PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:43:44 AM
-
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.
Does "the people" mean anyone, including non-citizens, or even illegal aliens, or does id only apply to citizens?
What do you think it "should" mean?
-
Does "the people" mean anyone, including non-citizens, or even illegal aliens, or does id only apply to citizens?
What do you think it "should" mean?
Since the Constitution specifically called out certain things as applying only to citizens, unless something is specifically restricted to citizens, it applies to all within the sovereignty of the United States.
-
Does "the people" mean anyone, including non-citizens, or even illegal aliens, or does id only apply to citizens?
What do you think it "should" mean?
Rights, according to the founders, were inherent (given by The Creator, in their opinion). So in my opinion, by definition, all people have a right to bear arms.
(http://8.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com/d/-/bustedtees.19356d6d-960b-4d24-811c-3d752d1f.gif)
-
Rights, according to the founders, were inherent (given by The Creator, in their opinion). So in my opinion, by definition, all people have a right to bear arms.
Is that what YOU believe, or is that what you believe the founders meant.
I think the 2nd is a poorly written clause open to various interpretations.
But one thing that I don't understand is how liberals believe it is meant to allow people to have hunting weapons, or even weapons for self defense. The 2nd says nothing about either. It speaks only of some type of "militia" and of the the importance of the security of the State.
-
Is that what YOU believe, or is that what you believe the founders meant.
I think the 2nd is a poorly written clause open to various interpretations.
But one thing that I don't understand is how liberals believe it is meant to allow people to have hunting weapons, or even weapons for self defense. The 2nd says nothing about either. It speaks only of some type of "militia" and of the the importance of the security of the State.
2A doesn't say that the militia is the only reason. Obviously colonists had and used their weapons for self defense against hostile animals, hostile people and for hunting.
If you forbid someone from having a weapon, then they get attacked and cannot defend themselves....then you're morally responsible for them getting hurt.
-
2A doesn't say that the militia is the only reason. Obviously colonists had and used their weapons for self defense against hostile animals, hostile people and for hunting.
If you forbid someone from having a weapon, then they get attacked and cannot defend themselves....then you're morally responsible for them getting hurt.
I agree with you.
My point is, and has been, that it is a poorly written and vague amendment that is open to many and various interpretations. But I assume it was written that way on purpose. I don't believe it is as cut and dried as some people do (except for the part that the right may not be infringed, which is what the left is constantly doing).
-
Is that what YOU believe, or is that what you believe the founders meant.
I think the 2nd is a poorly written clause open to various interpretations.
But one thing that I don't understand is how liberals believe it is meant to allow people to have hunting weapons, or even weapons for self defense. The 2nd says nothing about either. It speaks only of some type of "militia" and of the the importance of the security of the State.
That is what the founders believed; that our natural rights are "God-given". Therefore, the Constitution does not create rights, it merely affirms that our government shall not infringe upon them. (And a number of founders, including Madison, at first believed that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.)
So, the Second Amendment doesn't need to mention hunting weapons et al, because it is not intended to create the right in the first place, and it is therefore unnecessary to spell out every circumstance under which the right can be protected.
-
That is what the founders believed; that our natural rights are "God-given". Therefore, the Constitution does not create rights, it merely affirms that our government shall not infringe upon them. (And a number of founders, including Madison, at first believed that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.)
So, the Second Amendment doesn't need to mention hunting weapons et al, because it is not intended to create the right in the first place, and it is therefore unnecessary to spell out every circumstance under which the right can be protected.
Are you sure you're a liberal? :P
-
Are you sure you're a liberal? :P
A strange one, maybe. We don't get a lot discussion on here about topics that would reveal my stark liberal-ness. ;D
-
I agree with you.
My point is, and has been, that it is a poorly written and vague amendment that is open to many and various interpretations. But I assume it was written that way on purpose. I don't believe it is as cut and dried as some people do (except for the part that the right may not be infringed, which is what the left is constantly doing).
I think it is cut and dried, and the "confusion" over the centuries has come from statists wanting to limit the ability of the peasants to overthrow their asses.
To a statist, "See Spot run" can have multiple interpretations, depending upon their goals and ambitions.