1
1
0
This is a discussion about the right to bear arms and and explanation of what POTUS did/did not do with his recent announcement about "new" gun control measures through an executive order.
Interpreting the Second Amendment - CNN Video
Posted from cnn.comPosted in these groups: 
Constitution
Constitution
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
It is so hard to get past the first part of this "discussion". These arguments that (1) the Constitution is a "political document" and (2) that the first half of the 2nd Amendment "trumps" the second half have been thrown out by progressives to tear down individual liberty and allow government to grow like a cancer. Would someone please add a caveat to these postings: "Here we go again". Neither is true. Repeating them won't make them true.
The Constitution is not a political document. It is the declaration of We the People conferring a very limited set of rights and obligations on our federal government. Those who seek power chaff against these limits and reinterpret the Constitution to their own ends, to the detriment of individual liberty. Insofar as they have succeeded in centralizing power, We the People and our nation have suffered.
The "militia" is not the National Guard or some state-run organization. The militia is every able-bodied citizen showing up with their own weapons to defend their communities from whatever threatens them: Wild animals, stone age warriors (such as Islamic terrorists), tyrannical governments, whatever. Thus, the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
Sadly, CNN pays for the air time and gets to choose who will "moderate" the discussion and who will participate. Their choices reflect their ideological persuasion. Sadly, the Left is replete with many talented spokesmen who are imbued with passion to help overcome their lack of common sense while the Right is stuck with people of common sense who become frustrated by the delusions of the Left. What we really need are some good humorists who will simply poke fun at the idiocy of the Left whenever they attempt to pontificate.
The Constitution is not a political document. It is the declaration of We the People conferring a very limited set of rights and obligations on our federal government. Those who seek power chaff against these limits and reinterpret the Constitution to their own ends, to the detriment of individual liberty. Insofar as they have succeeded in centralizing power, We the People and our nation have suffered.
The "militia" is not the National Guard or some state-run organization. The militia is every able-bodied citizen showing up with their own weapons to defend their communities from whatever threatens them: Wild animals, stone age warriors (such as Islamic terrorists), tyrannical governments, whatever. Thus, the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
Sadly, CNN pays for the air time and gets to choose who will "moderate" the discussion and who will participate. Their choices reflect their ideological persuasion. Sadly, the Left is replete with many talented spokesmen who are imbued with passion to help overcome their lack of common sense while the Right is stuck with people of common sense who become frustrated by the delusions of the Left. What we really need are some good humorists who will simply poke fun at the idiocy of the Left whenever they attempt to pontificate.
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, can only be properly understood within the framework of the Natural Rights philosophy that inspired it. That philosophy is neatly summarized in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, part of which reads as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In layman's terms, we have rights that precede government. The fundamental, which are so because they apply even when alone, are Life, Liberty and Property as defined by John Locke whom the Founders plagiarized. Since most people don't spend their entire lives alone, the fundamental rights form the basis of other natural rights that apply when in company which include Privacy, Association, Trade, Movement etc.
Another of the rights that springs from the fundamental rights of Life, Liberty and Property is Self-Defense, the idea that if a person threatens or applies force that the victim may use force to defend himself and his rights, including lethal force if necessary. It is also based on this right that government is formed, it's purpose being to secure these natural rights as specifically stated in the above citation of the Declaration of Independence.
If you look at the citation from the DoI as the 'Mission' paragraph of this nation, the Constitution can be seen as the 'Execution' portion. The Founders recognized that their conception of government was somewhat paradoxical inasmuch as the same government that exists to secure our rights, by holding a monopoly on the legal use of force, can become an instrument for the violation of those same rights. It was for this reason that they included so many limitations on the Federal government in the original Constitution including democratic representation, division of powers, both between the States and the Federal government and between the branches of the Federal government, checks and balances between the powers of the branches and a host of other restrictions.
The Bill of Rights added to these further by creating, at the highest level of law, legal rights designed to protect pre-existing natural rights from government interference. In the same way that the 1st Amendment protects the natural right of Liberty, the 3rd the natural right to Property and Privacy so too does the 2nd Amendment protect the natural right to self-defense by creating a legal right to keep and bear arms.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In layman's terms, we have rights that precede government. The fundamental, which are so because they apply even when alone, are Life, Liberty and Property as defined by John Locke whom the Founders plagiarized. Since most people don't spend their entire lives alone, the fundamental rights form the basis of other natural rights that apply when in company which include Privacy, Association, Trade, Movement etc.
Another of the rights that springs from the fundamental rights of Life, Liberty and Property is Self-Defense, the idea that if a person threatens or applies force that the victim may use force to defend himself and his rights, including lethal force if necessary. It is also based on this right that government is formed, it's purpose being to secure these natural rights as specifically stated in the above citation of the Declaration of Independence.
If you look at the citation from the DoI as the 'Mission' paragraph of this nation, the Constitution can be seen as the 'Execution' portion. The Founders recognized that their conception of government was somewhat paradoxical inasmuch as the same government that exists to secure our rights, by holding a monopoly on the legal use of force, can become an instrument for the violation of those same rights. It was for this reason that they included so many limitations on the Federal government in the original Constitution including democratic representation, division of powers, both between the States and the Federal government and between the branches of the Federal government, checks and balances between the powers of the branches and a host of other restrictions.
