ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Senior Member
Posts: 335
Jul 12 07 8:41 AM
Quote:The 2A does not protect everything to do with a gun.
Quote:YOu have to remember this, "rights" only came about because of governments existing.
Quote:Human beings are animals, so if you say that in 2000 BC humans had the "right" to invent guns, then so did lions, tigers and all other animals. And they still do.
Quote:Oh, and most people who carried clubs and spears used these to "infringe on anothers rights" it was warfare, survival of the fittest.
Quote:Can you imagine in 2000 BC, you have a club and are about to kill some guy and he turns around and says "you have no right to do that", you would just beat him and laugh at the same time.
Quote:Secondly, the 2A is important here, because the BoR prevents the govt from doing things, it prevents the govt making laws that stop individuals who have not broken the law or are a risk to society from keeping arms, ie no action but possessing arms, and fighting in the militia. The founding fathers were clear on this.
Quote:YOu can have the "right" to grow carrots for all i care, i can still go around your house and destroy your carrots, so what? Are your "rights" going to do anything at all???
Quote:Remember this, mormons cannot do all their religious stuff, why not? They cannot be married to two women! There is a reason for this, had the mormon religion been the main christian offshoot, then it would have been accepted as normal, but because it is not so old, they decided that this is not religious enough to be protected, so they banned it.
Quote:And if this were religion, or any of the other "rights" in the BoR, it is not "tough cookies" is it. Criminals have a limited "right" to religion in prison, ie no going to mecca, but still allowed to pray in prison.
Quote:You just said it is tough cookies if a criminal has their "right" infringed upon. The law that says a criminal cannot have a gun after leaving prison is a GUN BAN!!!! YOu seem to be in favour of this gun ban.
Quote:Or laws which you think violate your "rights". Seeing as carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A, yet most people assume that the 2A protects their "right" to carry, it does not wash. The bearing arms clause protects an individual to be in the militia, nothing more.
Quote:It might rain though!!
Quote:Would you get a carry and conceal license, even though it is unconstitutional for the government to license or tax a "right"????
Posts: 1330
Jul 12 07 10:36 AM
Moderator
Quote:Again the 2A does not grant me rights
Posts: 1144
Jul 13 07 6:32 AM
Quote:I never said it did. It does protect my individual right to keep and bear arms.
Quote:You will notice here that I said "protects" as opposed to "grants". The BOR does not grant rights it only helps to protect us from Gov't infringment on rights we are born with.
Quote:Wrong, rights are not something given to us by gov't. Rights are something everyone has regardless of the gov't they live or don't live under. For instance, every person in Iran has the right to freedom of religion. They also have a gov't that violates that right, something they should work to change. Every person living in the UK has the right to keep and bear arms. They also have a gov't that violates that right, something they should work to change.
Quote:Give me a break. No wonder you can't grasp the concept of human rights, you can't even see the difference between people and animals.
Quote:I wasn't there but I would guess that those spears were also used for hunting, fishing, and "gasp" self defense.
Quote:First of all, I wouldn't be infringing upon him like that.
Quote:But if some one was going to club me I would sure be glad I have the right to my own club to defend myself with.
Quote:Once again, the BOR has no bearing on what rights I have as a person. BTW your theory that the 2A allows people to keep but not bear arms is laughable and unworthy of discussion.
Quote:In a way yes. Before you go stomping my carrots you may want to remember I have the right to keep that club we talked about earlier. A bad example, but it shows how the RKBA can be used to protect the others.
Quote:Actually your helping my point here. This is an example of gov't infringing on rights. If all parties are consentual, gov't should stay out of it. If my chosen religion permitted polygomy (sp?) then I would practice it, it would be my right, just as it would be the right of others not to practice it.
Quote:Exactly my point, people who violate the rights of others forfeit their own. Sometimes to a limited degree, sometimes completely. When they commited their crime against others they gave their rights over to the will of others.
Quote:The difference is the criminal knowingly commits an act that will forfeit his rights to some degree. A DC style ban takes rights from innocent people who have not chosen to surrender them.
Quote:Again the 2A does not grant me rights, it only helps protect them. I have the RKBA regardless of how you or anyone else may missinterpret the 2A.
Quote:Not relevent where I live, concealed carry is legal without one. Alaska is truly a wonderful state.
Posts: 2468
Jul 13 07 5:39 PM
Quote:Even the Government does not recognize it as a universal right. Maybe in 6 years when you get to high school you will learn something in civics class.
Quote:What you are saying is not clear to me. Remember this, many people think that "keep and bear arms" means hunting, carry and conceal, walking into a store with a gun, walking around doing what you like with a gun except shooting at people. Not so. You need to be more precise with your definition of "keep and bear arms" because many people use it in many different ways.
Quote:I know the theory.
