National School Walkout

[Sparko]

No - the argument I made was that the context of the 2nd is "militia," not that the only places where guns could be used is "militia." As with any tool, a gun has many uses: self-protection, putting down a lame horse, hunting for food, target practice, etc. At no point did I say that guns can only be used for/by militia.

And the fact that the founders believed this does not make it true. Right to speech? Yes. Right to freedom? Yes. Right to life? Yes. Right to own an object? Sorry - no. The right that SHOULD have been enshrined in the 2nd is the right to self-protection - not the right to own a particular device. As I have said several times, no other "right" protected by the constitution is about a "thing." A gun should be no different. It's just a thing. Nobody has a right to "own a thing."

Even if it is not true (who are you to say what is true or not?) the fact remains that was their thinking and intent: that we all have a preexisting right to bear arms. So any argument that repealing the second amendment would remove the right to bear arms is sorely mistaken. and yes there have been many people in this thread arguing that the intent of the writers of the 2nd amendment was just to provide for militias and that there is no right to own guns outside of that.

And the 2nd doesn't say you have a right to own a thing. It says you have the right to USE a thing. bear arms. Of course you have to own it to use it. but that is secondary. Their intent was that people HAVE a right to bear arms and that the government cannot take it away or infringe on it. That was what they intended and thought.

So if you could somehow remove the 2nd, we would still have that right.

The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them. That is a basic tenant of the constitution. The power is with the people and government serves them.

[Sparko]

So our rights come from Thomas Jefferson and his co-authors.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Sparko]

So the reason that countries have nuclear weapons is for offensive purposes. Can we posses small nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, in our homes in order to protect ourselves from the government?

[Sparko]

Actually, I am arguing that the amendment was written in the context of supporting militias. That does not make militias the only thing guns can be used for. And my argument is actually that we do not have an inherent right to "things," so whatever the founders may have been thinking, they were simply wrong. We have a right to self-defense - not a right to own a particular type or kind of weapon.

well nobody really cares what you (or I) think about the constitution Carp. They do care about what the founding fathers thought. Their intent is very important.

[JimL]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Who is we? And I don't see anything about the right to bear arms there.

[seer]

That we have a right to life, liberty, and happiness does not mean we have a right to every "thing" that will ensure life, liberty, and happiness - that is your error.

Yet you would take away the very thing that could and would protect my life and liberty!

[JimL]

Yet you would take away the very thing that could and would protect my life and liberty!

No, we wouldn't. We would, using common sense, limit the kind of weapons you could have and use to protect yourself.

[Sparko]

Who is we? And I don't see anything about the right to bear arms there.

You asked where the rights came from. I showed you.

[Sparko]

No, we wouldn't. We would, using common sense, limit the kind of weapons you could have and use to protect yourself.

We should give you a nerf gun.

81nR1518g9L._SL1500_.jpg

[seer]

We should give you a nerf gun.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27181[/ATTACH]

That would be dangerous for Jim...

[seer]

No, we wouldn't. We would, using common sense, limit the kind of weapons you could have and use to protect yourself.

Sorry, I don't trust leftists...

[carpedm9587]

well nobody really cares what you (or I) think about the constitution Carp. They do care about what the founding fathers thought. Their intent is very important.

Actually - what the founding fathers thought/intended is not my primary metric. Of course I want to know what they were thinking so I can evaluate what they produced. But they were men - not objects for worship. They were also exclusively landed, white, and male, so not exactly a cross-section of our country. And many had views that today would be considered fairly racist (slavery, native americans, etc.). A quick read of the DOE shows this.

Yes, these were smart men. Yes, knowing what they thought is important. They discussed and deliberated and wrote down their ideas, and I want to know what those were. But they also recognized that future ages might see a need to change what they had wrought, and they created a mechanism for that to happen. So, if I disagree with them OR you, such is life. That they lived 250 years ago and were the crafters of this great political experiment is laudable, but does not bind me to their thinking.

And in hindsight, I have to reverse myself regarding my last post. This "repeal the 2nd" position is fairly new to me, and I'm just thinking through the ramifications. I spent a lot of time defending the 2nd, and am just realizing that I was wrong. Reviewing my posts (which I should have done before) I DID imply that the 2nd only supported use of guns by militias, and that was wrong. Although the context was militias (and that context is gone), I do not believe use of guns would have been limited to militias in that time. These men were launching a new country, and hunting and self-protection were still critically important. I have to believe they considered that as well.

But the second is poorly written, and is focused on the wrong thing: a means to the end (guns) rather than the ends (self-protection). Ergo, I think it should be repealed.

[Juvenal]

......

Please do not make substantive changes to other's posts.

But there's another point to be made from this extended list.

... surface to air missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons

Those who argue, alarmingly, that their weapons are for the purpose of armed insurrection should remember that their opponent actually has all of these weapons.

I've yet to see a home defense weapon that could withstand a pinpointed 500 lb JDAM strike.

[carpedm9587]

Even if it is not true (who are you to say what is true or not?) the fact remains that was their thinking and intent: that we all have a preexisting right to bear arms. So any argument that repealing the second amendment would remove the right to bear arms is sorely mistaken. and yes there have been many people in this thread arguing that the intent of the writers of the 2nd amendment was just to provide for militias and that there is no right to own guns outside of that.

And the 2nd doesn't say you have a right to own a thing. It says you have the right to USE a thing. bear arms. Of course you have to own it to use it. but that is secondary. Their intent was that people HAVE a right to bear arms and that the government cannot take it away or infringe on it. That was what they intended and thought.

So if you could somehow remove the 2nd, we would still have that right.

The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them. That is a basic tenant of the constitution. The power is with the people and government serves them.

On this we agree - so if the people want to repeal the second, and replace it with an amendment that protects the right to self-protection, THAT will be the new constitutional basis, THAT will be the right recognized by the people, and THAT will be what government is supposed to protect. And those who stand against it, they will be criminals, by definition.

[carpedm9587]

Yet you would take away the very thing that could and would protect my life and liberty!

No - I would take away a gun. Statistically, your risk is more from your own gun than that of anyone else's. Statistically, it is more likely that a gun used is not used for a crime by its owner. So by removing guns from society, we reduce risk and harm, not increase it. That has been shown in country after country that has done that very thing - and adopted "gun as a privilege" rather than "gun as a right." Your right to own a "thing" ends when it becomes a threat to society at large - just as your right to speech ends when it becomes a threat to society at large (i.e., inciting violence) or your right to liberty ends when it becomes a threat to society at large (i.e., committing a capital crime).

I would continue to stand behind people's so-called "right" to own a gun if there was any willingness to find a common ground that would both protect society AND maintain gun ownership. There is none - and many of those who own guns (almost all of them here) have made it clear that they will use those guns against their fellow citizens if the law of the land becomes "guns as a privilege, not guns as a right." Rather than simply doing what is required to earn the privilege - they will choose to shoot fellow citizens enforcing the law (should that law change), and defend that as "moral" and "legal." That very position makes you (and those like you) dangerous. It is essentially a form of domestic terrorism: "don't enact/enforce laws/rules we disagree with, because we will shoot you." It makes you, and those like you, if you were to act on that threat, no different than McVeigh, Weaver, or the 20 men who crashed planes into buildings and people on 9/11.