we are given by God. So to say the Constitution is a document that should reflect the will of the people at a specific time shows an incredible level of ignorance about the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Constitution and the rights spelled out in it are not a reflection of the will of the people, but a reflection of the rights we are given at birth from our Creator.

 

[BrownArmy]

Its painfully obvious that you are missing some key points behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You see, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights itself is a reflection of natural law. Natural law is basically the rights that we are given by God. So to say the Constitution is a document that should reflect the will of the people at a specific time shows an incredible level of ignorance about the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Constitution and the rights spelled out in it are not a reflection of the will of the people, but a reflection of the rights we are given at birth from our Creator.

I'm an atheist, so I simply disagree with you.

 

[brett636]

I'm an atheist, so I simply disagree with you.

I wasn't referencing what you believe, nor do I care what you believe. I am educating you on the source of our rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers just got done fighting off a nation ruled by a King. A country where the destinies of the people were affected by the will of one man. Conversely, our forefathers were very intelligent people and understood that the masses could also be swayed by the will of a few to give up their rights in the name of Tyranny. Therefore they looked to the will of the only being who couldn't be swayed or affected by politicians, and was looked at as a higher authority than a King. That would be God himself hence the reason our rights are observed as given to us through birth and are not the result of the whim of any government official or royal family member.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Its painfully obvious that you are missing some key points behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You see, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights itself is a reflection of natural law. Natural law is basically the rights that we are given by God. So to say the Constitution is a document that should reflect the will of the people at a specific time shows an incredible level of ignorance about the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Constitution and the rights spelled out in it are not a reflection of the will of the people, but a reflection of the rights we are given at birth from our Creator.

I'm an atheist, so I simply disagree with you.

I wasn't referencing what you believe, nor do I care what you believe. I am educating you on the source of our rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers just got done fighting off a nation ruled by a King. A country where the destinies of the people were affected by the will of one man. Conversely, our forefathers were very intelligent people and understood that the masses could also be swayed by the will of a few to give up their rights in the name of Tyranny. Therefore they looked to the will of the only being who couldn't be swayed or affected by politicians, and was looked at as a higher authority than a King. That would be God himself hence the reason our rights are observed as given to us through birth and are not the result of the whim of any government official or royal family member.

 

[The Other Side]

Its painfully obvious that you are missing some key points behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You see, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights itself is a reflection of natural law. Natural law is basically the rights that we are given by God. So to say the Constitution is a document that should reflect the will of the people at a specific time shows an incredible level of ignorance about the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Constitution and the rights spelled out in it are not a reflection of the will of the people, but a reflection of the rights we are given at birth from our Creator.

AGAIN, you are INCORRECT about the founders wishes and intentions. NOWHERE in the constitution will you find the word GOD or directions from GOD. The founders disbelieved in GOD but did however respect the CREATOR which YOU and the other Christian crowd apply GOD to. GOD wasn't the intentions of the founders anywhere in the bill of rights or the constitution. IN fact, in the constitution, the founders went OUT OF THEIR WAY To place in "there shall be no established religion in these united states of America"...... THAT INCLUDES GOD. DEISM respects the "CREATOR" of the planet but that in itself does not Conclude that they meant GOD. That explanation is simply the religious rights interpretation of the founders meanings.

 

[wkmac]

militia (n.) 1580s, "system of military discipline," from Latin militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1690s, perhaps from a sense in French cognate milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

Online Etymology Dictionary

mi·li·tia

[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.



Origin:
1580–90; < Latin mīlitia soldiery, equivalent to mīlit- (stem of mīles ) soldier + -ia -ia

Dictionary.com

Militia

n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

Webster's 1828' Dictionary

 

[roadrunner2012]

Its painfully obvious that you are missing some key points behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You see, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights itself is a reflection of natural law. Natural law is basically the rights that we are given by God. So to say the Constitution is a document that should reflect the will of the people at a specific time shows an incredible level of ignorance about the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Constitution and the rights spelled out in it are not a reflection of the will of the people, but a reflection of the rights we are given at birth from our Creator.

Unless you were born Black, or a woman, or worse yet, a Black woman.

 

[BrownArmy]

I wasn't referencing what you believe...

No, you were referencing what you believe.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it fact - it's fact for you, because that's your belief, but it's not necessarily so for everyone else.

I respect your beliefs, as well as the strength of your beliefs. That's one of the greatest things about America - you are free to believe...whatever you want to believe.

I simply believe different things than you do.

Cheers.

