I have access to firearms

[eyer]

For anyone sincerely seeking the truth about the founders' and framers' intents and purposes in creating and ratifying the 2nd Amendment and how they actually viewed Americans' right to bear arms...

...2 books, both by David E. Young, are highly recommended:

1. The Origin of the Second Amendment

This book contains nothing but documented original source material from the Constitutional era concerning the 2nd Amendment and the States' ratification debates re: the Bill of Rights in general; in fact, it is such an esteemed reference source that both Courts which ruled on the United States v. Emerson and District of Columbia v. Heller cases cite it repeatedly in their rulings.

2. The Founders' View of the Right To Bear Arms

Using the source material from his The Origin of the Second Amendment, Young then narrates his story of how that material was used by the founders and framers during the ratification process to ensure the 2nd Amendment - the right to bear arms - would not be infringed.

Anyone else who would like to find out more on how the founders and framers truthfully saw their 2nd Amendment, just Google - duh - "framers 2nd Amendment" and you can read till you're old enough to draw Social Security (or, in vette's case, 20 years ago ).

And...

...if anyone comes across any reference - I mean any reference whatsoever - to islandman's disingenuously absurd "recollection" above, please post it here so I can quit friggin' laughing at the bozo.

 

[fair_warning]

But freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege.

It exists, my friend, whether a government allows it or not.

I don't understand how you cannot see that.

Yes, freedom of speech is a right, but often the legislative arm of government is needed to protect those rights.

 

[fair_warning]

For anyone sincerely seeking the truth about the founders' and framers' intents and purposes in creating and ratifying the 2nd Amendment and how they actually viewed Americans' right to bear arms...

What about context and world view? That was then and this is now, and well, sorry to point this out eyer, but things have changed.

 

[nonfictional]

I have access to gasoline but I'm not an arsonist

I have access to whiskey but I'm not an alcoholic

I have access to food but.....well I do carry a few extra pounds of lets not go there

I have access to banks but I haven't robbed one

I have visited a Merceds dealer...so I have access...but I haven't stollen one..or bought one for that mattet...who am I kidding I can barely aford a Yugo

So what it all boils down to is my responsibility for my own actions.

These folks that think guns are the problem....Timothy McVey didn't use a gun in OKC.

But the shooter did at Fort Hood....you know if they just screened gun owners a little closer.....no wait he was in the militaty.....and he was a dr working with soldiers affected by violence.....wait a minute...how could that be......I mean he wasn't a nut....He worked and was an officer in the Army. He was a government employee....but he did only shoot his fellow employees....so he is not all that bad....is it?

How about the fellow in San Deigo that stole the tank? He didn't kill anyone but he sure left a trail of distruction.....and he too was an the militaty.....and he had access to a tank! Boy we sure need to screen those army guys a little closer don't we?

So without guns all the nuts will be cured....no 53 yo mental case will chase his social worked down the street in Flordia and stab her to death with a butcher knife......when guns are gone no one will use a kife.....and the mental case will be cured....just git rid of the guns and we can all sing Cum Ba Ya....

No it is the action of the person. If the man Adam in Conn had not be able to obtain a gun from his mom he would have gotten one some where. Lots of police cars have M-16's in the trunks. But if he had of done it that way maybe his mom would still be amougst us and just a cop or two dead before he headed to the school or mall. Bet he wouldn't have headed to the police station to shoot it out.

Criminals with guns want easy targets. They go to places they feel the victims will be disarmed. A gun in the hand of an honest law abiding citizen has stopped a lot of crime. Mostly because the criminal doesn't want to risk his life.

So access to a gun doesn't make a person a killer. It is the person....and if they want a gun bad enough they will get one. Police and Military have arsonals. Many has been broken into and looted.

When guns are outlawed only the criminals will have them. Guess they will still let cops carry guns and the soldiers to have them. But why there would be no more guns to threatne people...the law was passed.....just like the law that made schools "Gun Free Zones". But Adam Z didn't bother to read the sign!

Just my thoughts

Jack

What a moron ... Texas of course.

 

[eyer]

What about context and world view?

The 2 books I cited do absolutely nothing but center on "context"...

...and as far as "world view" in re: to the Constitution for the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment: your "view" doesn't count for squat on the matter.

Why is that so difficult for you dependents to comprehend?

All you do have is a great free speech forum like the GB...

...so you can mutter your meaningless opinions on this American issue, thus stroking your ego so it feels like it actually matters.

That was then and this is now, and well, sorry to point this out eyer, but things have changed.

That's what's unique about the republican form of government America's framers established for us that so many of you socialist foreigners can never begin to relate to:

America is a nation of law, not of men (opinion).

The 2nd Amendment is the Supreme Law of this land on the issue of Americans' right to bear arms...

...the People, the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are all equal under that Law; not one of those branches of American government can legally do anything about the 2nd Amendment except follow the Constitution's order on how to "change" anything about it.

