Finally a serious question about 2nd Ammendmet

[Lancecastor]

tell me why it is a right

You don't know the answer?

 

[badbabysitter]

You don't know the answer?

facepalm

do your parents know you are using their computer?

go back and read the thread from the start

tkae 5 minute breaks between words if they get confusing

then get back to me if you still dont get it

 

[Lancecastor]

So far all I've seen is people trying to engage you...and in return you call them names and tell them they don't get it.

I skipped the trying to engage you part....and went straight to calling you a fucktard.

Chew on that.

 

[coastal-boy]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many people do not understand the use of a comma and what it means. This includes the Conservative members of the Supreme Court who determined in 2008 that this right also extended to the individuals. Amazing that this country went from 1791 to 2008 with a different interpretation.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is about the States having the rights to form a Militia, and that this militia is not composed of "professional soldiers", but of individual members of the state. This militia is separate from any controlled by the Federal Gov't, especially the President. In order for this to happen, the Federal Govt cannot infringe on the rights of an individual (for the purpose of belonging to a militia) to own a weapon. Today, these words are taken by certain segments of our population to mean every individual has the right to own a weapon. This simply is not the case, else our Founding Fathers would have used a semi-colon or even added a second sentence.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because the founders believed it necessary to the security of a "free" state.

Well, then, they were wrong, weren't they? Many societies with substantially unarmed citizenries are free and secure.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The ammendment is being defended to give the citizens the right to defend against our own government, if the need ever arises.

OK, now does anyone have any reasons that aren't incredibly stupid?

 

[KingOrfeo]

In a nut shell, government is an abstraction given physical form through the organized bodies that constitute it and was viewed as subordinate to the body of people that grant it the power to govern by their consent. According to this view, rights and privileged are not granted to the people by their government, but rather exist as the natural condition of human life. That is to say, people have natural rights and the government has no authority to infringe upon them. The Bill of Rights was drafted explicitly to ensure that "Congress shall make no law" to the effect of interfering with those rights.

"Natural rights"? There is no more such thing as "natural rights" than there is such thing as "natural law."

 

[KingOrfeo]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

Well, you do have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It only dates from 1982 and was based on the Bill of Rights of 1960. So far as I can tell, neither of these mentions any right to bear arms. Did anyone, when either was drafted, suggest arms-rights should be included? Why or why not? Serious question.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I am not all that familiar with American history but is it possible that it goes back before the beginning? There seems to be a serious animosity between the settlers and the British establisment that may have been evident well before the revolution.

The second amendment would thus be an affirmation in American culture that the opposition to tyranny was a principle of absolute importance.

It was not animosity, really, it was fear -- and not even fear of "tyranny" in the arbitrary-state sense, but fear that that would lead to something worse, a socioeconomic tyranny. What frightened our FFs was the English ruling class as such. From The American Way of Strategy, by Michael Lind:

Many people remember vaguely that the American Revolution had something to do with taxes. A few remember that the issue was whether the power to tax lay with London or the American colonies. But this was a surrogate for the real issue: preserving the American way of life.

In the first two-thirds of the eighteenth century, the British colonists in North America developed a distinctive way of life quite different from that of their British cousins. Something like Britain's aristocratic society endured in the South and parts of the Northeast. But in general, colonial society was characterized by a degree of middle-class prosperity and widespread property ownership unknown in any other society in the world. Not only were America's yeoman farmers, artisans, and merchants better off than most Britons and Europeans, but also the cost of government was much lower.

The trouble began in the aftermath of the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War) of 1754-63. The British imperial government insisted that the colonists pay more of the costs of their own defense. The colonists, however, feared that the London parliament was trying to destroy the system of colonial self-government that had grown up in the preceding generations. They remembered that the London parliament had destroyed the Scottish parliament in 1707 (it would eliminate the Irish parliament in 1801). They feared that the same thing was now happening to them. They would pay ever higher taxes, even as their colonial assemblies lost authority to the London parliament. As a result, British North America might come to resemble Ireland or Scotland, impoverished countries where absentee landlords held vast tracts of land and where major decisions were made by well-connected aristocrats and merchants in London with little or no accountability to the people whom they ruled.

<snip>

This history may be familiar but the point is not. For Americans, the independence of the United States from Britain and its organization as a democratic republic was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end was the safeguarding of the communal right to self-government and the individual liberties that the British settlers in America had already enjoyed for generations under British rule. Americans adopted their own strategy for defending the American way of life against imperial centralization -- independence as a democratic republic -- only because their first choice, self-government within a federal monarchical empire, was rejected. Democratic republicanism and national independence were only two of several possible methods for preserving what by 1776 was the traditional American way of life, characterized by personal liberty, widespread property ownership, low taxes, and an inexpensive military.

 

[Lancecastor]

Well, you do have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It only dates from 1982 and was based on the Bill of Rights of 1960. So far as I can tell, neither of these mentions any right to bear arms. Did anyone, when either was drafted, suggest arms-rights should be included? Why or why not? Serious question.

