The Meaning of the Second Amendment

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

>You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor . . .

Cut it out, Kennedy.

Thank you.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I don't know why I'm going to justifiy myself to someone who's only response to reason seems to be calling the US a fascist regime, but I will anyway.

We all know kallend is in control of his mental faculties. He was very disingenuous, and I called him on it. He has a habit of being answered direct questions, dropping off the thread for a while, then popping back up to ask questions that have already been answered. He was imitating something he is obviously not. I pointed out a transparent debte choice, no different from pointing out strawmen arguments or poor logic, or other less seemly tactics.

Do you really want me to go back over some of your posts and point out the need for moderation? I'd wager I can find things that would get you banned for a good long while, at least. On the other hand, I've spent more than enough time on you, so I'll be on my merry way.

I'd wager I can find things that would get you banned for a good long while, at least.

And I've been banned, I just can't figure out why you haven't..... oh wait, yes I can. Either way, it wouldn't change my life one bit, so I don't really care that you'll never be banned.

As for Kallend, as a person with a BS from a major university and working on a second, if any of us could fathom the work and time required to become a PhD as Kallend is, I think your statement would be retracted.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

my 2 cents worth!

i believe the use of comma's in your posting of the 2nd amendment is incorrect. in all the copy's of the constitution and amendments that i have read there is no punctuation in the 2nd amendment , except for the period at it's end.

if it is read with-out punctuation, i believe, the intent becomes much more straight forward and clear.

i do not claim to be an expert in constitutional law or the english langauge. i have, however, read the federalist papers by jefferson, and most of whats available on jefferson, b. franklin, patrick henry, etc...etc... in reading these works i have only one conclusion to put forward. and that is these great and forward looking and history respectful people were very affraid of the their countrymen not having any way to control an out of control governing body.

they penned the 2nd amendment to ensure that the "constitution" would not be subjugated or subverted, it being the most important document ever worded by man!

these are also my beliefs,
brent

***

Great thoughts and observations. I was unaware that the 2nd had no punctuation; never noticed. The 2nd is big to me too, but legal scholars will tell you that the 4th and 14th are the most important Amendments. Of course that is subjective as women would feel the 19th is and African-Americans might say the 13th..... drunks the 21st!!!

The 1st is wayyyy overstated, the 2nd far too broad and subjetcive.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I don't know why I'm going to justifiy myself to someone who's only response to reason seems to be calling the US a fascist regime, but I will anyway.

We all know kallend is in control of his mental faculties. He was very disingenuous, and I called him on it. He has a habit of being answered direct questions, dropping off the thread for a while, then popping back up to ask questions that have already been answered. He was imitating something he is obviously not. I pointed out a transparent debte choice, no different from pointing out strawmen arguments or poor logic, or other less seemly tactics.

Do you really want me to go back over some of your posts and point out the need for moderation? I'd wager I can find things that would get you banned for a good long while, at least. On the other hand, I've spent more than enough time on you, so I'll be on my merry way.

OK, as much as I do identify the US as being Fasist, and it has yet to be even challenged here, let alone refuted, that isn't the issue. The issue here is the 2nd and I did post a reply to you that you failed to address - I'll repost it, it's very short. I hope you answer it.

Let me start by saying that as much as we disagree on, we both agree that citizens should be able to own, bear, and otherwise have, "gun rights."

The differences we might have is how we get to that consideration. You want to assume that the Constitution is adhered to as it should be, and disregard the 'living Constitution.' I realize that the written Constitution is just fodder to be thrown about when justifying past actions. I don't like it being used that way, but I'm not willing to live in fantasy. I beg you to show me any of the sustantive Bill of Rights Amendments (1,2, 4, 5, 6, 8) that is actually adgered to verbatim. What is free speech, non-establishment of a stste religion, unreasonable search/seizure, right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment? Those are so broad that there are as many definitions as there are definers. The machine will do what it wants and throw you a Constitutional bone when pressed.

Now we have the 2nd. The worst words that were written within the 2nd was, "well regulated." That gives all kinds of interpretational license to the powers that want to revoke guns, both lefties and righties.

Also, the powers that be could easily say the 2nd was written at a time when we didn't have a standing army, hence it becomes moot. Guys like you, right as you may or maynot be can continue to intelligently disect the 2nd like a high school frog, but the maggots that run this country (into the ground) may tell you otherwise and dare you to defy them.

In spirit and heart I back you, in reality I fear as you do that gun rights will go the way of the 4th, 8th and other goodies.

From that, I ask the following questions:

1. You want strict interpretations of the Const, so what other Const Amends are interpreted strictly? Unreasonable search and seizure? What's that? Well regulated - what's that?

“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.”

2. “….being necessary to the security of a free state,…” With a standing army now and not then, what is now necessary?

3. ”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” What is it to be not infringed? That means we can own tanks? If not, we are being infringed.

Look, Kennedy, I’m as passionate about gun ownership as you, I just realize that they will pull the plug when they want, hire lots of cops to kill anyone that won’t voluntarily turn over guns and make you and me look like nut-jobs, ala the Branch Dividians. Argue the essence of gun ownership, but the 2nd is no longer applicable, especially with the words, “well regulated.”