Gun-Grabbers Declare Bill of Rights Not "Absolute"

Gun-Grabbers Declare Bill of Rights Not "Absolute"

www.truthnews.us

Mike Cox, the attorney general of Michigan, understands the Second Amendment: “Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation’s capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Cox writes for the Detroit Free Press.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Do the bill of rights and the constitutuin mean what they say, or are they open for interpretation.

In my opinion, they were written in such a way as to not be confused in any manner. They were set out to be understood and not waivered from.

If those that think it is open for unterpretation, then I take it they also feel the same about any major religion or even an law.

So the ten commandments would be negotiable, and so would murdering somebody in any state law.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.truthnews.us
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Extralien
Do the bill of rights and the constitutuin mean what they say, or are they open for interpretation.

In my opinion, they were written in such a way as to not be confused in any manner. They were set out to be understood and not waivered from.

The problem with that is that one has to interpret them to garner their meaning. The second amendment does not say that individuals have a right to own guns, it says "a well-regulated militia" ... what does that mean? Is that the military? Is that an officially armed group of citizens? Is it individuals? To me, taken in a modern context, it means individuals since we no longer have militias. It's all about interpretation. I also think when interpreting the Constitution, one should always err on the side of freedom.

If those that think it is open for unterpretation, then I take it they also feel the same about any major religion or even an law.

So the ten commandments would be negotiable, and so would murdering somebody in any state law.

This is negotiable. There are different degrees of murder, there's manslaughter and then self-defense. This is true for a large number of crimes. Context is important.

reply to post by shoran


I realise what you're trying to show, but the 2nd does state that it is 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'.

A militia is normally formed in times of drastic need, otherwise 'the people' are allowed to keep and bear arms with or without the need of a militia.

Understanding grammar is major role in this.

Secondly, manslaughter is an accident, self defense is just that, self defense. Murder is murder no matter what brush you paint it with. I think you are confusing too many scenarios with the actual meanings.

One of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill'.
Not kill what?
We are given no other statements as to what not to kill, so literally we should not even kill the food we eat. So whats the definition of manslaughter and self defense in this context. You have killed either way,, You broke a commandment.

Even as a soldier or a cop killing someone in the line of duty, or as a militia in a time of need, your actions cause the death of others. But you've almost been given a license to kill. You're still a killer.

I must agree with a sentence from the film Blade Runner "I'd rather be a killer than a victim".
The consequences of any kills anyone makes will be shown to them in the afterlife (whatever that may be, if it even exists) until then, we gotta stay dazed and confused by a 'he says-she says' system

Originally posted by shoran
The second amendment does not say that individuals have a right to own guns

Umm....yes it does! You only stated the beginning and not the end of the amendment.

"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."

Seems crystal clear to me.

Originally posted by Extralien
I realise what you're trying to show, but the 2nd does state that it is 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'.

A militia is normally formed in times of drastic need, otherwise 'the people' are allowed to keep and bear arms with or without the need of a militia.

Understanding grammar is major role in this.

That's what I'm saying, though. It depends on how your interpret it. Is it that people are allowed to bear arms only for the establishment of a well-regulated militia? Is it that people are allowed to bear arms regardless, but especially for creating a well-regulated militia? What's a well-regulated militia? Does the military qualify as a well-regulated militia? If there's no militia, are the people still able to bear arms? It depends on your interpretation of what's stated.

Secondly, manslaughter is an accident, self defense is just that, self defense. Murder is murder no matter what brush you paint it with. I think you are confusing too many scenarios with the actual meanings.

Manslaughter is generally accepted to be an accident, but, what kind of accident? If you get so pissed off that you hit someone and mistakenly kill them, is that murder or manslaughter? If you thought about it for a split second before you did it, is that murder or manslaughter? These are things decided by the judicial system at trial. There are also different degrees of murder depending on the severity of the crime, how the crime came about, etc. It's not cut and dry.

One of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill'.
Not kill what?
We are given no other statements as to what not to kill, so literally we should not even kill the food we eat. So whats the definition of manslaughter and self defense in this context. You have killed either way,, You broke a commandment.

Even as a soldier or a cop killing someone in the line of duty, or as a militia in a time of need, your actions cause the death of others. But you've almost been given a license to kill. You're still a killer.

I agree. Different people interpret it to mean different things. If you take a strict literal interpretation, you couldn't even kill a plant to eat it. So it's all open to interpretation.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Umm....yes it does! You only stated the beginning and not the end of the amendment.

"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."

Seems crystal clear to me.

What is a militia? Does the right exist for people to arm themselves for any/all reasons, or only for the formation of a well regulated militia? If the militia is not regulated, does that still count? If no militia exists at all, are people still allowed to arm themselves?

My point isn't that people aren't allowed to arm themselves. My interpretation of the Constitution is that we have the right to have weapons, to protect ourselves from anyone/anything including the government. Rather, my point is to illustrate that it all depends on how you interpret what's said, and that different people interpret it in different ways. In the context of the entire sentence, it's not entirely clear.

But, that doesn't stop people from believing what they want to believe about it, and interpreting it in a way that makes them happy.

The Bill of Rights does say:"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." Pure and simple. No interpretation needed, unless you are a COMMUNAZI hell-bent on turning the US into a dictatorial concentration camp. Which, unfortunately, it seems it's well on the way to becoming.