|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
3D printers.
So your goal is zero guns. Got it. Nice to see someone admit it finally. Did Heller go to the Supreme Court? Also the people I spoke of fighting and dieing were in the revolutionary war. But why let a fact get in the way of an agenda. And yes fear of changing my rights us exactly what I have. Funny you don't address the operative clause. But then you can't so no shock. Go ahead insult more instead of discuss.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
gallagher Inner circle 1168 Posts |
I must admitt,
the only 'clause' I've heard of, before this discussion; was 'Santa'. Educating myself; however, I find it sightly amusing, arguing 'fore or against' weaponry, with "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language". (itself being written in 1775.) ....albeit,, at 3 1/2 pounds, itelf a possible 'threat of bodily injury',.. ,I cracked it open and took me a looksy. "Operative clauses offer solutions to issues addressed earlier in a resolution through the perambulatory section." The 'preambulatory section', in the case of the 2nd Amendment can OBVIOUSLY cause thought, ...but 'confusion'? The Logic is not so difficult. The Second Amendment uses, actually TWO Preambulatories. The first being: "A well regulate Militia". The second, "being necessary to the security of a free State", suplimenting the first,..DEFINING it's goal. Capped by, the operative. Gramatically, pretty correct. As an 'argument', for 'the state of the union' today,...well. ,..looking around me, I see no one wearing powdered wigs, cow bone teeth, or big shiney buckles on their shoes. And guess what: today we have an army. A Federal force regulated by,.. guess who,.. The Federal government. ("The people" control the Federal government, with what? The vote..) Times have changed, at least, from my perspective. The original intent: "the need of a well regulated Militia", by the people,.. no longer exists. (I hope no ones finds this argument,...'insulting'. I've been told "Logic can make ill." That's why the 'i' was change to an 'a'. ,..eh?) , . . . . . . ö. . . . . . . . ß. . . . . If things don't change, they tend to remain the same. I encourage change. 'Constant view', is too similar to 'Constipation'. ,..and has the same results. Peoples being full of..... gallagher |
|||||||||
gallagher Inner circle 1168 Posts |
P.s.: I just read D.C. vs Heller.
(stating citizens CAN bear arms,.. all forms of which, in order to protect themselves. ,..Militia, or not.) It did go to the Supreme Court. They DID uphold it. 10 years later. Where do we stand? (or, should I asked: "Where do we hide?") Look around us. Is this where we want to be? Is this the direction we want to be going? Look back on these past ten years. 'Amend' is a great word. Webster says: "to make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) , in order to make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances." It's been done before. ,...the 21st vs. the 18th. I think it proved valid. Change based on a logical perspective. How have things changed in the passed 10 years? ,..for the better? why are gun sales at the all time high? Folks buying them say: "For protection. I'm scared." Is this how we want to live? Amend. ,..funny isn't it? We are scared to change something called: "Changes". gallagher |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
In an attempt to understand the reasons why this Amendment was created and phrased the way it is, one should read the letters and speeches of the time and not rely on later writers placing their own spin on the activities. The job of the Constitutional Congress was to get a functional government in place. The agreement to later add a Bill of Rights was a compromises to allow individual States to have more time to discuss the issues and "have their say." These Amendments are not "oh, we forgot" or in any way imply that "if they are important why not in the main body of powers." The entire point was to further restrict the powers of a central government at the expense of those of the signing Staes and "the People" from whom the powers derive.
Please recall that the "army" under Washington that defeated the British (allowed them to defeat themselves) was a shambles with State legislatures and even cities attempting to direct the activities of their supplied troupes. Add to this the history of European governments attempting to take away individual arms and restrict their use in the Colonies. Thus, many States had doubts about the new Federal government being able to sustain a standing army (no money) and desired the right to supply and control their own local militia if necessary or desired. It was never about individual ownership of arms fro hunting or personal protection - that being a given of the type mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The question was who would control those weapons and their owners for the security of the state - local and federal. Some States had concerns over their right and ability to get individual citizens involved in any army at all. Also note that "arms" does not mean "guns." So, my interpretation is that this Amendment was added to address the fears that the Federal government would be unable to sustain an adequate army, or that one was even necessary. The States retained the right to organize and sustain a militia at the more local level. The Articles of Confederation had no such guarantees or provisions. The rights of private individuals to bear arms related to "defense of the state" is the issue, not their right to own a gun or sword or mace. However, this Amendment does codify the fact that "government" has the right to restrict the ownership and use of such arms. The reason why these restrictions of Federal rights to control were not part of the Constitutional body was because each State had a different set of local issues at stake, combined with the lack of faith in a Federal government to protect the States adequately. Poor States were also fearful of other States using military force to override the "balance of power" installed by the Constitution. None of that has any relevance to my right to own a gun or sword in my home. It does mean that if I take that arm away from my home it falls to some government to restrict its use relevant to the right of other citizens to be safe in their person and property. I personally feel the second right is more important than the first.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
rowdymagi5 Inner circle Virginia 3616 Posts |
||||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 6, 2017, gallagher wrote: Heller held that 1) You can't completely ban handguns, specifically, and 2) You can't require that a legal gun kept at home be made inoperable. Period.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
gallagher Inner circle 1168 Posts |
In 'DC vs Heller' , the Supreme Court restricts
The Federal Government, from controling fire-arms, in the United States. In United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ALLOWS States, to set restrictions and forbid. Comma. (i find Periods to be so,...'finalizing'. Don't you? Something in need of a good,....tampon.) Marihuana, for example, States are allowed deciding,..."puff" or "pass". ,..until now. No Feds. President Trump would like to give the choice of Abortion, to the States. Removing 'Federal' controls. ,....closer to the peoples. I like the feel. Alcohol, for example, altho Constitutionally protected, over 100 Counties, in the United States, 'legally' forbid it. I like this dicision making 'at the roots'. Obviously the Supreme Court does as well. United States v. Cruikshank Let me finish with,....a 'smiley'(!). 😊 gallagher |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 6, 2017, gallagher wrote: In D.C. Vs. Heller, the Court ruled that the Dostrict could not ban handguns outright, nor require that a legal gun kept at home be stored in an operable condition. Nothing more; nothing less.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
And yet so many wish it were something more and something less.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Second Amendment, part 2 (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |