Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree91Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 8th, 2017, 11:06 PM   #91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 7,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
R #82 & it #85

Since before our 3rd Millennium nuclear weapons have been called "nuclear ARMS", even if they are not always carried in human hands and arms *.
- DOES this mean our Second Amendment (2A) includes them in a citizen's right to "keep & bear arms"?

- SHOULD it?

Many seek the logical refuge of original intent to address such questions.

The problem is, EVEN if we could know for certain what the Founders mean by "arms" we also know for certain they could not have know what we mean by "nuclear" ("nucular" if you prefer); for Niels Bohr hadn't been born yet.

So whether WMD should be included as protected private property for private citizens remains a matter of speculation / opinion.

Perhaps that fact nixes the "original intent" approach to WMD specifically.
If so, that would seem to leave it to the perhaps more germane "what is best for U.S. in the 3rd millennium" test.

You tell me. Should a suicidal / homicidal / genocidal manic depressive be guaranteed by U.S. federal law to be allowed to own Minuteman missiles? Are they not "nuclear arms"?

* I've read that one Minuteman ICBM (about 10 stories tall in the silo) has more explosive power aboard than all the munitions expended in WWII by all sides, including the nukes dropped on Japan.
True....My reading of the arguments set forth in the States ratification process', and the Federalist papers, does not clearly define what or if the Framers had limits to what they called "arms"... And if we have a problem with Iran or North Korea having ballistic missiles and nukes, I guess there should be a problem with Joe Nudnick next door having them too.. The problem is with the dishonest, fanatical extreme left in this country....Once you make the slightest concession to reasonable limits on this topic, these hyenas ate ready to pounce and compromise the entire 2nd Amendment....Once the camel has it's nose under the tent...you know....I listened to them enough to have total mistrust of these people..
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 11:20 PM   #92
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 698
Jg #91

That's fine.
I understand. A radicalized argument can promote a radicalized refutation / counter-argument.

BUT !!

That tangential scrum does not negate our ability in this forum to conduct a more rational exchange.

FOR THE RECORD

It is standard practice among negotiators to NEVER arrive at the bargaining table with a reasonable position. NEVER !!

For to do so, the negotiator would have little to no room for "compromise".

The bitter irony there is, in that case the MORE reasonable negotiator would be made to seem the LESS reasonable in comparison.

THEREFORE:
To APPEAR reasonable, skilled negotiators arrive at the bargaining table with an extreme, if not the most extreme position;
so that they can "bargain away" elements of their original position, without actually sacrificing their core target.

Why should it be any different with the NRA?
Thanks from imaginethat
titan is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 03:57 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I would expect that in an honest and rational discussion that anti-gunners not bring really silly arguments to the table.

The pro - gun forces already "compromised" on bazookas. They come under the heading of destructive devices. Hand grenades, mortars, etc. are already illegal.

To make it simple, if your local police can obtain a certain weapon, it should be available to the general public. Tanks, bazookas, hand grenades, etc. if outlawed for local LEOs would still be available to the National Guard.

Thought You Should Know - Paramilitarism in American Police 2

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Compromise?

The People compromised the ability to be a force superior to any band of regular troops? Why? That's my point. Why would the People agree to being an inferior force?

Could it be so that the People could feel all secure, surrounding themselves with guns and ammo, thinking somehow they are part of the Second Amendment protection for the First Amendment, as envisioned by the Founders.

Only, they're not. To begin with, I cannot imagine our population united against a rogue central government. So, if the SHTF, I fully expect some of the population to takes sides with the rogue government.

And, We the People have negotiated away our right to be as well armed as the government, and with that concession negotiated away our ability to preserve and protect the Constitution.

But, it sure feels nice, imagining that we could.

Last edited by imaginethat; October 9th, 2017 at 04:06 AM.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 04:17 AM   #94
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
The Right to keep and bear Arms is, by our Constitution an absolute Right.

You have neither the authority nor any legal / constitutional ability under the de jure Constitution to forfeit that Right.

