You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun Rights- Fighting And Winning
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
The government certainly can take them away, and they have in most of the world and even in parts of the USA. The 2A is supposed to prevent the government from doing that, but creative judges have allowed them to do so and the SCOTUS is our last line of defense.
Yup, I do[sarcasm on]
PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.
NRA needs to change it's message if they want to appeal to the people you mentioned in that last sentence, is what I said. I said LaPierre says some things that 'seem' extreme.
I mentioned them because they(and me) exist..is all. I know many, many who advocate for the 2A and are moderate in their political views.
Again, not binary, not zero sum..
USN retd….In your own words,what is the mission of the NRA ?
The reason I ask is many people form illusions based on what a non-original source tells them.
That opinion is often formed from an echo chamber.IMO,more people might know what Media Matters,CNN,George Soros,the Brady Bunch,etc have to say about the NRA.
Other than perhaps peer pressure,expectations of others....Why or how does my support of the 2A RTKBA have any bearing on how I feel about Abortion,or Climate,or Immigration,or LGBT issues,etc?? Or you just "know" what I believe ?
The Leftist echo chamber packages deplorables as Racist ,Sexist ,Homophobic ,misogynistic .etc propaganda BS if you support the NRA,or the GOP,or the RTKBA,
Everybody knows that! Ask whats his name or whats her name on that network...
What insane garbage.Its classic labeling,stereotying,and hateful bigotry.
And nothing the NRA does with its message will make any difference to the haters who spread this platform of propaganda. The echo chamber created it,they use it for indoctrination.
----------------------------
The article 5 Convention of the States topic,I suggest Marc Levin has written the book "The Liberty Ammendments" on this topic.
It was forseen that the Fed Gov might become out of control,and a mechanism was necessary for the States to use to check the Fed Gov.
An example or two that have been discussed as Article 5 agenda items are term limits and a balanced budget amendment.
Please,this is NOT the time or place to argue either topic.Lets DON"T.
Congress is loathe to take ANY action that will reduce their power,longevity,or ability to spend money.IMO,Congress will never pas term limits or a balanced budget law...But Article 5 gives the States the power to pull it off,and if they do,its the law of the land and the Feds can't stop it.
IMO,its a brilliant feature of the Constitution.
The reason I ask is many people form illusions based on what a non-original source tells them.
That opinion is often formed from an echo chamber.IMO,more people might know what Media Matters,CNN,George Soros,the Brady Bunch,etc have to say about the NRA.
(Referring to other folks who have moderate views on other issues)NRA needs to change it's message if they want to appeal to the people you mentioned in that last sentence
Other than perhaps peer pressure,expectations of others....Why or how does my support of the 2A RTKBA have any bearing on how I feel about Abortion,or Climate,or Immigration,or LGBT issues,etc?? Or you just "know" what I believe ?
The Leftist echo chamber packages deplorables as Racist ,Sexist ,Homophobic ,misogynistic .etc propaganda BS if you support the NRA,or the GOP,or the RTKBA,
Everybody knows that! Ask whats his name or whats her name on that network...
What insane garbage.Its classic labeling,stereotying,and hateful bigotry.
And nothing the NRA does with its message will make any difference to the haters who spread this platform of propaganda. The echo chamber created it,they use it for indoctrination.
----------------------------
The article 5 Convention of the States topic,I suggest Marc Levin has written the book "The Liberty Ammendments" on this topic.
It was forseen that the Fed Gov might become out of control,and a mechanism was necessary for the States to use to check the Fed Gov.
An example or two that have been discussed as Article 5 agenda items are term limits and a balanced budget amendment.
Please,this is NOT the time or place to argue either topic.Lets DON"T.
Congress is loathe to take ANY action that will reduce their power,longevity,or ability to spend money.IMO,Congress will never pas term limits or a balanced budget law...But Article 5 gives the States the power to pull it off,and if they do,its the law of the land and the Feds can't stop it.
IMO,its a brilliant feature of the Constitution.