The Bill of Rights added to these further by creating, at the highest level of law, legal rights designed to protect pre-existing natural rights from government interference. In the same way that the 1st Amendment protects the natural right of Liberty, the 3rd the natural right to Property and Privacy so too does the 2nd Amendment protect the natural right to self-defense by creating a legal right to keep and bear arms.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Just look at the people they have talking about this. None of them know how to speak the truth. All they are capable of doing is spreading lies to help convince people that they know whet the heck they are talking about. The live in a tiny bubble. Lets see some of them walk the streets alone in Chicago and see how long they last or preach Gun Control (Gun Grab)
(4)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
Awesome post, PO2 Safell. They would not last long in Gang and Gun infested Chicago. According to Catholic Priest and South Chicago Fr. Phleger, everyone on the street views possessing an illegal handgun as common as a clothing accessory. It really is that bad in Chicago and the violence is spreading throughout the city, not just the South and West now, but to North Shore Drive and inside the Loop. No one is safe from Gun violence in this corrupt Democratically controlled city, that President Obummer came out of.
So the city with maybe the worst gun control laws (most restrictive on the law abiding Citizen) has the worst gun crime problem with all of the street criminals carrying handguns and being quick to murder or shoot at someone with no justification often hitting and killing children and other innocents. It that really a coincidence? So the Democrats keep blaming guns instead of seeing that people like this are evil and need to be treated as evil criminals who have no regard for human life. No, says the Democrats they are all just "victims" and products of their impoverished upbringing and lack of economic opportunity neighborhoods.
Total bullshit of course. But that is how the Liberal Gun Hating democrats interpret the world and reinvent reality to square with their warped views of why people become evil and do evil. Freaking Obama still cant bring himself to say "Evil Muslim terrorist" in the same sentence. Meanwhile we have plenty of examples (the majority of poor people) of people who come out of poverty and who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and do not become the type of twisted evil monsters that shoot up city streets in Chicago and murder kids and anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in their crossfire. But let's keep blaming guns, because that easier than having to ask why there is a part of our society, a small part, that for many complex reasons, has descended into a dark place that seems to produce monsters and criminals without a conscience who are evil and who do evil with no remorse and probably little chance at rehabilitation.
These people we must identify and lock up as soon as possible with mandatory 10 and fifteen years, solid consecutive sentences (no parole) for using a gun in the commission of a crime or for being a gangster in possesion of an illegal gun or for being a felon in possesion of a gun. We know the current gun laws do not deter the criminal class from possessing or using guns in crimes. Let us see what happens when they start receiving 10-15-20 year consecutive sentences for illegal gun possesion and gun use that run in addition to the underlying crimes (robbery, murder, attempted murder, firing into an inhabited car or dwelling, negligently discharging a firearm into the air or in a city, assaults committed with guns, brandishing a firearm, etc.). Maybe then we will see some deterrence or we might make the streets safer by locking up gun armed street criminals for a good long time as we take them out of circulation in general society for 20 plus years with no parole.
So the city with maybe the worst gun control laws (most restrictive on the law abiding Citizen) has the worst gun crime problem with all of the street criminals carrying handguns and being quick to murder or shoot at someone with no justification often hitting and killing children and other innocents. It that really a coincidence? So the Democrats keep blaming guns instead of seeing that people like this are evil and need to be treated as evil criminals who have no regard for human life. No, says the Democrats they are all just "victims" and products of their impoverished upbringing and lack of economic opportunity neighborhoods.
Total bullshit of course. But that is how the Liberal Gun Hating democrats interpret the world and reinvent reality to square with their warped views of why people become evil and do evil. Freaking Obama still cant bring himself to say "Evil Muslim terrorist" in the same sentence. Meanwhile we have plenty of examples (the majority of poor people) of people who come out of poverty and who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and do not become the type of twisted evil monsters that shoot up city streets in Chicago and murder kids and anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in their crossfire. But let's keep blaming guns, because that easier than having to ask why there is a part of our society, a small part, that for many complex reasons, has descended into a dark place that seems to produce monsters and criminals without a conscience who are evil and who do evil with no remorse and probably little chance at rehabilitation.
These people we must identify and lock up as soon as possible with mandatory 10 and fifteen years, solid consecutive sentences (no parole) for using a gun in the commission of a crime or for being a gangster in possesion of an illegal gun or for being a felon in possesion of a gun. We know the current gun laws do not deter the criminal class from possessing or using guns in crimes. Let us see what happens when they start receiving 10-15-20 year consecutive sentences for illegal gun possesion and gun use that run in addition to the underlying crimes (robbery, murder, attempted murder, firing into an inhabited car or dwelling, negligently discharging a firearm into the air or in a city, assaults committed with guns, brandishing a firearm, etc.). Maybe then we will see some deterrence or we might make the streets safer by locking up gun armed street criminals for a good long time as we take them out of circulation in general society for 20 plus years with no parole.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google