The founders said:

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannont, by any compact, deprive or divest their prosterity: among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining happiness and safety." George Mason

Courts have ruled:

"These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

I'm not doing what a long line of "dead slave owners" said. That shows the lack of knowledge you have about your own country.

To his disciples, Jesus said:

"Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his money: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22: 36

Jesus told his disciples that if they didn't have a sword, they should hock even their robe and buy one. That made them equal, in carry arms, to even the elite of Caesar's SWAT team.

BTW, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams did not own slaves. I quote them quite extensively. Ditto for Benjamin Franklin who became an abolitionist. You're grasping for straws on that count.

A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. Between the protection of the public Liberties along with the lives of myself and loved ones I'd say that arming yourself so that you don't become a victim - like those under Stalin or Pol Pot did is a pretty good reason not to give up a Right that the government did not grant in the first place.

So, why are you advocating for allowing crazy people to run amok in a free society and jeopardize our God given Rights?
So what? We don't live in salve-owning times or share their particular hypocricies.
iolo is online now  
Old October 9th, 2017, 05:36 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Compromise?

The People compromised the ability to be a force superior to any band of regular troops? Why? That's my point. Why would the People agree to being an inferior force?

Could it be so that the People could feel all secure, surrounding themselves with guns and ammo, thinking somehow they are part of the Second Amendment protection for the First Amendment, as envisioned by the Founders.

Only, they're not. To begin with, I cannot imagine our population united against a rogue central government. So, if the SHTF, I fully expect some of the population to takes sides with the rogue government.

And, We the People have negotiated away our right to be as well armed as the government, and with that concession negotiated away our ability to preserve and protect the Constitution.

But, it sure feels nice, imagining that we could.
I think we still could today, but not after the next round of gun control is implemented.

We already have a rogue government. It is a federal legislative - Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. Unless we oppose it soon, it will be too late and the last vestiges of your Freedom and Liberty will be gone with the wind.
discollector is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 05:38 AM   #96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
So what? We don't live in salve-owning times or share their particular hypocricies.
"salve owning times???" Did you mean to call Jesus a hypocrite?
discollector is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 06:18 AM   #97
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And bazookas. I always wanted a bazooka.
No, a bazooka was a crew served weapon.
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 06:21 AM   #98
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Considering the strong argument, that the Second Amendment follows the First to show how seriously the People must take their duty to preserve and protect Liberty, what's the argument to justify limiting civilians to the possession of M-79s, tops?
Exactly. Rifles and pistols, even fully automatic ones, will has little effect against a modern army. IF the 2nd Amendment's REAL purpose is to allow citizens the ability to resist a tyrannical government with force.
Thanks from imaginethat and Clara007
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 06:26 AM   #99
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I would expect that in an honest and rational discussion that anti-gunners not bring really silly arguments to the table.

The pro - gun forces already "compromised" on bazookas. They come under the heading of destructive devices. Hand grenades, mortars, etc. are already illegal.

To make it simple, if your local police can obtain a certain weapon, it should be available to the general public. Tanks, bazookas, hand grenades, etc. if outlawed for local LEOs would still be available to the National Guard.

Thought You Should Know - Paramilitarism in American Police 2

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Please explain what is silly about the argument presented.
SOME citizens think it's SILLY to put fully automatic firearms in the hands of civilians.
Why should YOUR definition of SILLY be respected more than anyone else's?

Fully automatic firearms have been illegal for civilians to own w/o special federal permits since the mid 1930's.
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 07:12 AM   #100
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
So what? We don't live in salve-owning times or share their particular hypocricies.
We don't know where you live or what company you keep. There are currently more slaves world wide than there have ever been in recorded history. Guess what...it is not the evil western white, capitalist men who are doing it
Sabcat is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bumpstock, gambit, good, idea, nra, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A good idea, but ... ericthered World History 2 April 15th, 2016 01:15 PM
Not a good idea? roastpork Housing Market 3 October 29th, 2014 02:30 AM
A good idea? roastpork Education 0 April 9th, 2014 12:56 PM
Anybody have any idea how this might work... Dude111 Science and Technology 6 January 31st, 2010 01:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.