Last edited:
I just wrote exactly that in the post immediately above yours -- the post you responded to.
And? You contended that the BOR can be repealed or amended.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
The rub seems to be that in that same case, the SCOTUS appears to be of the opinion it applies only to the Federal Government. Unlike some of the other rights which the States are specified to protect the SCOTUS specifically address the 2nd Amendment as only be a limitation on the Federal Government.
The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
Which is why we have draconian state laws in places like New York, California, and New Jersey.
Outside of the fact the right to bear arms cannot be repealed, It is kind of a weak half measure ruling.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Where does the Supreme Court say that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or repealed? Certainly not in the case you cited in post #39. From the link you provided:davidsog said:And? You contended that the BOR can be repealed or amended.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
And, even in the face of this, the federal government has restricted (i.e. infringed) many aspects of the RKBA ... and the Supreme Court has not stepped in and said "Whoa!"6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The government cannot take them away?PhotonGuy said:Exactly. The rights were preexisting. The government did not grant them the government cannot take them away.
I am required to have a permit to carry a handgun in my home state. I have permits from six different states and, even with SIX permission slips that the Second Amendment says I don't need, I can carry legally in only about 30 or 32 states. Within my own home state and my home town, although I have a state-issued permission slip, I cannot carry a (or even possess an unloaded) firearm on any town-owned property. Yet the Second Amendment says that my "right" to bear (carry) arms "shall not be infringed." My own state's constitution says it even more strongly, specifically mentioning that the right to bear arms is for personal defense as well as for defense of the state.
Brownstone322
New member
And? You contended that the BOR can be repealed or amended.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
All of the Constitution -- from the preamble to the 27th Amendment -- is subject to revision or outright repeal. This argument in a non-starter. Why's it keep coming up here? (And, again, the many-times proposed "Flag Desecration Amendment" was a popular movement to restrict the scope of the 1st Amendment; many questioned its wisdom, but no educated person questioned its legality.)
Which is why we have draconian state laws in places like New York, California, and New Jersey.
Outside of the fact the right to bear arms cannot be repealed, It is kind of a weak half measure ruling.
I know of no gun-control laws in New York, California, New Jersey or anywhere else that clearly conflict with the three most important Supreme Court rulings on the matter: US v. Miller (1939), DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Those rulings did not address restrictions on public carry except to note (in Heller) that they'd been upheld in the past. Common restrictions on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines could conflict with Heller's "common use for lawful purposes" doctrine, but, again, there's no high-court ruling that applies specifically to that topic.
The government cannot take them away?
No, the government cannot take away our right.
But, after that, it becomes a matter of semantics, and theory vs. reality.
The Government cannot take away our rights. They can deny, restrict, infringe, fail to recognize, etc., but they cannot take away our RIGHT to something, they can only use their power to prevent us from exercising rights that we will always have.
That's the theory side.
No court ruling, no law, no piece of paper, or anything created by man can tell a lion he has no right to have his claws. Nor can any law or ruling deny the porcupine his quills.
But, you can lock that lion in a cage, and deny him his right to liberty. Doesn't remove a lion's right to be a lion.
Now, we can argue about the practical side, of how a right denied = a right removed, but that isn't the exactly same thing.
Primary Holding
The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not to be found in the Second Amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/
Where does the Supreme Court say that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or repealed? Certainly not in the case you cited in post #39. From the link you provided:
That is kind of EXACTLY what the case says....
You cannot repeal something that does not exist within your privy.
I am required to have a permit to carry a handgun in my home state. I have permits from six different states and, even with SIX permission slips that the Second Amendment says I don't need, I can carry legally in only about 30 or 32 states. Within my own home state and my home town, although I have a state-issued permission slip, I cannot carry a (or even possess an unloaded) firearm on any town-owned property. Yet the Second Amendment says that my "right" to bear (carry) arms "shall not be infringed." My own state's constitution says it even more strongly, specifically mentioning that the right to bear arms is for personal defense as well as for defense of the state.
I agree and think it is very necessary that the SCOTUS hear another 2nd Amendment case to clear up the ambiguity.
No court ruling, no law, no piece of paper, or anything created by man can tell a lion he has no right to have his claws. Nor can any law or ruling deny the porcupine his quills.
But, you can lock that lion in a cage, and deny him his right to liberty. Doesn't remove a lion's right to be a lion.
Now, we can argue about the practical side, of how a right denied = a right removed, but that isn't the exactly same thing.
Well put.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You are confusing the right itself with the amendment. The case you cited says the RKBA exists outside of the Second Amendment. We do not disagree on this.davidsog said:That is kind of EXACTLY what the case says....Where does the Supreme Court say that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or repealed? Certainly not in the case you cited in post #39. From the link you provided:
You cannot repeal something that does not exist within your privy.
But the statement was that the Second Amendment can be amended or repealed, and the case you cited in no way suggests that this is not true and correct. The fact that the right itself preexisted the amendment and would (in theory) continue to exist if the amendment were to disappear does not mean that the amendment cannot be amended or repealed. That just means that, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, the RKBA would continue to exist (in theory) but would no longer have a legal prohibition against the government infringing it. Since that purported guarantee doesn't seem to be worth the paper it's printed on, I'm not sure how much effect that would have in the real world.
But -- we're talking about amending or repealing the Second Amendment, and a case saying that the right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the amendment pretty obviously doesn't say that the amendment itself cannot be touched.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I just have to add my view. Saying that a right exists outside of the social context is just one philosophical position. "Rights" are not laws of the physical universe or mathematical theorems.
Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.
That is just one viewpoint but it is just as reasonable to say a 'right' is based on social forces, psychology and some biological predispositions. You can disagree but history shows that many societies have different views of the seemingly fundamental principles of human behavior based on their culture, psychology, religion, etc.
In some traditions, there is not an accepted right of self-defense. That rationale can be that:
1. Only God can take a life, you can't. So self-defense is out.
2. Taking a life for self-defense removes the chance of the evil doer's redemption from God. You shouldn't take a life but your death at the evil doer's hand may have that person seek redemption. Your death is part of God's plan for him or her.
Even in our BOR, the natural rights view didn't apply to all as some humans were not seen as human beings.
Thus, some of the debate really doesn't add in fighting for the RKBA. Who is to say that the right to live in peace without the threat of dangerous weapons as a threat is not as fundamental as the right to have such weapons? Some folks claim divine inspiration as an argument ender. That will not work in today's world.
Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.
That is just one viewpoint but it is just as reasonable to say a 'right' is based on social forces, psychology and some biological predispositions. You can disagree but history shows that many societies have different views of the seemingly fundamental principles of human behavior based on their culture, psychology, religion, etc.
In some traditions, there is not an accepted right of self-defense. That rationale can be that:
1. Only God can take a life, you can't. So self-defense is out.
2. Taking a life for self-defense removes the chance of the evil doer's redemption from God. You shouldn't take a life but your death at the evil doer's hand may have that person seek redemption. Your death is part of God's plan for him or her.
Even in our BOR, the natural rights view didn't apply to all as some humans were not seen as human beings.
Thus, some of the debate really doesn't add in fighting for the RKBA. Who is to say that the right to live in peace without the threat of dangerous weapons as a threat is not as fundamental as the right to have such weapons? Some folks claim divine inspiration as an argument ender. That will not work in today's world.
That just means that, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, the RKBA would continue to exist
Yes the right....
exists separately from the Constitution
So, How do you repeal something you have no authority over in the first place?
It is like saying you are the owner of Mars and sending a bill to NASA for leaving rover tracks on your property.
Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.
That is just one viewpoint.
A viewpoint that is the supreme law of the land.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not really, states have different statutes defining what is reasonable self-defense. The debate about stand your ground, castle laws and a myriad of other circumscriptions about how self-defense can be claimed indicates that self-defense principles do not have the same basis as the Pythagorean theorem.