We've always had some form of gun control in Canada, but about 16% of all Canadian households have one or more firearms.

Controls on civilian use of firearms date from the early days of Confederation, when justices of the peace could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without reasonable cause.

Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and the 1970s introduced a series of minor controls on firearms.

In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced.

In the mid 1990s, significant increases in controls occurred.

A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations.

Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun.

As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.

In 2005 almost 3% of households in Canada possessed handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that possessed handguns.

In 2005 almost 16% of households in Canada possessed firearms of some kind

We have a regulatory regime with licenses, checks and courses in place for acquisition and use:

All licensing and registration is managed by the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program (CFP), under the Deputy Commissioner Policing Support Services (PSS).

In the Canadian system, there are three classes of firearms and firearm licences: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited.

Prohibited firearms are not actually "prohibited", as the name might imply, but do require the prohibited clause for the type of firearm that is owned. As of December 1, 1998, the prohibited clause must be grandfathered to acquire or possess prohibited firearms.

New prohibited licences are available only at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer of the province or the RCMP.

See Classification of firearms below for complete details on prohibited, restricted and non-restricted firearms.

Individuals who wish to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:

Safety training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) for a non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course(CRFSC) for a restricted licence; the non-restricted class is a prerequisite to the restricted licence. The RCMP publishes information on the locations and availability of these courses.

Applying for a licence: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). People can request a PAL by filling out Form CAFC 921.

Security screening: Background checks and investigations are performed. All applicants are screened, and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants, but response time may be longer.

Licences are typically valid for five years and must be renewed prior to expiry to maintain all classes. Once licensed, an individual can apply for a firearm transfer; and an authorization to transport (ATT) for restricted firearms.

(Note: People may hunt with firearms in Canada only with non-restricted firearms. This requires an additional "Hunting with Firearms" course)

Most full sized single fire rifles and shotguns fall under the non-restricted category.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .

But, it isn't.

 

[ivantheterrible]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

I'm curious as to why it is a right to carry a weapon

Personally I see firearm possesion as a privilege then a right, and so does my country

so why is it a right in the states.. what is it about carrying a gun that gives itself the societal equivalent to free speech

just curious

because if my life, limb, home, friends, family are threatened, it takes 10 minutes or more for a cop to show up after dialing 911. it takes me 3 seconds to pull a gun and blow some asshole fucktards head open.
and i never trust the government to actually be a freedom loving entity.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We've always had some form of gun control in Canada, but about 16% of all Canadian households have one or more firearms.



We have a regulatory regime with licenses, checks and courses in place for acquisition and use:



Most full sized single fire rifles and shotguns fall under the non-restricted category.

All sounds very . . . what's that word . . . sensible.

Attention all pro-gunners: Without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment, please explain what, if anything, is wrong with the Canadian gun-control system; for extra credit, explain, if applicable, why what works in Canada would not work in the U.S., or why it would be a bad idea in the U.S., without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment.

 

[Lancecastor]

All sounds very . . . what's that word . . . sensible.

Attention all pro-gunners: Without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment, please explain what, if anything, is wrong with the Canadian gun-control system; for extra credit, explain, if applicable, why what works in Canada would not work in the U.S., or why it would be a bad idea in the U.S., without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment.

The penalties up here for improper storage, handling or transport by the way are stiff...7 years I think.

A pot bust is usually a $100 fine, if they bother to prosecute you at all.

More or less the reverse of the USA.

 

[Life_Positive]

we are given the history for it, and the justification for it


that doesnt mean we are told why it is a right

Okay, listen, I am trying very hard to raise the quality of the discussion here and this entire bullshit dance with Lancecastor isn't helping things.

First of all, the entire concept of rights is not a hard, incontrovertible fact. Even acknowledging this basic idea is pretty damn unpopular, given that rights are seemingly central to Western political thought and absolutely vital to the legal system of these United States.

All ideas, words, concepts, etc, are historic in nature. What this means, simply, is that they aren't necessary. Everything human beings "know" and express through language is an invention of human intellect and creativity that originated in a specific point in space and time. There was a time before words representing the idea of "rights" existed, just as there was a time in the distant past where no words or ideas existed at all. It is readily possible to imagine a world in which such and such words and ideas were never conceived of at all.

What this means, simply, is that the entire theory of Natural Law and with it rights MAY be complete bunk. They are immaterial abstractions at their best, and their substance owes itself entirely to the extent to which they are held up by the actions of individuals. Laws, of course, are excellent examples of such actions, in so far as they are actively enforced.

However, the United States was founded on the premise of these rights because they were part of the dominant ideology of the time and place. They are historical artifacts enshrined in law, enforced by the raw power of human action. The institutions of the United States government take this premise seriously, as do most of her citizens. Even abstract, non-existent things can be made powerful by people.

In short, it is a right because we say so.

Legal realism, as another theory, proposes that laws are only fundamentally meaningful in proportion to their enforcement. Thus, if a law is not respected and enforced by the people and its constituent institutions, it is no law at all. Rights may be envisioned the same way, in that we have them because we wield power to maintain them. They could just as easily disappear by the same means.