 

[dilligaf]

AGAIN, you are INCORRECT about the founders wishes and intentions. NOWHERE in the constitution will you find the word GOD or directions from GOD. The founders disbelieved in GOD but did however respect the CREATOR which YOU and the other Christian crowd apply GOD to. GOD wasn't the intentions of the founders anywhere in the bill of rights or the constitution. IN fact, in the constitution, the founders went OUT OF THEIR WAY To place in "there shall be no established religion in these united states of America"...... THAT INCLUDES GOD. DEISM respects the "CREATOR" of the planet but that in itself does not Conclude that they meant GOD. That explanation is simply the religious rights interpretation of the founders meanings.

Are you in the Guiness Book of World Records? Cuz DAMN DUDE, you must be really really old. You talk like you were present when all this went down.

 

[UPS Lifer]

I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane but background checks are ineffective in producing that result... as for your examples

The best example is mortgages... and look where that got us !

Voter registration - I was registered in 2 states! I had to write 3 times to POS California to cancel my voter registration. I am still not sure if I am cancelled!!! I just got a new California handicap placard in the mail to my Arizona address. I have not had a California driver's license since 2006 !!!

There is NO background check for voter registration - dead people vote all the time!

There is no background check for a driver's license - All you do is provide 2 items (birth certificate etc.) that show you are who you say you are and that can be faked!

Employment - we have seen how well the pedophiles and rapists get jobs in day care centers, schools, etc. Very few employers do adequate checks. It costs too much!

 

[The Other Side]

Are you in the Guiness Book of World Records? Cuz DAMN DUDE, you must be really really old. You talk like you were present when all this went down.

THATS what an education does for you DILLIGAF, you don't have to rely on being told what to think. YOU should be able to research and form your own opinions. The written word of the constitution is simple and its construction in the 1700's does NOT have 21st century interpretations and that's the flaw of todays guns owners. People like Brett see the second amendment and INTERPRET whatever he wants out of words that clearly don't support his argument, yet he still believes it because he is told to believe it.

 

[The Other Side]

I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane but background checks are ineffective in producing that result... as for your examples

The best example is mortgages... and look where that got us !

Voter registration - I was registered in 2 states! I had to write 3 times to POS California to cancel my voter registration. I am still not sure if I am cancelled!!! I just got a new California handicap placard in the mail to my Arizona address. I have not had a California driver's license since 2006 !!!

There is NO background check for voter registration - dead people vote all the time!

There is no background check for a driver's license - All you do is provide 2 items (birth certificate etc.) that show you are who you say you are and that can be faked!

Employment - we have seen how well the pedophiles and rapists get jobs in day care centers, schools, etc. Very few employers do adequate checks. It costs too much!

AGAIN with the nonsense. The only dead people that attempted to vote was in ARIZONA with a republican candidate who had to withdraw because he registered and voted for his dead girlfriend. Sometimes "AGE" prevents clear thought and watching the same sources of information "drones" a person out to the point where they will believe anything they are told.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Hey Reese,

How about "demand a plan" to end drunk driving.... it kills far more people.

Reese Witherspoon arrest shows privileged hypocrisy of anti-gun elitists - National gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[moreluck]

AGAIN with the nonsense. The only dead people that attempted to vote was in ARIZONA with a republican candidate who had to withdraw because he registered and voted for his dead girlfriend. Sometimes "AGE" prevents clear thought and watching the same sources of information "drones" a person out to the point where they will believe anything they are told.

That's right because in the other states, the live people voted 6 times !!! (by their own admission)

 

[brett636]

No, you were referencing what you believe.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it fact - it's fact for you, because that's your belief, but it's not necessarily so for everyone else.

I respect your beliefs, as well as the strength of your beliefs. That's one of the greatest things about America - you are free to believe...whatever you want to believe.

I simply believe different things than you do.

Cheers.

Again, you just are not grasping what I am attempting to teach you. Your beliefs are not whats important here. This is history. I am teaching you the history of the founders and how they viewed the authority behind the Bill of Rights. Now, if your argument is that history is whatever you wish to believe it is then I will not continue to waste my time on that level of stupidity.

 

[wkmac]

Biden and Walter, separated at birth.

 

[UPS Lifer]

AGAIN with the nonsense. The only dead people that attempted to vote was in ARIZONA with a republican candidate who had to withdraw because he registered and voted for his dead girlfriend. Sometimes "AGE" prevents clear thought and watching the same sources of information "drones" a person out to the point where they will believe anything they are told.

Interesting....I have always found that hateful arrogance causes ignorance which leads to and accounts for unclear thought process, better known as "The Kool-Aid Effect"!