If you would've made an effort to click on the links I provided to the cases I listed above, you would've read that both concerned government attempting - on its own - to redefine what the 2nd Amendment says in order to affect individual citizens' right to bear arms...

...in both cases, the Courts legally ruled the government - on its own - cannot deny a law-abiding citizen his/her 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

If the Courts had ruled differently, in effect establishing the government over the Law, those rulings would have been illegal to the expressed intent and purpose our founders and framers exercised in establishing the Law to specifically and intentionally place all men under the Law.

That is now...

...and you believe America should conduct its business according to the opinion of men, instead of reverence for our law?

The 2nd Amendment can be "changed" only by amending the Constitution with a 28th Amendment that, in effect, repeals the individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd. But you, a friggin' weak-kneed, opinionated foreign socialist, surely won't approve that process of our Law of the Land, either...

...for it is not democratic at all; ie, the People don't get to directly vote on the matter, so a simple popular/majority opinion/vote isn't involved at all (think about that for a minute and maybe you'll start getting a clue why your foreign opinion matters even less).

Again:

You and whomever else can "view" our Law however you wish...

...but the only thing which truly matters is the Law itself.

As one who has absolutely no practical knowledge of the American people other than what you can glean from very isolated contact at best (and totally indirect contact mostly), let me clue you in on a fact of life in this greatest of lands God ever Created:

There are factually multitudes of millions of Americans who now fervently pledge their lives to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America which, obviously, includes their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

You should read about how America fared the last time we we decided to go to war against each other (I'll give you a hint: there was absolutely nothing Civil about it). And when you finish truly grasping the blood let and the life lost from that one, try imaging what 10 times worst carnage would be like...

...'cause that's what will go down in a Constitutional War.

Our founders and framers proclaimed that every able-bodied male in America was inherently a member of the People's militia, above the control of both the States' and federal government, and that they possessed the inherent right to bear arms...

...specifically so that if/when any government attempted to suppress that natural right of every man to defend himself and his liberty, individual Americans would band together - armed and very, very dangerous - and have at least a fighting chance to fully put down that tyrannical oppression our founders and framers knew all governments were fully capable of.

As I have opined elsewhere on this Board:

America has really only 2 options if it truly intends to directly challenge the 2nd Amendment:

1. A 28th Amendment must be ratified to repeal the 2nd (as the Law dictates), or

2. A Constitutional War will take place to clear the "debate" table for the next 221 years.

Nothing else - especially "world view" - matters a flippin' fvck...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Because I fucking own them.

So now, what?

Don't let Charlie steal the handle...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What about context and world view? That was then and this is now, and well, sorry to point this out eyer, but things have changed.

Are you truly saying "world" view or Australian view?


Why would we pay attention to the habits and attitudes of other countries when we were founded as the exception to and the haven from the habits and attitudes of other countries?

If we wish to explore the benefits and strengths of the different views and methods of Statism, then we should look to Europe and the power of the State, but if we wish to explore the benefits and strengths of the different forms of Individual Liberty, then we should look to our own states strengthened by the lack of powers of a limited Federal Government.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[PoppingTom]

Well, then, you must understand that to oppress a right, such as that of free speech, does not mean it isn't a right.

A government might deny its citizens freedom of speech, but it is still a universal right, regardless of that.

And I don't know if you will ever understand that this is no binary thing of "deny/granted".

Compared to America, we don't have PURE freedom of speech here in Germany. For instance, holocaust denial can lead to prison here. But nobody here - except a few hardcore nazis - will cry for that "denial of free speech", and much more people would protest if it would be granted.

Call me a slave, because I don't see any oppression here. My PURE freedom of speech may be hindered, but I'm living very good with that. To me, it would be a much bigger horror to say "I don't like holocaust deniers, I would smack them at sight, but I must fight for their right of free speech".

My problem with your "rights" is that you see government as an enemy to this or something close to that, not as something that is made by the people of your country. You think of your "right" as something holy, but the truth is: if the majority of your people wanted it, that "right" would be taken. Not only by government, but by everybody. That thought hurts, I know, it hurts as much as it hurts me to fight for a nazi's "freedom of speech".....

 

[fair_warning]

Are you truly saying "world" view or Australian view?


Why would we pay attention to the habits and attitudes of other countries when we were founded as the exception to and the haven from the habits and attitudes of other countries?

If we wish to explore the benefits and strengths of the different views and methods of Statism, then we should look to Europe and the power of the State, but if we wish to explore the benefits and strengths of the different forms of Individual Liberty, then we should look to our own states strengthened by the lack of powers of a limited Federal Government.
A_J, the Stupid

Ah, I typed 'world' as my intention was to mean 'world'. I meant the world view of the authors of those founding documents. Not my world view nor yours for that matter.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What do you imagine their "world view" was?

Because they were classicists and they understood that forms of government are cyclic and do not ever "evolve" as is the conceit of each new generation of illiterates awed by their new technology.

