Pages:
Actions
  • #76 by Franco on 23 Nov 2015
  • ...but I have! I have taken the hint that you have no rebuttal.

    Yet you run from what I wrote because I use your own argument to kill your stupid assumptions...don't worry about America 2A....you don't live here, hell, they probably kicked you out of your country and are a migrant yourself.... :o
  • #77 by emilynghiem on 18 Jan 2017
  • The dumbfuck still can't show where the 2A give individual citizens the right to bear arms.

    Dear @pladecalvo and @franco: Sorry I'm late finding you on here and replying.

    There are two schools of thought, as different as Protestant and Catholic denominations:
    The left see govt as the "default source of public authority" establishing and granting rights and enforcing the will of the people.
    The right see human rights, civil liberty and authority as naturally existing among the people, and the purpose
    of the Constitutional laws and 'contracts' is to limit what powers *the people* give to govt especially federal authority.
    NOT the other way around.

    So that's why people interpret laws and govt in opposite ways.

    The right sees the right of people to defend ourselves and to have representation as the default,
    UNLESS we AGREE and CONSENT to pass laws otherwise that give govt centralized authority.

    The left sees these rights as "given to people by govt."

    Clearly, what needs to happen to satisfy both sides,
    is to agree how to write, interpret and enforce laws where BOTH agree that
    they spell out and serve the purpose and intent, regardless which process or viewpoint people favor.

    Arguing over people's political beliefs is not going to change how anyone sees it.
    The key is to write laws that work for both sides DESPITE the fact that we
    see and use govt in totally opposite ways.
  • #78 by pladecalvo on 18 Jan 2017
  • Arguing over people's political beliefs is not going to change how anyone sees it.
    The key is to write laws that work for both sides DESPITE the fact that we
    see and use govt in totally opposite ways.
    I see you are still living in your dream world Emily. Nobody yet has been able to write laws to please everyone and I suspect they never will. However, your comments have nothing to do with what is being discussed. What is being discussed at the moment is...

    What part of...

     '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."[/b

    ....gives the individual the right to bear arms?
  • #79 by emilynghiem on 18 Jan 2017

  • (1) ...and yet people leave the forum or don't post here due to Franco not me.

    (2) ...and yet for over a hundred years there was no argument  that the 2A DID NOT allow private individuals to bear arms. ..

    (3) [America not only has a gun problem but also an IQ problem]

    Dear @pladecalvo
    Unlike you, who is willing to defend and explain the opposing views and hold your own, MOST LIBERALS I know DO NOT invoke the spirit of the Constitution to argue back with Conservatives and Christians who do.

    Most either lobby by political party pressure and/or by bullying, pushing emotional arguments such as stories about gun violence, etc. to campaign for their beliefs about policy reforms.

    I rarely find other liberal Constitutionalists willing to TALK OUT arguments and defenses citing history. The ones who DO bother to argue citing "case law or interpretations thereof" either deadlock or get run over by the majority of Constitutionalists citing history and interpretation that favors the Second Amendment to MEAN citizens defending themselves against tyrannical govt.

    So it's not that they are "run off" but run over if these people arguing the opposite cannot stand by their arguments and historical interpretations that are VASTLY OUTNUMBERED by the majority which favor the conservative take on this law.

    (2) It depends what state and what audience you are talking about.
    At the time the Second Amendment was put together, state laws that stated and enforced this same principle even came out of states that DIDN'T HAVE STATE MILITIAS. So there is NO WAY it could have meant that it only applied to official militia bearing arms.

    There was debate back then (before during and after the Constitution and amendments were adopted) as there is today; so I seriously doubt there has been ANY period of time where this SAME age-old debate about "rights of people vs state vs national authority" didn't cause irreconcilable dissension and sidetaking due to people's inherent beliefs that have never changed and never been resolved.

    People either see the govt as the default source of "public authority for the people", or see people first, or God first, or the local state (or nobody and nothing at all) as first, followed by whatever church or state authority comes second depending on what the people authorize to govern them.

    so this debate has always affected ALL the laws people pass, interpret or enforce.

    (3) To quote Plad from a previous source, it's also an EGO problem with human beings. Whatever our BELIEFS are, political religious or secular, those will be defended first for personal security and defense, before any reasoning follows, whether rational or irrational, emotional or otherwise motivated.

    That EGO comes first, then intelligence follows, or lack thereof.

    If we address the beliefs first, and agree to respect the dichotomous schools of thoughts on govt, then we can discuss rationally what are our choices from there.
  • #80 by Franco on 19 Jan 2017
  • Dear @pladecalvo
    Unlike you, who is willing to defend and explain the opposing views and hold your own, MOST LIBERALS I know DO NOT invoke the spirit of the Constitution to argue back with Conservatives and Christians who do.

    Most either lobby by political party pressure and/or by bullying, pushing emotional arguments such as stories about gun violence, etc. to campaign for their beliefs about policy reforms.

