Reply
Wastelander
Registered: 10/09/2013
Offline
590 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 23, 2014

bob-maul wrote:

hannah-goes-rawr wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

 

And when I said "unmentionable", I am referring to how society has come to accept that nobody should be open with their viewpoints on anything controversial. Political ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance of the universe is a bad thing. Ignorance may be bliss, but I bet meth gives the same feeling as it slowly kills you. And even if opinionated comments are thrown at each other, at least people get to see the other side's viewpoint. This makes ignorance inexcusable.


it still completely misses the point that people rarely have anything scholastic to contribute to political or religious discussions. why? because everything that can be contributed already has been contributed. it's an opinion. it's based off of things like values and history and personal reference and even, gasp, feelings. you're not wrong about something you believe because you believe you are not wrong about it. especially if the topic is about what you feel. how can you be wrong about what you feel? social studies are a hot button not because of political ignorance or any other word you might possibly want to use, they're hush-hush because it bases itself in a foundation of values that cannot be disproven with a calculator.


I hold that there are many things in politics and religion that can actually be debated scholastically. And, gasp, they are debated on by scholars all the time! I have introduced several philosophical arguments in the religion threads that are not usually mentioned in real life thanks to the extensive discussion that must follow. Sure, people usually do not respond to them with too much thought. But, again, people still respond to them in interesting ways. I place a lot of those topics above the "which cola tastes better" opinion types. And they lead to many discussions. Heck, they even help people find arguments for their own sides (as Plymco just stated). 

 

Topics being kept hush-hush because they are less absolute in society's eyes is just strange when our entire life is centered around discussions with differing opinions. And they are a lot more relative. Yet we still discuss them and I enjoy reading the responses and giving my views on this forum.


there's not much in politics or religion that veer far from values, which are just extreme opinions in their own right. the scholastic arguments that you say are being debated? guess what, they aren't. the scholarly amount of such discussions boil down to indisputable evidence - like the order of clauses. and then, for the sake of not being wrong, people like you and plymco just ignore scholastic evidence as heresy and dismiss it entirely - as if a point is fictional because you don't agree with it. that's not a scholarly discussion, that's a **bleep** measuring contest.

ferguson is a weird name for an iraqi village
Message 121 of 151 (220 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 23, 2014

hannah-goes-rawr wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

hannah-goes-rawr wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

 

And when I said "unmentionable", I am referring to how society has come to accept that nobody should be open with their viewpoints on anything controversial. Political ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance of the universe is a bad thing. Ignorance may be bliss, but I bet meth gives the same feeling as it slowly kills you. And even if opinionated comments are thrown at each other, at least people get to see the other side's viewpoint. This makes ignorance inexcusable.


it still completely misses the point that people rarely have anything scholastic to contribute to political or religious discussions. why? because everything that can be contributed already has been contributed. it's an opinion. it's based off of things like values and history and personal reference and even, gasp, feelings. you're not wrong about something you believe because you believe you are not wrong about it. especially if the topic is about what you feel. how can you be wrong about what you feel? social studies are a hot button not because of political ignorance or any other word you might possibly want to use, they're hush-hush because it bases itself in a foundation of values that cannot be disproven with a calculator.


I hold that there are many things in politics and religion that can actually be debated scholastically. And, gasp, they are debated on by scholars all the time! I have introduced several philosophical arguments in the religion threads that are not usually mentioned in real life thanks to the extensive discussion that must follow. Sure, people usually do not respond to them with too much thought. But, again, people still respond to them in interesting ways. I place a lot of those topics above the "which cola tastes better" opinion types. And they lead to many discussions. Heck, they even help people find arguments for their own sides (as Plymco just stated). 

 

Topics being kept hush-hush because they are less absolute in society's eyes is just strange when our entire life is centered around discussions with differing opinions. And they are a lot more relative. Yet we still discuss them and I enjoy reading the responses and giving my views on this forum.


there's not much in politics or religion that veer far from values, which are just extreme opinions in their own right. the scholastic arguments that you say are being debated? guess what, they aren't. the scholarly amount of such discussions boil down to indisputable evidence - like the order of clauses. and then, for the sake of not being wrong, people like you and plymco just ignore scholastic evidence as heresy and dismiss it entirely - as if a point is fictional because you don't agree with it. that's not a scholarly discussion, that's a **bleep** measuring contest.


You have got to be joking about scholarly debate not being held on God. Values are what most religious and nonreligious people argue about. That is a cultural debate. That is only a bit of what scholars debate. There are several arguments for religious belief and several against it (some that have existed for over a thousand years). The arguments are usually debated among those in the field of philosophy. Science is in the mix. As is theology. But philosophy is the center of it all. How you think it is just values astounds me. Moral values? That is debated among ethicists. And the debate rages on! Is everything just nihilistic? Or is there a greater meaning? The existence of a creator? Massive debates. You can look those debates up! And you can read scholarly books on said arguments. I have several and would be happy to recommend one to you if you are interested in anything specific. To think there is nothing aside from values to discuss is ignorant.

