National School Walkout

[seer]

And, apparently, disagree with you (about this), and you'll take our lives. Maybe you'll give it a second thought - I don't know.


So, at least according to you, "right to own a gun" trumps "right to live" and "rule of law" (assuming the laws have been changed). To me, that is seriously distorted.

Again Carp, I'm to old to fight. I want to protect this right for my fellow citizens. Heck though I have owned dozens of firearms in my life, all I own now is one old 22 bolt action rifle (and I do mean old). And if my fellow citizens attempt to take away a fundamental right they, not me or those who are like minded, become the law breakers.

[seer]

Of course, you left off the first part, which is what makes the 2nd far less than clear. The entire Second Amendment says, "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.

But it does not change anything Carp, the Constitution does not say that the militia must be state regulated (most of the early ones were not), which means that me and my friends could form a militia and claim the Constitutional right to bear arms.

[Darth Executor]

"encouraging" the right to fully militarize by making them form militias to own guns sounds like a pretty good idea to me

[Sparko]

"encouraging" the right to fully militarize by making them form militias to own guns sounds like a pretty good idea to me

I was just thinking the same thing. If they want to argue that you have to belong to a militia to own a gun, then they are encouraging people to organize into fully functional militias. They probably wouldn't like that very much, would they?

[seer]

"encouraging" the right to fully militarize by making them form militias to own guns sounds like a pretty good idea to me

I have known people in local militias, tough crowd, a lot of Vets (combat Vets)... So I guess Carp would have no problem with the Constitutionality of this.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't change the meaning. It merely adds one reason why said right shall not be infringed.

Yes - it does...and when the why no longer applies...then the reason for not infringing on the right also ends. That is a perfectly reasonable argument. We can disagree on it, but it is not unreasonable.

If you were to say, "because I want you to graduate from college, I'm going to relieve you of all home responsibilities here so you can concentrate on school," and then your son were to say, "I already graduated dad, but thanks for freeing me up from all home responsibilities." When you object, I doubt you would accept as a response, "but dad, it doesn't matter WHY you freed me up, you said I was freed up!"

And yes - I know the analogy is to a responsibility - and you are claiming a right. The principal holds. It is a reasonable argument - even if we disagree about it.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, I'm to old to fight. I want to protect this right for my fellow citizens. Heck though I have owned dozens of firearms in my life, all I own now is one old 22 bolt action rifle (and I do mean old). And if my fellow citizens attempt to take away a fundamental right they, not me or those who are like minded, become the law breakers.

When the constitution changes (if it does) and the laws change accordingly (if they do), and if you elect to disregard the new laws, then you are, by definition, a law breaker. You may feel you are justified (I suspect most do), but you are, by definition, breaking the law. You have become a criminal, and you are disregarding the process set forth by the Founders, and the Constitution you claim to honor.

[seer]

Yes - it does...and when the why no longer applies...then the reason for not infringing on the right also ends. That is a perfectly reasonable argument. We can disagree on it, but it is not unreasonable.

If you were to say, "because I want you to graduate from college, I'm going to relieve you of all home responsibilities here so you can concentrate on school," and then your son were to say, "I already graduated dad, but thanks for freeing me up from all home responsibilities." When you object, I doubt you would accept as a response, "but dad, it doesn't matter WHY you freed me up, you said I was freed up!"

And yes - I know the analogy is to a responsibility - and you are claiming a right. The principal holds. It is a reasonable argument - even if we disagree about it.

Again Carp even your reading does not help your cause, the Constitution does not say that the militia must be state regulated (most of the early ones were not), which means that me and my friends could simply form a militia and claim the Constitutional right to bear arms.

[Cerebrum123]

Yes - it does...and when the why no longer applies...then the reason for not infringing on the right also ends. That is a perfectly reasonable argument. We can disagree on it, but it is not unreasonable.