 

[Lancecastor]

In short, it is a right because we say so.

She knew that...she's been fucking with you bunch the whole time.

 

[about_average]

But how does leveling the playing field become a right

Keep in mind I wasn't suggesting the state is leveling in playing field by forcing everyone to have a gun, merely recognizing everyone has a baseline of equal access.

is it my right to defend my self with a gun to defend myself from other people defending themselves with a gun

If you're defending yourself from someone with a gun they aren't defending themselves, they are attacking you.

and violence is a crime.. we punish people that attack people..that's the leveller..if you assualt someone , you go to jail...that's the leveller, not the weapon

That would be fine if them going to jail brings your son back to life without the pain to him and your family of him being killed.
But I'm pretty sure someone going to jail doesn't make the crime suddenly to have never happened. And even if it did, it wouldn't help the victims of unsolved murders.
Preventing a crime is nearly always better than punishing the criminal.[/QUOTE]

 

[imalickin]

All sounds very . . . what's that word . . . sensible.

Attention all pro-gunners: Without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment, please explain what, if anything, is wrong with the Canadian gun-control system; for extra credit, explain, if applicable, why what works in Canada would not work in the U.S., or why it would be a bad idea in the U.S., without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment.

Well, let's see, we're not Canada.

We are the United States of America.

There are laws that work well in Canada.

And there a laws that work well in the United States of America.

And if you want gun control like Canada has, move there dickwad.

 

[shoulderblade]

It was not animosity, really, it was fear -- and not even fear of "tyranny" in the arbitrary-state sense, but fear that that would lead to something worse, a socioeconomic tyranny. What frightened our FFs was the English ruling class as such.

That is exactly wheren I would put it. Under those conditions the second amendment makes perfect sense and is really necessary forn the preservation of the Republic.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well, let's see, we're not Canada.

We are the United States of America.

There are laws that work well in Canada.

And there a laws that work well in the United States of America.

And if you want gun control like Canada has, move there dickwad.

Why? I'm not huge on gun control but I'm not moving when I can change the US easier than leaving the land of my birth.

 

[ivantheterrible]

Well, let's see, we're not Canada.

We are the United States of America.

There are laws that work well in Canada.

And there a laws that work well in the United States of America.

And if you want gun control like Canada has, move there dickwad.

applauds.............................

what people don't realize is that so many other countries and continents have not known freedom for a very long time. china, russia, any european or british area, etc.. they had been dominated mentally, spiritually and physically for a long time. you were told what to believe, how to live, etc.. or YOU DIE.
native america DID influence european/colonials. they looked at native america where people lived as they wished, believed as they wished and as long as you harmed no one else, no one really gave a shit.
and you were ALWAYS armed. don't tell me how to live, what to think, or what to believe, or you just might get yourself shot.

 

[MidgetClown]

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/t/tweety_bird-5191.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

applauds.............................

what people don't realize is that so many other countries and continents have not known freedom for a very long time. china, russia, any european or british area, etc.. they had been dominated mentally, spiritually and physically for a long time. you were told what to believe, how to live, etc.. or YOU DIE.

Japan is a free country. Britain is a free country. It's free countries all across Europe 'til you get to Belarus.

native america DID influence european/colonials. they looked at native america where people lived as they wished, believed as they wished and as long as you harmed no one else, no one really gave a shit.

And the Europeans/colonials said, "They've got to go."

 

[MacLe0d]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many people do not understand the use of a comma and what it means. This includes the Conservative members of the Supreme Court who determined in 2008 that this right also extended to the individuals. Amazing that this country went from 1791 to 2008 with a different interpretation.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is about the States having the rights to form a Militia, and that this militia is not composed of "professional soldiers", but of individual members of the state. This militia is separate from any controlled by the Federal Gov't, especially the President. In order for this to happen, the Federal Govt cannot infringe on the rights of an individual (for the purpose of belonging to a militia) to own a weapon. Today, these words are taken by certain segments of our population to mean every individual has the right to own a weapon. This simply is not the case, else our Founding Fathers would have used a semi-colon or even added a second sentence.

Hope this helps a little.

Isn't this one of the issues regarding the 2nd Ammendment? As it uses comma's the sentaqnce has to be taken as a whole. If there was a full stop after free state, the meaning would change. One set of US supreme court Justices might interprut it one way, another group a different way.

 

[Lancecastor]

That is exactly wheren I would put it. Under those conditions the second amendment makes perfect sense and is really necessary forn the preservation of the Republic.

That whole Live Free or Die thing.

And that can work when coupled with "unfettered opportunity" as the reward for the risk and danger of having everyone, rich and poor, carrying a gun.

However, as is being discussed at the current WEF Conference in Davos, the USA actually has a mid to low pack standing in terms of Opportunity Index for individuals, with a decreasing number of people holding a large percentage of the total wealth.

The Tyranny might very well wind up being the shrinking Middle Class.

Which is why the Gun Nuts keep talking about that very topic...no Middle Class + Guns probably equals Anarchy at some point.