Finally a serious question about 2nd Ammendmet

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's a non sequitur. I'm not aware of anyone who did. Very poor dodge.

Apparently you've forgotten that you said rights can't be taken away., only privileges. That's ok, it's easy to forget all the BS you post.
The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution both identify certain rights, all of which can be taken away.
Again, I'm asking, which rights in those two documents do you claim can't be taken way, or are actually privileges rather than rights and those involved with them were wrong about what they were writing and signing?

Unless you're changing your stance, it's a question so simple even you should be able to figure it out.

You keep bringing things up that I've never said. It looks as though you don't like the facts that I've posted and think assigning me a position I've never taken up will change the facts.

If you're curious about those documents I suggest you do your own research on them.

 

[mustang200]

These quotes come directly from the cut and paste by Colonel Hogan from the Heller Decision:

[Col. Hogan's quote removed by the software.]

Note how the Supreme Court explicitly names those Amendments that refer to "individual rights". Guess what...no Second Amendment.

Why?

Because if you read further, you see this:

[Col. Hogan's quote removed by the software.]

Because the Supreme Court explicitly states that the Right (to own a weapon) IS NOT granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, that Right IS NOT dependent on the Constitution for its existence. All the Second Amendment does is declare that that RIGHT shall not be infringed.

Infringed from what?

That is where the conclusion of the Decision comes into play:

[Col. Hogan's quote removed by the software.]

The Supreme Court states that the right to own a weapon was “pre-existent” to the Constitution.

THIS is why the Constitutionality of outlawing certain types of weapons, ammo and magazines have been upheld in the past…because outlawing particular items are not an infringement of the basic Right, which is the ONLY item guaranteed by the Constitution. We still have the right to own a gun. Because the Supreme Court states that the Second Amendment is NOT defining an individual’s right, it is by default defining a collective right, which permits the regulation of said right.

This is the finest bit of Solipsism that I've read in a long time. You are to be congratulated, Sir.

You must have gone to a gummint school.

 

[mustang200]

That's a non sequitur. I'm not aware of anyone who did. Very poor dodge.

Apparently you've forgotten that you said rights can't be taken away., only privileges. That's ok, it's easy to forget all the BS you post.
The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution both identify certain rights, all of which can be taken away.
Again, I'm asking, which rights in those two documents do you claim can't be taken way, or are actually privileges rather than rights and those involved with them were wrong about what they were writing and signing?

Unless you're changing your stance, it's a question so simple even you should be able to figure it out.

This is the second finest bit of Solipsism that I've read in a while.

Must be another gummint school grad.

Does the term "unalienable rights" mean anything to you? How about "shall not be infringed.?"

 

[coastal-boy]

This is why you're full of shit, from Heller:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16

From your quote....read it dumb fuck

"This is NOT a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

Obviously, you right wingers simply fucking can not read.

The Supreme Court states in your quote that the right PRE-EXISTED. The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee the right. It RECOGNIZES the right. How simple does it have to be?

Seriously, we have 2 stupid people quoting Heller and in doing so, proving my point and not theirs. Fucking pathetic.

 

[coastal-boy]

I had him on Iggy for a long time, he'll probably go back. You've manage to wind up a strident ideologue, I suspect he'll rave on for a while yet.

If it will stop you from embarrassing yourself, I strongly suggest putting me back. That is what weak people do...ignore the facts and the people who point them out.

 

[coastal-boy]

Baseball Bats vs Guns

Too bad this is not a truth

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

I am told that the key to understanding America is that it is not one nation but a loose collection of many. For example, native Americans who were/are divided with many languages and ethnicities), Dutch Americans (New York), French (Louisiana), Danish (Hawaii), Russian (Alaska), African Americans (from many parts of Africa), English Americans and many others- I hope I haven't offended anyone with the omissions. The origins of present day America are diverse. It is also home to some of the richest people on earth and some of the poorest, which adds to the diversity. It has had one civil war already which was noted for its extreme brutality. In so many ways America can be shown to be diverse. Some times it is good and sometimes it isn't so good.

I am told that this diversity is at the root of many of America's problems- the gun control issue, the lack of universal health care, capital punishment- all things one wouldn't expect of a civilised country.

It's not so much the placement of a comma on a piece of paper because that would be changed very quickly if there were the will to change it. I don't think the originator of this thread was interested in commas or any other legal excuses. She was seeking to know why and had credited everyone with the thought that the law is a reflection of what people want (though the law can be a significant impediment if the people allow it to be.)
I am told that the diversity in America is reflected by a basic insecurity and that it is expressed by the need for guns.
I wonder what others think. At the moment I have the feeling that this theory explains a great deal. I'm unconvinced that it is a complete explanation though.

I have been fascinated by this thread because the disturbing level of aggression with in it seems to add some substance to the theory. There has been a remarkable intolerance and I have wondered about whether it would be safe for some of the participants to actually own a gun.

 

[shoulderblade]

What I was busting his chops about was the 'holier than thou, my country is better than yours' attitude (displaying a distinct lack of respect).

I've nothing against a patriot who loves his/her country. Nationalism, on the other hand, is just as silly as racism.

Or any other 'ism'.

Agreed. To be a sensible patriot is a good thing for both the individual and the country.

However if it splls over into comparisons and holier-than-thou stuff it simply has
turned destructive.

This jingoism is probably inevitable due to the number of people who are either poorly informed or have little exposure to the world outside their tiny orbit.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

"Never was a patriot but a fool." Driden

How apt.

 

[about_average]

This is the second finest bit of Solipsism that I've read in a while.

Must be another gummint school grad.

Does the term "unalienable rights" mean anything to you? How about "shall not be infringed.?"

Critical thinking and reading comprehension a bit difficult for you eh?

"Must be another gummint school grad."
Pot, meet kettle.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Does the term "unalienable rights" mean anything to you?

You won't find it in the Constitution.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is the finest bit of Solipsism that I've read in a long time. You are to be congratulated, Sir.

You must have gone to a gummint school.

You should have. You might have learned the difference between "solipsism" and "sophistry."