Quote:The problem here is that i dont believe in "rights" and it is not important in this debate at all.
Quote:The theory of "rights" did not exist 1,000 years ago, like it or not,
Quote:Difference means nothing, i am different to you, does that mean i don`t have "rights"??
Quote:Says an educated man. You wouldnt have been educated, you would have used basic instincts, nothing else. The theory of "rights" did not exist and you wouldnt have been able to understand it anyway.
Quote:A) That is not my theoryB) What the BoR does say, is important, the fact that you say you have the "right" to it is less important. As i said, if someone is beating you and you say you have the "right" to self defence, it means nothing. YOu still get an arse whooping!!
Quote:So if i say something is part of my religion, then i can do it, murder etc? Hell no. Also, you say that the govt infringes upon the "rights" of others, so what? What does it matter? What matters is that people are willing to fight the govt, they are prepared to act, not simply to moan because they claim they have something.
Quote:If you have a gun, and you KNOW it is illegal to have that gun, then i would say you are knowingly committing an act that will forfeit your "rights".
Quote:You ignored the question. Carry and conceal CAN BE licensed, yet a "right" cannot be licensed. Either, carry and conceal laws which are supported by the NRA are unconstitutional, or the 2A does not protect carry and conceal.
Jul 14 07 2:33 AM
Quote:You're being too precise. Exact precision in that form can't survive in the real world.
Quote:Theory? You think that the Bill of Rights and Constitution protecting something rather than granting something is theory?
Quote:It IS important, because it reveals plenty about you.
Quote:Because 1,000 years ago there were kings that ruled everything. There was no such thing as citizens, only subjects; just like what you are right now.
Quote:According to your own government, you don't.
Quote:And when did "citizen" enter into the equation?
Quote:So then concealed carry (get it right already you basatard)
Quote:it's the way it's instituted. Concealed carry is protected but the licensing system is unconstitutional.
Quote:Sounds good to me, end the licensing system for concealed carry since it's unconstitutional. If you can buy a gun you can carry it concealed just like in Vermont in Alaska.
Jul 14 07 7:39 PM
Quote:According to your version of what you think my government is, you mean.
Quote:You have to be a citizen to have "rights"??
Quote:Says you and who else? Not the court systems of the US, not the NRA, you and who else??
Quote:The fact is, carry and conceal is NOT protected and we see this every single day, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean it is protected.
Jul 16 07 1:21 AM
Quote:According to my friends in Britain, my perceived version of your government is the true version when compared to your own.
Quote:Well subjects don't have rights, they have privelages.
Quote:The states of Alaska and Vermont.
Quote:Basically it's just like what's going on with your government; just because they instituted the policies they have doesn't mean that they were allowed to do so.
Jul 17 07 5:12 AM
Quote:What do you mean "allowed to",
Jul 17 07 6:00 AM
Quote:I mean that by law they weren't allowed to do it, but did it anyway.
Jul 19 07 8:59 AM
Quote:The problem here is that i dont believe in "rights" and it is not important in this debate at all. WIth or without "rights", the second amendment protects something. That is the debate here, what the constitution does and does not do.
Quote:What is the difference between humans and animals???
Quote:Now you can come on here and say you have the "right" to this that and the other, yet when i say a dog has the "right" to this that and the other you say i am wrong.
Quote:I bet, every reason you can give me for why you have "rights", i can say the same about a dog
Quote:Which would you rather have? SOmeone is attacking you, you can either have the "right" to a club to defend yourself with, or just a club to defend yourself with.
Quote:B) What the BoR does say, is important, the fact that you say you have the "right" to it is less important. As i said, if someone is beating you and you say you have the "right" to self defence, it means nothing. YOu still get an arse whooping!!
Quote:But then the government may have banned you having the club. What good is your "right" then?? What does it mean?
Quote:So if i say something is part of my religion, then i can do it, murder etc? Hell no.
Quote:Also, you say that the govt infringes upon the "rights" of others, so what? What does it matter? What matters is that people are willing to fight the govt, they are prepared to act, not simply to moan because they claim they have something.
Quote:The fact is, what really happens is this. The govt through the court system decides this person is guilty, the govt being restrained by the BoR and the checks and balances of power can only do certain things, they say a person cannot have guns, they say that they are limited in freedom etc.
Quote:Carry and conceal CAN BE licensed, yet a "right" cannot be licensed. Either, carry and conceal laws which are supported by the NRA are unconstitutional, or the 2A does not protect carry and conceal.
Jul 20 07 2:05 AM
Quote:Well, let me clear it up for you. A person has the right to own and carry firearms.
Quote:Your examples:Hunting - You have the right to own and carry arms you would use for hunting. However hunting itself is a different discussion.
Quote:Carry Concealed - Yes, you have that right.