 

[fair_warning]

To me, it would be a much bigger horror to say "I don't like holocaust deniers, I would smack them at sight, but I must fight for their right of free speech".

Bravo.

 

[fair_warning]

What do you imagine their "world view" was?

In perfect harmony with the context of their time. Circa 1770-80.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In perfect harmony with the context of their time. Circa 1770-80.

Then you are very wrong.

They were educated men.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

http://www.zuguide.com/image/The-Outlaw-Josey-Wales.jpg

As educated as I am?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://www.zuguide.com/image/The-Outlaw-Josey-Wales.jpg

As educated as I am?

It's all Greek to me!

Those guys could quote Herodotus!

 

[fair_warning]

Then you are very wrong.

They were educated men.

Of course they were educated, but, in a certain areas, only up to what was known at that time.

 

[kbate]

Call me a slave, because I don't see any oppression here. My PURE freedom of speech may be hindered, but I'm living very good with that. To me, it would be a much bigger horror to say "I don't like holocaust deniers, I would smack them at sight, but I must fight for their right of free speech".

And to me, now that you have accepted that Government may regulate your thought and speech, I only await the next change of Government and the next thought or idea that they decide is worthy of some prison time. Perhaps denial of Global Warming should get you 3 years? Anti-UN statements 5 to 7 at hard labour?

Can a holocaust denier truly harm German society and convince enough Germans that the Third Reich was on the correct path? Is your democracy so fragile that thought must be controlled rather than stupid thought ridiculed as it is in America where the neo-Nazis are marginalized and hated by everyone except neo-Nazis but they are still permitted to have their moronic meetings and to parade their moronic message once a year through the city streets.

America is the idea that individual freedom is the best course with the law in place to punish those who use their individual freedoms to harm others.

But we can feel those knees-a-jerkin' and the laws against the guns are going to pour out and the politicians will nod their heads and say, "We Acted".

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It's all Greek to me!

Those guys could quote Herodotus!

I bet you have some dinner platos in your teepee.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Of course they were educated, but, in a certain areas, only up to what was known at that time.

That means they understood modern politics to a 'T' because nothing, nothing at all has changed since well before their times.

I cannot believe that I have to explain that to educated people; it just shows the great decline of education when the Socialists get to balkanizing and tribalizing in order to negate those truths which are self-evident.

There has been no new form of governmental organization (or economic system) since well before our founding. The problem is that humans are so quick to self-deceit and the belief of a faster evolution because of the technology gains made possible by Capitalism, the cornerstone of their Liberal Foundation. But neither we or our governments have experienced any significant change (other than the aforementioned purposeful dumbing down of "education").

 

[fair_warning]

What do you imagine their "world view" was?

Because they were classicists and they understood that forms of government are cyclic and do not ever "evolve" as is the conceit of each new generation of illiterates awed by their new technology.

Attempting to position your own views as closely as possible to what you think the founding fathers intended is historical spin doctoring and is a fallacy. There is no ultimate truth held by the Founding Fathers and claims to understanding their “real” meaning simplifies the complexity and variety of world views, political beliefs, social constructs, and economic models held in 18th century America. Even worse, decontextualizing ideas in the 1700 and 1800s by applying them at face value in the 21st century is naive.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I bet you have some dinner platos in your teepee.

I'm almost a gyro-poid...

 

[kbate]

I bet you have some dinner platos in your teepee.

Perhaps the two of you might go over your last 3 years of love-each-other-in-the-morning posts and realise you have now bored us with Josie Wales quips and quotes for long enough. Isn't it time for you to choose another movie or better yet another actor to use as your bro-together-in-the-morning-super-dude?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Attempting to position your own views as closely as possible to what you think the founding fathers intended is historical spin doctoring and is a fallacy. There is no ultimate truth held by the Founding Fathers and claims to understanding their “real” meaning simplifies the complexity and variety of world views, political beliefs, social constructs, and economic models held in 18th century America. Even worse, decontextualizing ideas in the 1700 and 1800s by applying them at face value in the 21st century is naive.

That is sheer and utter nonsense.

The Founders stepped out of their time in writing the document, as I stated earlier.

Unlike our current college systems (and I mean that in the sense of a pun, as in sophism) they were actually educated instead of being indoctrinated and put upon a fake greek pedestal...

It is sheer lunacy to think that there is either an evolution ion government or in economy without any evolution in the basic human being.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perhaps the two of you might go over your last 3 years of love-each-other-in-the-morning posts and realise you have now bored us with Josie Wales quips and quotes for long enough. Isn't it time for you to choose another movie or better yet another actor to use as your bro-together-in-the-morning-super-dude?

I say that big talk’s worth doodly-squat!
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/o/images/outlaw-josey-wales-3.jpg

STFU DYKE!

 

[fair_warning]

The Founders stepped out of their time in writing the document, as I stated earlier.

What? no one can step out of their time...well, unless your name is Doctor Who.