Second Amendment

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I don't see your source referenced.

SO again, I have demonstrated that the SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is both an individual right and incorporated.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that. For everyone's information I own 7 guns, I've owned many more in the past. It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct, though obstinacy and close-mindedness may have prevented me from succeeding in that area.

OP, Judging by the # of Flags by the members I dont think many share your interpretation of "arms" in the Second Amendment.......

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by TheFlash
The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right?

Sensible responses only please.

The second amendment originates in the thinking of the day and in days leading up to the Bill of Rights, that humans have certain (in)(un) alienable rights. Inalienable rights are rights that every person is born with naturally.

Any animal when observed, we can use a mouse in this instance, exercizes a NATURAL instinct to defend itself from threat of harm or threat of death. This is a natural reaction and natural instinct, and that means that because it is natural and innate and inborn, that it was naturally intended to be there and naturally is present in any and all animate beings.

Because the founding fathers were cognizant of creation they surmized that since the self defense was innate and inborn that its existence could be explained in the fact that our Creator God placed that inside of us.

Because it was natural it was only listed in the bill of rights, not as a right given to man by a government but as a preexisting right that we are born with and can not ever be usurped or removed or restricted.

When people infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, they are preventing the ultimate exercize of the inborn right to self defense.

Heres a more accurate description of SHTF for you to think about and not want to happen.www.bob-owens.com...

This would be a bad thing.We should not get that far before the administration fails.

Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

reply to post by TheFlash


this thread is not about freedom of speech and it is not about smoking in a reastaurant is it mr.. flash.
the thread is about the second amendment.

it has been written as a result of the experience both in the animal and human species of an observed NATURAL right to self defense.

in fact since you want to inject speech and smoking, even babies in the womb fights and struggles to save and preserve their life under the blade and suction tube of the murdering abortionist.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by TheFlash

 

this thread is not about freedom of speech and it is not about smoking in a reastaurant is it mr.. flash.
the thread is about the second amendment.

it has been written as a result of the experience both in the animal and human species of an observed NATURAL right to self defense.

in fact since you want to inject speech and smoking, even babies in the womb fights and struggles to save and preserve their life under the blade and suction tube of the murdering abortionist.

The thread is about Rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America, thus the Freedom of Speech right is pertinent and relevant. Please provide evidence from a reputable source to support your claim that fetuses fight against being aborted as I have never heard of such a thing.

Originally posted by TheFlash
The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right?

Sensible responses only please.

re-read your original post then genius.
i read it yesterday, and concluded that
it is about the second amendment.

the second amendment is about self defense
a natural inalienable right conferred by God Himself,
has nothing to do with smoking cigarettes or yelling fire in a restaurant.

you can rant and rave all you want but you created this thread about 2A.

so make a sensible response to the inborn natural right to self defense.

reply to post by slugger9787


Still waiting for that reputable reference.

reply to post by TheFlash


mr. flash, you are not going to get me to do some searching on the net for a reference about the origin of the natural inborn innate right of self defense that is enumerated in the 2A.

you are the one that needs to learn about why and how the basis for 2A came from.
do it yourself like i did, or are you a progressive socialist?
you know, the kind that wants to enjoy the fruits of anothers labor?

what i am saying is YOU do the labor, investigate a source yourself, then come back here and tell me and everyone else on this thread that you were wrong.
hint: you will have to put on the big boy pants for this one. lol

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by slugger9787

 

Still waiting for that reputable reference.

still waiting for a sensible response from you.

Originally posted by TheFlash
Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

That is not a logical comparison. When you scream fire in a theater when there is not one, you are punished. However, you are not gagged before you walk into the theater because you might scream fire.

We already have laws that punish people who violate other people's rights with guns, just as we have laws that punish people for screaming fire in a theater or slander.

What we do not do with the first amendment, what you want to do with the second amendment, is we do not restrict the freedom of speech becasue of what someone might say or has the potential to say.

reply to post by TheFlash

Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

the only limits on inalienable rights occur when that right interferes with another's rights.

smoking has negative health consequences, and shouting fire when there is none can cause panic and lead to injury or death.

these examples are not analogous to a person possessing guns.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations. For example having the right to Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Just because you can smoke doesn't mean you can do it next to me in a restaurant. The same applies to the right to bear arms. As much as many people would like it to be without limits or restrictions, it is not.

That is not a logical comparison. When you scream fire in a theater when there is not one, you are punished. However, you are not gagged before you walk into the theater because you might scream fire.

We already have laws that punish people who violate other people's rights with guns, just as we have laws that punish people for screaming fire in a theater or slander.

What we do not do with the first amendment, what you want to do with the second amendment, is we do not restrict the freedom of speech becasue of what someone might say or has the potential to say.

Regarding my analogy, yes it is logical. To further your comment about it - the corresponding point to "gagging" would be, I imagine. taking away all guns. No one here has ever said anything about that, though it seems that may gun owners imagine such "complete" scenarios whenever any step or measure regarding gun control or restrictions is mentioned. Much to the delight of the firearms and ammunition industries people have imagined shortages or bans on these items resulting in hoarding and huge sales. As owners and buyers know these knee-jerk over-reactions have resulted in shortages and huge price increases. It wouldn't surprise me the industries themselves started such nonsensical rumors to incite these paranoid responses.