 

And I am interested in how you got so angry in the end. The arguments get heated, but I have provided historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence in those religious discussions. I do not know about Plymco as I have not read the majority of this thread (50 pages of gun control arguments would be a bit taxing on me), but I do not ignore science, history, or philosophy in any of those religion threads. Other threads with content that I am less passionate about will receive less of an effort from me. Do not take less effort as an indication of how knowledgeable I am of the topic, though. You bring up the qualities of the clauses in the 2nd amendment. While I admit I am not an expert in reading the document, I do know that historical context is extremely important when reading any historical document. And that is why I am not extremely firm on jsut looking at the ordering of clauses.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 122 of 151 (213 Views)
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
55190 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 23, 2014

tollett wrote:
The 2nd amendment does not need to be updated for modern times, whatever that means. The framers made the process of amending the Constitution onerous to keep it from being changed. As stated by many others, the amendment is very straight-forward and easy to interpret. However, that hasn't stopped our rights from being infringed upon. Every single law that restricts citizens' ability buy, sell, or carry arms is, by definition, an infringement.

You sound like me Smiley Wink.   This is basically how I view things as well.

 

I was hoping the other person whom posted yesterday would return and help give me more insight into their opinion that it does need an "update".

 

 

Message 123 of 151 (202 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
55190 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 18, 2014
http://news.yahoo.com/massachusetts-governor-signs-law-tightening-state-gun-rules-135146176.html New law in my state now allows the chief of police even more power over your right to bear arms than they had before.
Message 124 of 151 (146 Views)
0 Likes
Limit Breaker
Registered: 12/17/2004
Offline
22643 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 18, 2014

just noticed this thread.. i'm late to discussion (it's too many pages to read through)

 

but what are my rights under the 2nd amendment?

 

the right to bear arms?...to vague..

 

need to be specific...

 

the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE ??..  doesn't look like it..

 

since.. it will all come down to YOUR RIGHTS vs ANOTHER PERSON's RIGHTS

 

so whose rights will be come out on top?

 

this is why i don't see point of OPEN CARRYING RIFLES into public stores/restaurants.. i respect people's rights to bear arm.. but you are scaring the customers and hurting other people's business as well....

 

the right to bear arms and open carry or concealed carry.. depends on the state.. but don't walk into places with NO GUN sign .. it's against the law in Arizona

 

when in a store it's not a  common public area anymore.. it's private property

 

like a homeowner can limit what things the guests can bring into the house.. the same concept will apply for business owners Smiley Happy

What Are Internet TROLLS ?
To QUOTE- TOP RIGHT of the reply box - To MULTI-QUOTE
PSP and PS3 owner..YES...i still play the LAST GEN systems
****still waiting for The LAST GUARDIAN****
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 125 of 151 (144 Views)
0 Likes
Big Daddy
Registered: 05/09/2005
Offline
19070 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 18, 2014

dulun18 wrote:

just noticed this thread.. i'm late to discussion (it's too many pages to read through)

 

but what are my rights under the 2nd amendment?

 

the right to bear arms?...to vague..

 

need to be specific...

 

the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE ??..  doesn't look like it..

 

since.. it will all come down to YOUR RIGHTS vs ANOTHER PERSON's RIGHTS

 

so whose rights will be come out on top?

 

this is why i don't see point of OPEN CARRYING RIFLES into public stores/restaurants.. i respect people's rights to bear arm.. but you are scaring the customers and hurting other people's business as well....

 

the right to bear arms and open carry or concealed carry.. depends on the state.. but don't walk into places with NO GUN sign .. it's against the law in Arizona

 

when in a store it's not a  common public area anymore.. it's private property

 

like a homeowner can limit what things the guests can bring into the house.. the same concept will apply for business owners Smiley Happy


If you are up in Ferguson/Florrisant right now, if they find out that you don't have a gun on you, then don't come crying to me when they come after you.

Those rioters up there don't give a carp about local city/state laws right now.

 photo 683842d5-5deb-4335-8bcb-5b2166398090_zpsafb7b8da.jpg
Message 126 of 151 (140 Views)
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
55190 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 19, 2014

dulun18 wrote:

just noticed this thread.. i'm late to discussion (it's too many pages to read through)

 

but what are my rights under the 2nd amendment?

 

the right to bear arms?...to vague..

 

need to be specific...

 

the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE ??..  doesn't look like it..

 

since.. it will all come down to YOUR RIGHTS vs ANOTHER PERSON's RIGHTS

 

so whose rights will be come out on top?