Quote:That statment doesn't make sense. In the same breath you say that you don't believe in rights but the 2A protects something. If not rights then what does it protect? It says right in the 2A"...the right to keep....".
Quote:This line of reasoning is absurd and unworthy of debate.
Quote:If you can't see the obvious differences between people and dogs, especially where rights are concerned, then this whole discussion is worthless.
Quote:If you truly can't see the difference then you will never be able to grasp the concept of human rights.
Quote:Fortunatly for me I have both. Those to things are not exclusive of each other.
Quote:Wrong, because I have the right to defend myself, I am going to defend myself.
Quote:The BoR has no bearing on my right to defend myself.
Quote:The gov't can pass all the bans it wants, I'm still going to have my arms. Why? Because I will never allow the gov't to take away my rights.
Quote:Your not listening. I told you earlier when you were talking about rights having scope that your rights do not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others. Obviously murder would infringe upon the rights of others.
Quote:Acctually gov't only infringes upon the rights of the people that let them. There are quite a few polygamist families out there, just as there are plenty of otherwise law abiding citizens bearing arms in places like DC.
Quote:Interesting question. No, I do not support requiring a license for concealed carry, on principle. However it can be used as a stepping stone toward Vermont and Alaska style firearms laws. Alaska did just that. Would I get one, depends. When Alaska had CHL I had one but only as a time saver, at that time a CHL holder did not have to do a NICS check when buying from a dealer. Would I have carried without it, yes. Would I carry if I lived in DC (as if), yes.
Jul 20 07 8:21 AM
Quote:You can claim this. However the 2A does not protect a "right" to carry
Quote:I have posted many times the evidence to support this. I think most is on the 2A part of this board. There is a lot and enough to suggest that bear arms means to have the "right" to be in the militia, and not to hunt etc.
Quote:MAybe you do, maybe you dont. WHat you DON`T have is the constitutional protection.
Quote:For example. Under early US law, a black individual was not considered a proper human. The fact that a black person is as much a human as anyone else made no difference, the THEORY was followed and understood, the law accepted it and the law had to be seen within this context. It explained an abstract idea, that black people are somehow inferior to white people, rather than the actual truth, and legally it "worked" as a system.
Quote:I can see the difference between dogs and humans. I see what really exists, and "rights" are purely an abstract idea. However your whole argument here is, this theory of yours is stupid, i dont accept. YOu have not made an attempt to destroy my argument. I think your theory on "rights" is stupid. So maybe now you can understand where i am coming from.
Quote:Now let me translate. YOu think that guns are important, you think the govt has no place in taking your guns away, and you are willing to fight for this.
Quote:Carry and conceal meets the definition of "bear arms" for you.
Jul 21 07 3:54 AM
Quote:Yes, it does. However there have been judges, like in the Robertson v. Baldwin case, that like you and Galileo like to read things into the 2A that are not there.
Quote:Yes yes, I've read your ridicules theory that in the 2A "own" is an individual right but "bear" only applies to a militia.
Quote:I've never commented on it because it makes no sense what so ever and I was hoping you would come to that conclusion on your own. No luck so far.
Quote:Actually I do. What I don't seem to have is protection from missinterpretations of the BoR. On second thought I do, because I have the right to keep and bear arms I will be protecting myself.
Quote:My point exactly. Black people have the same human rights as anyone else regardless of what the gov't says. Rights they and others have been willing to fight and die for over time. What the Gov't had was a "theory" that said Blacks were inferior. What people have (people of any race) are "actual" human rights, not an abstract anything.
Quote:It makes no difference if you "accept" my theory or not. First off, its not a theory its fact.
Quote:Human rights are not some abstract idea they are one of the things that seperate us from the animals you seem to hold as equal.
Quote:- You claim rights do not exist yet several times you have said I have the right to own arms.
Quote:- You said in your previous post that its a fact that a Black person is just as much a human as anyone else, I agree, but if rights don't exist how is this possible? Are they only human because the Gov't says so?
Quote:- You claim there are no rights but that the 2A protects something. The only thing the 2A can protect is a right. You cannot protect a "thing" with words only actions, you can protect or infringe upon a right with words and/or actions.
Quote:- You claim bearing arms connects only to the militia yet in another thread you recognise an unorganized militia. OK, fine, I'm in the unorganised militia 24/7 therefore I have the right to bear arms all day everyday.
Quote:Wrong, let me translate it back to what I actually said. I KNOW that the RKBA is important, I KNOW gov't has no place in taking my arms away, and I am willing to fight for my rights.
Quote:No, "bear arms" means to carry them, hold them, have them on your person, etc.
Quote:If you have a jacket over your arms you are still bearing them.
Quote:The 2A puts no limit on how you bear them. Actually the 2A doesn't put any limits on individuals on bearing arms. The 2A only limits gov't.
Share This