If you were to say, "because I want you to graduate from college, I'm going to relieve you of all home responsibilities here so you can concentrate on school," and then your son were to say, "I already graduated dad, but thanks for freeing me up from all home responsibilities." When you object, I doubt you would accept as a response, "but dad, it doesn't matter WHY you freed me up, you said I was freed up!"

And yes - I know the analogy is to a responsibility - and you are claiming a right. The principal holds. It is a reasonable argument - even if we disagree about it.

No, it doesn't, and the analogy doesn't work. I said it states one reason why, and it's arguable that the reason isn't still in force*. One important reason for X doesn't equal the only reason for X.

*If anything it just means people need to start a militia to show that it's still needed to keep the government from infringing on our rights. I don't think you want things to head that way.

[seer]

When the constitution changes (if it does) and the laws change accordingly (if they do), and if you elect to disregard the new laws, then you are, by definition, a law breaker. You may feel you are justified (I suspect most do), but you are, by definition, breaking the law. You have become a criminal, and you are disregarding the process set forth by the Founders, and the Constitution you claim to honor.

Carp, just in principle, if the majority decided to take away voting rights from a minority would you consider the majority law breakers? And again, you can not appeal to the Founders, they believed that certain rights were fundamental and could not be taken away.

[carpedm9587]

But it does not change anything Carp, the Constitution does not say that the militia must be state regulated (most of the early ones were not), which means that me and my friends could form a militia and claim the Constitutional right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia," based on the writings of the FF, was interpreted to mean, regulated by the government - federal or state.

You know, I really don't know why I am wasting my time here. There is not one iota of "give" to be found anywhere - just entrenchment. And it is blamed on the "lack of trustworthyness of the left." A handy excuse. The minds reflected here are unbelievably narrow - and I am going to end up even further to the left if I continue. So I'm going to disengage and unsubscribe, and go find some less extreme examples of gun owners and try to regain a sense of balance. Right now, I find myself more and more siding with those who would see the entire country disarmed, and any sympathy I may have had for gun owners and gun rights is simply gone.

Carry on...

[Cerebrum123]

When the constitution changes (if it does) and the laws change accordingly (if they do), and if you elect to disregard the new laws, then you are, by definition, a law breaker. You may feel you are justified (I suspect most do), but you are, by definition, breaking the law. You have become a criminal, and you are disregarding the process set forth by the Founders, and the Constitution you claim to honor.

Again, no, that's not how it works with regards to rights. The government incriminates themselves by trying to revoke rights, which they have no lawful authority to do. One of the major reasons for the Second Amendment was to prevent the very scenario you want to happen. The Founding Fathers knew that without proper checks and balances things would just end up as bad as what they were fighting against, which is why the Constitution, and such amendments exist. They also went out of their way to show that government does not grant rights, and is to be prohibited from infringing on them. Once the government starts to do that, they have given up lawful authority, and are no more than tyrants to be overthrown.

[Zymologist]

"A well regulated militia," based on the writings of the FF, was interpreted to mean, regulated by the government - federal or state.

You know, I really don't know why I am wasting my time here. There is not one iota of "give" to be found anywhere - just entrenchment. And it is blamed on the "lack of trustworthyness of the left." A handy excuse. The minds reflected here are unbelievably narrow - and I am going to end up even further to the left if I continue. So I'm going to disengage and unsubscribe, and go find some less extreme examples of gun owners and try to regain a sense of balance. Right now, I find myself more and more siding with those who would see the entire country disarmed, and any sympathy I may have had for gun owners and gun rights is simply gone.

Carry on...

Everything is so much easier when you can dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a narrow-minded extremist, isn't it?

[Cerebrum123]

Everything is so much easier when you can dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a narrow-minded extremist, isn't it?

It's pretty clear he would have been cheering on the red coats in the Revolutionary war, and viewed the Founding Fathers as "extremist criminals", and "traitors" if he were alive then.

[seer]

"A well regulated militia," based on the writings of the FF, was interpreted to mean, regulated by the government - federal or state.

Show me that in the Constitution, then tell me why so many militias at the time of the Founding were not regulated by the state?