 

this is why i don't see point of OPEN CARRYING RIFLES into public stores/restaurants.. i respect people's rights to bear arm.. but you are scaring the customers and hurting other people's business as well....

 

the right to bear arms and open carry or concealed carry.. depends on the state.. but don't walk into places with NO GUN sign .. it's against the law in Arizona

 

when in a store it's not a  common public area anymore.. it's private property

 

like a homeowner can limit what things the guests can bring into the house.. the same concept will apply for business owners Smiley Happy


I think I described your rights, under the 2nd, pretty clearly in the first post.  Basically you have the right to bear arms to such an extent that you can form a militia to protect our human liberties from any governmental threats, internal or external.

 

It is vague on purpose.  The founders knew weapons would evolvle with techonology.  By leaving it vague it allows the citizens to arm themselves at a level that they can protect their liberties from an overbearing government at any point in the future...unless the citizens let the government restrict this liberty (which we have with gun laws).

 

The 2nd does not specify where you can own and carry them just that you can, in fact, own and carry them.  

 

Originally our documents said "Life, liberty, and property"  not "live, liberty, and happiness" that was a change made intentionally by progressives over half a century ago.   I bring this up because you asked if it was ok to take a gun into a business.  I would contend it is only ok if the owner of the property is willing to allow it.   When it comes to private property the rights of the property owner come first, on public and our own property our constitutional rights come first.  (my view)

 

 

 

 

Message 127 of 151 (126 Views)
0 Likes
Limit Breaker
Registered: 12/17/2004
Offline
22643 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 19, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Spoiler
dulun18 wrote:

just noticed this thread.. i'm late to discussion (it's too many pages to read through)

 

but what are my rights under the 2nd amendment?

 

the right to bear arms?...to vague..

 

need to be specific...

 

the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE ??..  doesn't look like it..

 

since.. it will all come down to YOUR RIGHTS vs ANOTHER PERSON's RIGHTS

 

so whose rights will be come out on top?

 

this is why i don't see point of OPEN CARRYING RIFLES into public stores/restaurants.. i respect people's rights to bear arm.. but you are scaring the customers and hurting other people's business as well....

 

the right to bear arms and open carry or concealed carry.. depends on the state.. but don't walk into places with NO GUN sign .. it's against the law in Arizona

 

when in a store it's not a  common public area anymore.. it's private property

 

like a homeowner can limit what things the guests can bring into the house.. the same concept will apply for business owners Smiley Happy


 

 

I think I described your rights, under the 2nd, pretty clearly in the first post.  Basically you have the right to bear arms to such an extent that you can form a militia to protect our human liberties from any governmental threats, internal or external.

 

It is vague on purpose.  The founders knew weapons would evolvle with techonology.  By leaving it vague it allows the citizens to arm themselves at a level that they can protect their liberties from an overbearing government at any point in the future...unless the citizens let the government restrict this liberty (which we have with gun laws).

 

The 2nd does not specify where you can own and carry them just that you can, in fact, own and carry them.  

 

Originally our documents said "Life, liberty, and property"  not "live, liberty, and happiness" that was a change made intentionally by progressives over half a century ago.   I bring this up because you asked if it was ok to take a gun into a business.  I would contend it is only ok if the owner of the property is willing to allow it.   When it comes to private property the rights of the property owner come first, on public and our own property our constitutional rights come first.  (my view)

 


 

one of the many things we agree on Smiley Very Happy

What Are Internet TROLLS ?
To QUOTE- TOP RIGHT of the reply box - To MULTI-QUOTE
PSP and PS3 owner..YES...i still play the LAST GEN systems
****still waiting for The LAST GUARDIAN****
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 128 of 151 (116 Views)
0 Likes
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
28988 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 19, 2014

For all the talk about "jack booted thugs" and protecting people's rights. where is the NRA been during all this time with what's happening in Ferguson, MO? The very nightmare scenario that Wayne LaPeirrie warned us about is playing out, yet not a peep. Is it because Michael Brown didn't own cattle?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/19/why-isn-t-the-nra-defending-ferguson-s-blacks.html

Message 129 of 151 (112 Views)
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 01/21/2014
Offline
1968 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Aug 19, 2014

CaptainAlbator wrote:

For all the talk about "jack booted thugs" and protecting people's rights. where is the NRA been during all this time with what's happening in Ferguson, MO? The very nightmare scenario that Wayne LaPeirrie warned us about is playing out, yet not a peep. Is it because Michael Brown didn't own cattle?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/19/why-isn-t-the-nra-defending-ferguson-s-blacks.html


What's your point?

 

Are you suggesting the defense of the 2nd amendment is a fraud because this group does it unfairly?

 

Or are you suggesting that the 2nd amendment should be defended for all groups and this group is a fraud for not doing so?

 

Or are you simply whistling dixie in the wind?

Message 130 of 151 (105 Views)