Summations Only

And yet you continue to reply, but without substance. Why don't you just tell us what's wrong with my post instead of running away?Here it is again:

quote:

---

I would gladly deny you the "right" to own a handgun.
I would also deny that you have a right to own a handgun. What you have is the flagrant misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. Message 3799

---

Well, that you'd gladly deny me my right to own a handgun is just a personal position/opinion so I don't care.That you'd deny that I even have a right to own a handgun is also just a personal position/opinion that I don't care about.Your view that its all just a misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment has already been proven wrong by the Supreme Court, and has already been thoroughly discussed in this thread, so there's really no point in me saying any more about it.I suppose I could look up the post numbers for you, but it doesn't seem like it'll be worth my time.

That's not a proof; it's an opinion - and it's an opinion that the civilized world disagrees with. What part of "well-regulated militia" does the Supreme Court not understand?

According to DC v Heller:

quote:

---

Held:

​

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2—53.

​

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2—22.

​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

---

It doesn't, though - not in English.

Hello Catholic Scientist. Perhaps, but what about modern civilized countries that do not have the same allowances for armed citizens. Is there any instances anywhere that shows the need for the citizens to be armed in order to protect against this tyranny of which you speak? Is there a problems of the Japanese government stamping out the rights of their citizens, or Britain, New Zealand? Is this the fear of being unarmed and hence unable to stem off a government that will begin a unprecedented stomp fest on it's citizens rights? Or is it more likely a unfounded conservative conspiracy paranoia that fuels such fears? Just curious.Edited by 1.61803, : Replaced the word "does" with "is"

Admission? Interesting and revealing choice of words.It seems that you believe that the rights that you are currently enjoying cannot be challenged and to do so is somehow an automatic failure of morality.It suggests that things that have been written down a long time ago for a particular purpose and in a particular context cannot be challenged. I wonder where I've heard that sort of idea before? It's not about you. It's about your guns.

Bullshit. That is 20th century revisionism of the actual history of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment.Modern armed forces would have no problem overcoming the token resistance a bunch of armed yahoos could give to them. This is all a right wing conservative wet dream.

In your own mind at least. You've got hubris. I can say that for you.

Yeah they want to oppress you just like those poor slave owners.You do know that the Constitution has a tried and true method to be amended. Just because your interpret the 2nd amendment differently than other people does not make your interpretation right.

That's right. The Constitution doesn't grant me those rights. It simply enumerates them.It identifies our "natural rights" as people. "God given" some may say (I know you wouldn't). But I hope you get the point. If not, look into the English Bill of Rights and how that opposed the Divine Right of Kings, and how the right "to keep and bear arms" stemmed from that with the idea that we should be able to defend ourselves. It makes more sense back in the day, but it is still a right that I recognize as having as a person.So, the ablility to "arm" myself, as a person, doesn't even need to mean a gun. If I determine that I need to have a weapon, then as a person I have the right to implement that decision. Today, a handgun is the best weapon available to me. I don't know what you're joking about, but if you think it is the writing-down part that matters then you have a totally wrong impression. Oh, I know.

Hey Phi,I don't know the answers to your questions, I was simply disabusing the notion that dissuading tyranny requires being able to "win the war".

You seem to have the Declaration of Independence confudsed with the US Constitution. The Constitution does not mention natural rights or anything about "God given". It identifies our legal rights. Also the Declaration of Independence has little if any binding legal affect. It is an important part of US history, but is not part of US law.Are you saying that the right for women to vote was only natural right after the Constitution was amended? The Constitution changed the natural order of things when slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment? If there was a natural right to bear arms, why would they have allowed an amendment process to change that?

The concept that your right to own a gun is god given is totally fatuous. The 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct, it's man made.You currently have the right because your society has allowed it - no other reason.Other societies have decided that gun ownership is harmful to their citizens and have controlled them. The USA is alone in its denial of the harm that they are doing despite the daily events that prove it.

Now were slipping into semantics. I refuse to accept that killing or maiming someone is a useful purpose. Purpose altogether, yes.Edited by saab93f, : typo