Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

SpeedRacerXXX · 03-09-2013, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, no, no. That is NOT the court's job. The Court's job is to apply the law as it was intended to be applied by those who wrote it. "Well, the Constitution says green, but green is out of date, so we say they meant red." Bullshit. There is an abundance of material that explains EXACTLY what the Founders meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. In this case, the Justice is either lazy or stupid.

What world do you live in? Certainly not the world of reality. DC v. Heller. McDonald v. Chicago. Such a simple question yet the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and passed by a minimum 5-4 decision. No matter which side of the aisle you are sitting, there is a great deal of controversy over exactly what the 2nd Amendment means.

Just for kicks, what is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Not looking to argue, just interested in other's opinions.

CuteOldGuy · 03-09-2013, 10:19 PM

I think the 2nd Amendment was drafted so the people could protect themselves from their government.

Guest032516 · 03-09-2013, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If you can find a statement by her stating that then I will believe it. Otherwise, it is simply your OPINION. Times change and what our Founding Fathers thought to be correct is not always correct in today's world. Blacks can vote. 15th Amendment Women can vote. 19th Amendment. Slavery is wrong. 13th Amendment. On and on. So the intent of our Founding Fathers was not perfect. Countless court decisions at every level have shown that gun control laws are legal, and have withstood challenges for the most part.

You do realilze that you just laid out a very good reason why the 2nd Amendment should be left alone, right? Because if the people of our country DO decide that the thoughts of the Founding Fathers are not correct in today's world, we can fix it by amending the Constitution to eliminate or modify the 2nd Amendment.

What we do NOT need are Supreme Courts that go back and forth on the issue everytime there is a shift in the politics of the Senate and President.

CuteOldGuy · 03-10-2013, 01:13 AM

The Constitution means what it says. It is subject to application, but not interpretation.

JD Barleycorn · 03-10-2013, 06:42 AM

The Kings of England had disarmed their subjects as did the Kings of France and Spain. Only the connected had any "right" to be armed. When the founders decided that all citizens will be equals then it had to apply to these rights as well. Pragmatism about how we won our freedom also came into play. It was not an organized military but common citizens that fought the British far many years. The states and many people were concerned that our new government may decide to become a new monarchy. Since it was the armed citizen who fought the last government, it would guarantee that the armed citizen would have the right and ability to fight any new tyranny. Hence we have the second amendment. There is a reason that it is the second and not the eighth amendment. The right to bear arms (NOT FOR HUNTING) was second only the rights of the first amendment to a free people. Only idiots can presume to argue otherwise.

CuteOldGuy · 03-13-2013, 12:26 AM

JD Barleycorn · 03-13-2013, 01:48 AM

You can't really say that there is debate about what the second amendment says because in its simple form it has not appeared in front of the Supreme Court. They have always decided some convoluted, off target decision.

SpeedRacerXXX · 03-13-2013, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You do realilze that you just laid out a very good reason why the 2nd Amendment should be left alone, right? Because if the people of our country DO decide that the thoughts of the Founding Fathers are not correct in today's world, we can fix it by amending the Constitution to eliminate or modify the 2nd Amendment.

What we do NOT need are Supreme Courts that go back and forth on the issue everytime there is a shift in the politics of the Senate and President.

I agree with those statements 100%.

SpeedRacerXXX · 03-13-2013, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think the 2nd Amendment was drafted so the people could protect themselves from their government.

I also agree with that statement 100%. But what does the 2nd Amendment imply about a citizen's right to own guns for personal protection? THAT, IMHO, is the problem. Some people believe that the 2nd Amendment allows a citizen to carry any weapon at any time in any place. Others believe that it does not directly mention individuals so does not grant any right for an individual to bear arms.

CuteOldGuy · 03-13-2013, 10:49 PM

I think, Speedo, that if you read Thomas Jefferson's quote posted earlier, it will become apparent what the Founders meant by that amendment.

Yssup Rider · 03-14-2013, 12:12 AM

I think you'd be lost without Bartlett's book of quotes, Whiny!

CuteOldGuy · 03-14-2013, 12:28 AM

Do you disagree with Jefferson, Assup? Or are you just going to bitch?

SpeedRacerXXX · 03-14-2013, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think, Speedo, that if you read Thomas Jefferson's quote posted earlier, it will become apparent what the Founders meant by that amendment.

I read it. Wouldn't you say it was a rather different U.S. back then? There were no weapons that anyone would want to keep out of the hands of citizens. Now there are IMHO. You want the average citizen to have the ability to own a grenade launcher, or a missile launcher, or have the ability to build a nuclear device in his basement? Unless you focus on the " . . . to protect themselves against tyranny in government.", I certainly don't want that. If you or anyone else believes there is such a need, then it's difficult to argue against any type of gun or weapon control.

Yssup Rider · 03-14-2013, 08:17 AM

Not going to bitch about Jefferson ... After all... People who lived before the invention of electricity are SOOO much more insightful about our way of life.

No, WHINY, Im going to bitch about your lack of original thought, unwillingness to put forth an opinion and general high estrogen since your mentor left in a huff the other day. (Maybe it was a snit).

Your bullshit has become more tedious than ever.

Im bitching about that!

JD Barleycorn · 03-14-2013, 08:53 AM

Nice red herring Speedy but it doesn't work. By the way, a common citizen could own a cannon in the days of the revolution and the ultimate military weapon was the Brown Bess musket carried by the British soldier. Many Americans also had the same musket. If someone had the money then they could also build a privateer (sanctioned pirate ship) and take to the ocean looking for plunder. If we lived by the standards of 1776 I could finance my own destroyer or frigate with a 5"/54 fore and aft. Want to alter your opinion?

Whatzup, electricity was not invented, it was discovered. The means to reliably make electricity was invented but electricity had been around for millenia. Did you pay any attention in school?