Subject:
|
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:57:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1647 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > You have to convince me.
>
> Then keep reading starting with the many links I have already provided --
> convincing you isn't my job. I keep talking about context and legislative
> intent and you want to argue about words from specific quotes -- taken out
> of context!
Oh if only wishing made it so. Out of context? Where? Not one reply,
rebuttal, refute, nada... Everything I laid out followed a very logically
made construct, not of *my* making, but of your founding fathers making. I
choose to read *all* the words *in context* and come up with a framework
that makes sense--a framework that doesn't ignore certain elements and hold
in high essteem other elements.
>
> I am beginning to think that every argument about guns in the U.S. should
> start with the claim of the right to keep and bear arms as based on the 2nd
> Amendment AND the 9th Amendment. The right exists regardless of how one
> claims it...it's de facto.
>
> So fine, have the 2nd Amendment argument if that's how you get your jollies.
> The right stays the same.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
And so now you're dragging the 9th into the debate?? That was like when
gerrymandering got dragged into issue when I already conceded *many times
over* that democracy does have problems but that wasn't the issue. So let's
deal with the latest way to sidestep any intelligent discussion by not
replying to one point made and jumping right to what you and your elitist
gun loving intelligencia cronies interpret as a de facto right and saying
that I, and my bleeding heart liberal emotionalists, take things out of
context without one shred of refuting or proof to *any* of my points across
all my many posts now.
Ammendment 9 (so y'all don't have to go git it):
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Can you read? This says that any liberty, not explicitly denied in the
constitution, is fair game for you to have. And I agree with that--where
haven't I? Have your liberty to eat snack food. Have your liberty go go
skinny dipping in the swamps in Florida. Have your liberty to purchase a
honkin' huge gas guzzling, CO polluting SUV. Have your liberty to own a
gun, 'cause you can in a free society that sells guns legally. But don't
say it's all due to the 2nd! It has nothing, I say again, *nothing* to do
with the 2nd ammendment *unless* you're in a well regulated militia.
Let's quote you the 2nd... (again--this time I quoted it all proper like,
instead of paraphrasing...)
Amendment 2
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.
The 2nd explicitly states, and has been conceded by others on your side of
this debate in previous posts, that "people" doesn't mean *everyone*. So
you then go on to narrow the field with words like citizen or freemen are
allowed to own guns
Therefore there is an *explicit* (right there in black and white, written by
your forefathers) exclusion of freedom, and not *all* people can own a gun.
Again I say unto you a) 'citizen' and 'freemen' do not appear here, and b)
('cause that's just semantics and who really cares about semantics at a time
like this) they would still have to be defined by the first part of this
sentence--the "well regulated militia" part, for if you don't, it is *you*
who are ignoring your very own laws, it is you with the blinders on as to
what the ammendments *really* say.
Well regulated militia--Joe Schmoo in Alaska and Richard in Wherever USA
*does not* constitute a militia, yet alone a *well regulated* one. Show me
how you're *well regulated*. In a country that regulates the auto industry
and who can and cannot drive is decided by regulations, show me how the same
type of regulations happen to gun owners. In a country which regulates that
"2 parts of ant per million parts of chocolate in a chocolate bar is okay,
but 3 parts of ant per million parts of chocolate is bad", show me how that
type of regulation is even applied to the folks that want, yet alone
currently own a gun.
Set up a regulated course--"Gun's are our best friend" in which it is taught
the proper care, treatement, maintenance, storage and even discharge of a
gun. If the course is 'regulated' and done the same in *all* states, then
you can get a certificate and say, "Oh look, I'm part of a well regulated
militia--I have training and such--now I can go buy my gun." I'm not saying
that you *have* to be in the army, navy, air force, marines or even a police
officer (or even the national guard) to have a gun as granted by the
2nd--but just saying 'freemen' or 'citizens' can have guns does not
constitute a well regulated militia--there's no regulations, and therefore
does not work into the 2nd ammendment!
The 9th fits pretty much into my logical framework as well. Your de facto
rights are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and any
other right not expressly denied in the constitution. There are no *de
facto* rights to own a gun, especially when your 2nd clearly limits that
right to the "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." but lets ignore that bit for the sake of having a gun in the
closet.
But clearly you haven't moved me, and I clearly haven't moved you. So, like
a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm
done here.
Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
