Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: flash]
#7239981
04/10/21 01:03 PM
04/10/21 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
James
"Minka"
|
"Minka"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
|
Okay. So go down to the federal courthouse and shout, "Bomb!" and see what happens.
Jim
Forum Infidel since 2001
"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: James]
#7239984
04/10/21 01:09 PM
04/10/21 01:09 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 10,474 Iowa
trapdog1
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 10,474
Iowa
|
Technically, Biden's right: the Bill of Rights generally isn't absolute. This is true of the First Amendment--you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
And it's just as true of the Second. You don't have the right to all the weapons of our modern military without regulation.
As for the fantasy that a bunch of keyboard warriors will really take up arms, I won't be joining in.
Jim What IS absolute is the fact you voted for this mess, knowing (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) well what was going to happen.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: James]
#7239991
04/10/21 01:18 PM
04/10/21 01:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,063 Marion Kansas
Yes sir
"Callie's little brother"
|
"Callie's little brother"
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,063
Marion Kansas
|
James I would be pleased to hear you explain the meaning, intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment particular the right of a well regulated militia based on the Founders purpose for it. It seems to me the purpose for its existence is being full realized before our eyes.Their foresight only seems to strength the need and importance of it in today's political atmosphere. Yes sir, you're asking for a long lecture, a real dissertation. Why don't you ask a specific question, and we'll run it up the flagpole and talk about it. Jim I did ask for an explanation of a specific topic but can understand that the topic may be to broad for the explanation in the setting we are in. I too am limited on time here also so if I don't respond adequately my apologies. I believe the intent of the afor mentioned amendment had one general purpose in the intentions of the founders and that general purpose was to give the person or people the ability to defend their constitutional rights against any governmental infringement, both domestic or foreign, as a last resort back stop. What is your perceived general understanding of the intent or purpose of this right as written by the creators?
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: flash]
#7240002
04/10/21 01:34 PM
04/10/21 01:34 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
James
"Minka"
|
"Minka"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
|
Yes sir: I agree with your interpretation of the Second A.
But it doesn't say so clearly. It results from sausage being made.
Jim
Forum Infidel since 2001
"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: James]
#7240011
04/10/21 01:45 PM
04/10/21 01:45 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 109 Oklahoma
okcattrapper
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 109
Oklahoma
|
Technically, Biden's right: the Bill of Rights generally isn't absolute. This is true of the First Amendment--you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
And it's just as true of the Second. You don't have the right to all the weapons of our modern military without regulation.
As for the fantasy that a bunch of keyboard warriors will really take up arms, I won't be joining in.
Jim Pretty sure nobody is surprised you won't be joining in.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: J Staton]
#7240018
04/10/21 01:49 PM
04/10/21 01:49 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,367 Texas
jtg
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,367
Texas
|
No sir, training is not a requirement and would be a major problem. Some people would not be able to afford training and the liberals would use training requirements to take away our rights. Gun safety is a personal responsibility. "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."
So the amendment is not saying a state is required to, or has a right to, keep a well regulated militia. It's saying that because a well regulated militia (army) is necessary to keep a free state secure, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So the whole point of the amendment is to say the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
The word "regulated" is not meant technically in the modern, contemporary use of the word. Regulated in the context of the amendment means a potent, well-maintained, sufficiently powerful to protect the state.
I've often thought the Founders believed that citizens should be able to carry the same arms as their military counterparts. By their use of regulated, I wonder if the Founders believed that training should be involved with such military type firearms?[/quote]
Last edited by jtg; 04/10/21 01:50 PM.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: James]
#7240026
04/10/21 01:54 PM
04/10/21 01:54 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,691 pa
hippie
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,691
pa
|
Aha! You'e hit on why those are wrong who say the Second Amendment is absolute and unequivocal.
The Second Amendment wasn't handed down by God on a stone tablet. Its language is a compromise, a deal hammered out in back rooms between those who wanted the individual right to bear arms versus those who feared the Mob of common folk being armed. It was sausage being made.