    I rarely find other liberal Constitutionalists willing to TALK OUT arguments and defenses citing history. The ones who DO bother to argue citing "case law or interpretations thereof" either deadlock or get run over by the majority of Constitutionalists citing history and interpretation that favors the Second Amendment to MEAN citizens defending themselves against tyrannical govt.

    So it's not that they are "run off" but run over if these people arguing the opposite cannot stand by their arguments and historical interpretations that are VASTLY OUTNUMBERED by the majority which favor the conservative take on this law.

    (2) It depends what state and what audience you are talking about.
    At the time the Second Amendment was put together, state laws that stated and enforced this same principle even came out of states that DIDN'T HAVE STATE MILITIAS. So there is NO WAY it could have meant that it only applied to official militia bearing arms.

    There was debate back then (before during and after the Constitution and amendments were adopted) as there is today; so I seriously doubt there has been ANY period of time where this SAME age-old debate about "rights of people vs state vs national authority" didn't cause irreconcilable dissension and sidetaking due to people's inherent beliefs that have never changed and never been resolved.

    People either see the govt as the default source of "public authority for the people", or see people first, or God first, or the local state (or nobody and nothing at all) as first, followed by whatever church or state authority comes second depending on what the people authorize to govern them.

    so this debate has always affected ALL the laws people pass, interpret or enforce.

    (3) To quote Plad from a previous source, it's also an EGO problem with human beings. Whatever our BELIEFS are, political religious or secular, those will be defended first for personal security and defense, before any reasoning follows, whether rational or irrational, emotional or otherwise motivated.

    That EGO comes first, then intelligence follows, or lack thereof.

    If we address the beliefs first, and agree to respect the dichotomous schools of thoughts on govt, then we can discuss rationally what are our choices from there.

    Hey there Em!   :P ;)   so as you can see and have read, our friend across the pond still doesn't understand how the 2A works in conjunction with state and legal local militias, which indeed give the individual the right to bear arms to protect this country. Should the Federal Government fall (central government) the national defense would then by default fall to the states national defenses and in turn to local militias leaving lastly the individual.  Not rocket science, but welcome back and as you read along, his passion to kill this forum hasn't stopped since you were last here...lol
  • #81 by emilynghiem on 19 Jan 2017
  • I see you are still living in your dream world Emily. Nobody yet has been able to write laws to please everyone and I suspect they never will. However, your comments have nothing to do with what is being discussed. What is being discussed at the moment is...

    What part of...

     '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."[/b

    ....gives the individual the right to bear arms?

    Dear @pladecalvo, the Second Amendment is like the First Amendment which spells out SELF-EXISTENT rights (freedom of religion, free speech etc.) that ARE ***NOT****  "created" or "granted/given" by govt.

    The Constitution is like a contract SPELLING OUT what the laws/agreed principles are between people and govt. The BODY of the Constitution spells out what the people AGREE that the three branches of federal govt are going to have power to do; the Bill of Rights spells out self-existent naturally-occurring rights that people ALREADY have which the federal govt CANNOT infringe upon.

    so IT'S ASSUMED THAT "FREEDOM OF SPEECH," RIGHT OF DEFENSE, RIGHT TO PETITION,
    RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, ETC. **** ALREADY EXIST AS NATURAL LAWS THAT GOVERN HUMAN NATURE *****

    If you are atheist, it's like asking to "prove God" GAVE US the "right to life" before this can be invoked. No, it's not necessary to prove legally where this came from.
    The drive to survive is GIVEN, it's INHERENT in human nature.
    You don't have to prove that some CREATOR GAVE US LIFE, in order to invoke and defend the "right to life."
    We have it naturally as human beings.

    So that's how conservatives see the right to life, rights to civil liberties and freedom, and right to defense of
    property, persons and principles. THESE ALREADY EXIST BY NATURE. The Constitutional laws just spell them out so they become STATUTORY, a written contract or agreement so people can REFER to the principles that we agree to enforce for ourselves.

    Now, @pladecalvo if you want to get into the TERMS of the CONTRACT,
    such as if the Constitution ASSUMES that people have this "right to bear arms" INHERENTLY.
    THEN we COULD spell out, that this ASSUMPTION of "right to bear arms" also ASSUMES
    that people INTEND TO FOLLOW/ENFORCE LAWS and NOT to "violate laws or rights of people by abusing weapons."

    So that point, yes we could and SHOULD discuss:

    IE Doesn't the assumption that the Second Amendment proclaims this "right to bear arms"
    INHERENTLY imply that THIS law will be ENFORCED and INVOKED *** IN CONTEXT ***
    with the REST of the Bill of Rights/Constitution.  So NOBODY has the "right to bear arms" to VIOLATE the OTHER Amendments or Articles in the SAME CONSTITUTION if you take the WHOLE law as one contract.

Pages:
Actions