Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

reply to post by daskakik


Yeah, actually there are plans to take by force, forearms owned by people.

If you don't care, then I would assume you won't respond to this.

Bassago
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm not sure I understand you here. "When we begin?" We've never stopped. Interpreting our Constitution to the issues and circumstances it's used to address defines the literal purpose and mission of the Supreme Court as our 3rd equal branch of Government.

My point was that some things do not need interpretation. That we've never stopped interpreting and reinterpreting something as simple as the 2nd Amendment (and others) through varying conservative and liberal Supreme Court whims is how we got into this place (mess) in the first place. Just my opinion but the law seems to be about how to circumvent constitutional rights as much as support them. Somethings broken here. The 2nd doesn't say:

"shall not be infringed..." except in gun free zones, New York, etc.

I can see your point and that of others here on the 2nd amendment. I understand completely what some say about their personal belief that it be *NO* restrictions, of any kind, on any one, at any time. Period. Shall Not = Shall Not and that's the end of it.

I just cannot agree with that simple level of viewing something as complex to our lives as the Constitutional rights that govern everyone.

It's a practical matter..really. Should there be some limits? Well....yes, if we want to live in a real world where the laws impact real people vs. debating this as a paper exercise. On paper, guns are guns and if you have one, you have no good reason against having more.

In the real world, IMO, there is a Planet's worth of difference between a .357 magnum like an example in my safe...and a Rail Gun, which, rumor has it, are in viable form in labs somewhere for the soldiers of the future. Do I want a Rail Gun? Hell ya! Sounds fun!! Do I want everyone I see at a range with one capable of shooting THROUGH multiple houses and possibly performing 1 bullet demolition in some ways on it's way through? Umm.. no... I'll pass...

The thing is... What I think doesn't matter. What you think doesn't matter. Not as individuals. We have our system and it's kept us going for over 200 years. Under the system, the 9 individuals who make up the Supreme Court hold the only opinions, in literal terms, that DO matter..and they've put them in writing, as it happens.

Everyone has a right to a gun, they've said and in absolute terms....within some restrictions we've been living with, without major issue, for a few decades now. They've said everyone may have guns, but they have also said one may not have *EVERY* gun. On that, I couldn't possibly agree more, or with more strong passion. I've met too many people I wouldn't trust with a potato gun in a controlled lab.

macman
reply to post by daskakik

 

Yeah, actually there are plans to take by force, forearms owned by people.

By the looks of your sig. they have already taken what they need.

If you don't care, then I would assume you won't respond to this.

Well, just because I don't see the point in discussing personal interpretations doesn't mean that I will no longer participate in the thread.

Kali74
reply to post by doubletap

 

reply to post by macman

 

Read the Federalist papers, the Congressional debates. You may be taking a firm position because you're afraid that if you aren't militant in your stance someone will come take your guns away and yes, I do know some people are actually trying to... and those I would stand by your side to defend against, though I may carry a sign instead of gun. But don't let your fear make you a jerk or worse, an ignorant jerk... My position isn't crazy or stupid, it is the position that stood from the beginning until 2008... and that whole time the debate raged in law schools, by politicians, by lawyers and Justices, the right that wasn't supposed to be infringed on, the right to form a Militia (not militia)... an actual trained military force, sworn to their State and not the USofA, just faded into wispy vapor.

I'm done trying to debate people who treat their position as a dog treats a bone, nothing else exists and no amount of logic will get the dog to realize that there's a whole world beyond that bone.

Something to consider: the call for gun owners to be "reasonable" falls on deaf ears for a reason.

Consider I have a fresh, hot apple pie. You come walking by and smell it. You then ask for it. I tell you, "No, its my pie....im not giving it to you." Being a reasonable man, i am willing to share with you. So i cut you off a good sized slice. say, 1/3 of the entire pie. You walk away happy.

The next day, you come up and ask for the rest of my pie. I refuse, telling you that it is mine and that you already have taken a third of it. I point out that you have no rightful claim over the rest of my pie, and tell you to leave. You then tell me how unreasonable I am. growing tired of it quickly, I give you half of what i have left. You go away, and life goes on.

The next day, you come to me asking for my pie. Exasperted, I tell you to go away. You persist, and tell me how unreasonble I am being for not giving part of it up. Afterall, I have all that pie....why shouldn't I be willing to share. If for the children, right? So i give you half, leaving me with a very small slice of pie.

Today I m being asked to give up that piece of pie, or part of it. I had the whole pie at one point, and willfully gave up almost all of it. BUt this piece of pie....this is where I take my stand. No one will take it. Unreasonable as I may appear....it has been reduced down to an "either/or", zero sum question.

so yes....gun owners seem unreasonable. we are trying to protect this last little sliver of our pie. Being reasonable has cost us almost all of it already.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You misunderstand.

I am not asking anyone to change their position on anything. I am stating that there's another way to interpret the 2nd, they don't have to accept that interpretation but they don't need to insist it doesn't exist or that a person is delusional or stupid for having it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I don't even own any guns and I am tired of people trying to whittle away the 2nd Amendment as well as many of the other Amendments. The 2nd Amendment is brief and to the point, there isn't anything to dissect about it. Shall not be infringed. They chose those words for a reason..........


If you don't like the Amendment, go about the prescribed way to change the Amendment. Anything else is just trying to enforce something that doesn't have the will of "the people" behind it.

What a great discussion! First, it is sad when threads such as these don't get a lot of lime light because there has been coherent and solid debate regarding a "contentions" topic and it didn't result in rediculous red v. Blue talking points for the most part. If I could give kudos i would.

im all for gun ownership, but can you pretty pretty please stop saying you need them to confront a tyrannical government? because you obviously have had one for many years now and not one of you tough talking cowards has done anything about it

reply to post by daskakik


Not really, as there is one state that has letters circulating about, that indicate they are ready to confiscate.

CA is doing it now as well.

And i guess that you do indeed care.

reply to post by macman

See the post above yours.

No, I really don't care.

Kali74
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You misunderstand.

I am not asking anyone to change their position on anything. I am stating that there's another way to interpret the 2nd, they don't have to accept that interpretation but they don't need to insist it doesn't exist or that a person is delusional or stupid for having it.

I am of the opinion that "interpretation" means "twisting words to meet and agenda".

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. What it SHOULD have meant was, "Hey, Uncle Sam....don't invent weapons you don't want roaming the streets. Because once the genie is out of the bag, The People have a right to them, too". This would have made for a far, far more peaceful world. to be honest. Because as it stands, only 1 nation has used the nuke. And it kind of sticks in the craw of the rest of the world.

bigfatfurrytexan
I am of the opinion that "interpretation" means "twisting words to meet and agenda".

You just interpreted "interpretation".

I hope that is not like dividing by zero.

reply to post by daskakik


Ahhhh, that is nice.


So, since you don't care, your responses mean Jack, right??

reply to post by macman

I guess that they mean as much as yours.

That is why I said it's moot.

daskakik

bigfatfurrytexan
I am of the opinion that "interpretation" means "twisting words to meet and agenda".

You just interpreted "interpretation".

I hope that is not like dividing by zero.

Since spacetime didn't split open, I think we are ok