If you want to get into the weeds, read some legal texts such as:
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)
by Fiona Leverick
Please have the sentient being source of an unambiguous definition of self-defense join TFL and explain it to us.
If you want to get into the weeds, read some legal texts such as:
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)
by Fiona Leverick
Please have the sentient being source of an unambiguous definition of self-defense join TFL and explain it to us.
Not really, states have different statutes defining what is reasonable self-defense.
Now you have changed the subject to make yourself correct. Yes, IAW this case and it has been used by anti-gun states as the primary reason why states can do their own thing regarding the 2nd Amendment.
But that is not the same as the 2nd Amendment being repealed or the fact that IAW the supreme law of the land, the RKBA exist separately from the Constitution.
I just have to add my view. Saying that a right exists outside of the social context is just one philosophical position. "Rights" are not laws of the physical universe or mathematical theorems.
Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.
That is just one viewpoint but it is just as reasonable to say a 'right' is based on social forces, psychology and some biological predispositions. You can disagree but history shows that many societies have different views of the seemingly fundamental principles of human behavior based on their culture, psychology, religion, etc.
In some traditions, there is not an accepted right of self-defense. That rationale can be that:
1. Only God can take a life, you can't. So self-defense is out.
2. Taking a life for self-defense removes the chance of the evil doer's redemption from God. You shouldn't take a life but your death at the evil doer's hand may have that person seek redemption. Your death is part of God's plan for him or her.
Even in our BOR, the natural rights view didn't apply to all as some humans were not seen as human beings.
Thus, some of the debate really doesn't add in fighting for the RKBA. Who is to say that the right to live in peace without the threat of dangerous weapons as a threat is not as fundamental as the right to have such weapons? Some folks claim divine inspiration as an argument ender. That will not work in today's world.
In a lot of the world, I think that acting independently in self-defense is seen as a threat to the power of the State. A good citizen should be obliged to be a nice passive victim and allow the government to deal with the aftermath as they see fit.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Seriously ... are you jerking my chain? We are talking about amending or repealing the Second Amendment, we are not talking about repealing the right to keep and bear arms.davidsog said:Yes the right....That just means that, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, the RKBA would continue to exist
So, How do you repeal something you have no authority over in the first place?exists separately from the Constitution
The statement you made was that the Second Amendment cannot be repealed. It CAN be repealed. We seem to agree that the [moral] right to keep and bear arms pre-dated the Constitution, and I think we can agree that -- in theory -- the RKBA would survive the repeal of the Second Amendment (except that you don't appear to understand that the amendment can be repealed), but what good is having the RKBA theoretically and morally survive if the government is no longer required to guarantee that the right will not be infringed?
Look how much it has been infringed already, with the courts proclaiming that the infringements aren't violations of the Second Amendment. Take away the Second Amendment and there won't be anything to stop the gun grabber politicians from steamrolling through gun confiscation. You'll have the "right" to keep and bear arms, but to exercise that right you'll have to do battle against the government. And, as a California politician helpfully commented just a couple of weeks ago, the government has nukes.
{Edit} Apologies. It was PhotonGuy, not davidsog, who kicked this off by posting that the Second Amendment cannot be repealed.
Last edited:
The rub seems to be that in that same case, the SCOTUS appears to be of the opinion it applies only to the Federal Government. Unlike some of the other rights which the States are specified to protect the SCOTUS specifically address the 2nd Amendment as only be a limitation on the Federal Government.
Which is why we have draconian state laws in places like New York, California, and New Jersey.
No. SCOTUS has specifically ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States as well as the Federal government in McDonald v Chicago:
"The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States." page 3
States like New York, California, et al are misinterpreting or simply ignoring SCOTUS.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It would serve us well, if some folks would fact check their statements. I thank some thoughtful members and staff for correcting, the incorrect statements and misleading interpretations that this thread seems to attract continually.
Take the hint.
Take the hint.