Jim
I wasn't insinuating it wasn't absolute, it is for our country, its what made our country. I agree our second amendment rights were not God given, its been documented our founders copied that from from the British (English) constitution. (which their people allowed them to trample) I'm just wondering what they meant by a "regulated militia"?
Last edited by hippie; 04/10/21 01:57 PM.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: flash]
#7240028
04/10/21 01:56 PM
04/10/21 01:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 20,914 North East Kansas
Marty
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 20,914
North East Kansas
|
it is very humbling to know that the founders were mostly wealthier people....they signed the paper (DOI) and were subject to execution if caught.
My God given rights are not subject to being taken away because some people sign a piece of paper. Make no mistake about it, if they are able to disarm the conservatives of this country we will be purged and punished...Stand Tall, Fellas!
This ain't up for debate.
E 'Honey Badger Militia' Sleep, the anti woke adote.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: James]
#7240033
04/10/21 01:57 PM
04/10/21 01:57 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,367 Texas
jtg
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,367
Texas
|
Okay, James. Please point out where I am going wrong with this specific statement?
"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." So the amendment is not saying a state is required to, or has a right to, keep a well-regulated militia. It's saying that because a well-regulated militia (army) is necessary to keep a free state secure, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So the whole point of the amendment is to say the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The word "regulated" is not meant technically in the modern, contemporary use of the word. Regulated in the context of the amendment means a potent, well-maintained, sufficiently powerful to protect the state.
Yes sir, you're asking for a long lecture, a real dissertation. Why don't you ask a specific question, and we'll run it up the flagpole and talk about it.
Jim [/quote]
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: flash]
#7240034
04/10/21 01:58 PM
04/10/21 01:58 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
James
"Minka"
|
"Minka"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
|
I'm reasonably fat and happy. Content with my life.
I feel no compelling reason to put my and my family's lives at risk by doing something stupid, like what happened on January 6.
I'm not going to war over my right to own an AR. I may hide mine or otherwise dispose of it, but I ain't taking up arms over it.
I'll work within our established political system--Congress, the courts, and local officials--to try to preserve our rights.
Jim
Forum Infidel since 2001
"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: flash]
#7240042
04/10/21 02:03 PM
04/10/21 02:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 20,914 North East Kansas
Marty
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 20,914
North East Kansas
|
stupid is as stupid does......
E 'Honey Badger Militia' Sleep, the anti woke adote.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: jtg]
#7240046
04/10/21 02:05 PM
04/10/21 02:05 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,691 pa
hippie
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,691
pa
|
Okay, James. Please point out where I am going wrong with this specific statement?
"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." So the amendment is not saying a state is required to, or has a right to, keep a well-regulated militia. It's saying that because a well-regulated militia (army) is necessary to keep a free state secure, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So the whole point of the amendment is to say the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The word "regulated" is not meant technically in the modern, contemporary use of the word. Regulated in the context of the amendment means a potent, well-maintained, sufficiently powerful to protect the state.
Yes sir, you're asking for a long lecture, a real dissertation. Why don't you ask a specific question, and we'll run it up the flagpole and talk about it.
Jim
[/quote] I've read my share of early history, and from what I've read most early militias were armed by their town or state.. As in, they didn't keep their own weapons personally.
|
|
|
Re: No Amendment is Absolute.
[Re: James]
#7240048
04/10/21 02:06 PM
04/10/21 02:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,063 Marion Kansas
Yes sir
"Callie's little brother"
|
"Callie's little brother"
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,063
Marion Kansas
|
Yes sir: I agree with your interpretation of the Second A.
But it doesn't say so clearly. It results from sausage being made.
Jim I believe based on letters written by the framers on the laws of this country, others documents written in that Era, laws passed by those people and early judicial interpretation that it it very clear what the intention was even if the actual wording of the Constitution may leave room for other meanings. With that in mind any effort to lessen, change, deviate or restrict that right(knowingly or unknowingly) to any law abiding free citizen of this country is an act of treason against this nation and its people. And I fully believe the powers in control are knowingly undermining the intent of the law.
|
|
|
|
|