So how about REPEALING the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter MuzzleBlast
- Start date
The elements required to prove perjury go way beyond just lying, including being previously sworn by a competent authority to tell the truth about a particular matter. Effective defenses include mistake or inadvertence.
Free speech includes telling all sorts of lies about, for example, drilling for oil in the Alaskan desert or blanket false statements despite the facts of a matter being in the arena.
Unfortunately, the 1A does guarantee the right to lie because it makes lying so easy to get away with. That's as it should be, BTW, because we don't have the power of discernment to know when somebody's lying and when they're not.
By the same analogous token, the 2A guarantees incompetent and ignorant citizens who should never be trusted with matches or sharp instruments the right to keep and bear arms because, lacking discernment, government cannot be trusted to judge an otherwise legally unimpaired citizen's competence regarding arms.
Take a look at my question I asked a few days ago in another thread. In my mind, the term 'state' could refer to a condition of being, as 'living in a state of freedom'. We don't need to amend the Constitution... we need to restore it.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112820
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112820
LAK,
Information is, has been, and always will be a valuable commodity among those on the edge. It's traded, sold, and exploited. Those who commit crimes or are just accused of it never seem to learn that there are no secrets, and that those who traffic in information will know the details of a crime long before the police do. It's their business to know, and their guesses are amazingly perceptive.
Your original point never did stand, and it still doesn't.
Why should you be? The snitch isn't giving any evidence against you in court. Neither is your 7th grade English teacher. If the snitch learned, 2nd or 96th hand, some secret about you that the police used to turn up competent evidence against you, so what? The evidence is what you have to overcome or prove that it's tainted, not the circumstance of somebody ratting you out.
Information is, has been, and always will be a valuable commodity among those on the edge. It's traded, sold, and exploited. Those who commit crimes or are just accused of it never seem to learn that there are no secrets, and that those who traffic in information will know the details of a crime long before the police do. It's their business to know, and their guesses are amazingly perceptive.
Your original point never did stand, and it still doesn't.
[Blackhawk]"Why should you be? The snitch isn't giving any evidence against you in court."
.... If it amounts to an accusation of a criminal act, it should be. And that was part of my point. There is no opportunity to cross-examine such people or resolve other issues. HOW evidence is obtained has always been an issue for both prosecution and defense. That is why there are routines for obtaining statements and handling other forms of evidence PRIOR to going to court etc.
[Blackhawk]"If the snitch learned, 2nd or 96th hand, some secret about you that the police used to turn up competent evidence against you, so what? The evidence is what you have to overcome or prove that it's tainted, not the circumstance of somebody ratting you out."
........ I see; and who is to say whether this "snitch" isn't simply running a criminal enterprize setting up "busts" so someone else can say they had "probable cause" to conduct search and seizure - and perhaps planting evidence in the process? This provides a fertile ground for all kinds of corruption. If you take a single aspect, say controlled substances, where there are huge sums of money involved, you may as well be pouring gasoline on a fire to "put it out".
[Blackhawk]"Information is, has been, and always will be a valuable commodity among those on the edge. It's traded, sold, and exploited. Those who commit crimes or are just accused of it never seem to learn that there are no secrets, and that those who traffic in information will know the details of a crime long before the police do. It's their business to know, and their guesses are amazingly perceptive."
........"...Those on the edge"? This sounds like the "epilogue" from a tv series.
"No secrets"? How come taped evidence is so difficult to get into a courtroom - even if it is obtained in a public domain? What happens in most states if you attempt to tape - audio and visual - a peace officer (or officers) searching your home- or stopping you in your car on a public roadway?
"No secrets"? Funny, the subject is the just that. People involved in the judicial process who are big secrets in themselves. And just who are the incorruptible people who oversee all this?
[Blackhawk]"Your original point never did stand, and it still doesn't."
....... Yours are well known, accepted by many, but on analysis reflect the point of view that "information" is something not covered under the 4th Amendment - unless you are a public official - or perhaps one engaging in criminal activity with other criminals at the expense of people who may or may not have committed any crime.
.... If it amounts to an accusation of a criminal act, it should be. And that was part of my point. There is no opportunity to cross-examine such people or resolve other issues. HOW evidence is obtained has always been an issue for both prosecution and defense. That is why there are routines for obtaining statements and handling other forms of evidence PRIOR to going to court etc.
[Blackhawk]"If the snitch learned, 2nd or 96th hand, some secret about you that the police used to turn up competent evidence against you, so what? The evidence is what you have to overcome or prove that it's tainted, not the circumstance of somebody ratting you out."
........ I see; and who is to say whether this "snitch" isn't simply running a criminal enterprize setting up "busts" so someone else can say they had "probable cause" to conduct search and seizure - and perhaps planting evidence in the process? This provides a fertile ground for all kinds of corruption. If you take a single aspect, say controlled substances, where there are huge sums of money involved, you may as well be pouring gasoline on a fire to "put it out".
[Blackhawk]"Information is, has been, and always will be a valuable commodity among those on the edge. It's traded, sold, and exploited. Those who commit crimes or are just accused of it never seem to learn that there are no secrets, and that those who traffic in information will know the details of a crime long before the police do. It's their business to know, and their guesses are amazingly perceptive."
........"...Those on the edge"? This sounds like the "epilogue" from a tv series.
"No secrets"? How come taped evidence is so difficult to get into a courtroom - even if it is obtained in a public domain? What happens in most states if you attempt to tape - audio and visual - a peace officer (or officers) searching your home- or stopping you in your car on a public roadway?
"No secrets"? Funny, the subject is the just that. People involved in the judicial process who are big secrets in themselves. And just who are the incorruptible people who oversee all this?
[Blackhawk]"Your original point never did stand, and it still doesn't."
....... Yours are well known, accepted by many, but on analysis reflect the point of view that "information" is something not covered under the 4th Amendment - unless you are a public official - or perhaps one engaging in criminal activity with other criminals at the expense of people who may or may not have committed any crime.
Repeal the 2nd?
How many of you know what the Bill of Rights is? Not what they are, but what it is.
IT IS, a list of things that the government can not do. When you read it take note of all the Shall not`s and No`s. It can`t be repealed, or ammended. The BOR is exactley what it says. I will grant you that it is being infringed on as I write this by laws that are passed to skirt around it.
Artical 2 is thier to protect the other 9.
How many of you know what the Bill of Rights is? Not what they are, but what it is.
IT IS, a list of things that the government can not do. When you read it take note of all the Shall not`s and No`s. It can`t be repealed, or ammended. The BOR is exactley what it says. I will grant you that it is being infringed on as I write this by laws that are passed to skirt around it.
Artical 2 is thier to protect the other 9.
Blackhawk,
I have been in the business and am familiar with the routines, both on a Federal level, and on more local agency levels. They are indeed "not the same". But they do amount to the same thing in this context. It is an abomination - and just another avenue for corruption and injustice.
I have been in the business and am familiar with the routines, both on a Federal level, and on more local agency levels. They are indeed "not the same". But they do amount to the same thing in this context. It is an abomination - and just another avenue for corruption and injustice.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
I will posit that any reasonable person who reads the pertinent debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists will conclude that both sides felt that these rights were innate to the existence of an individual. The federalists felt that it was inconceivable that an American government would abuse these...thus a Bill of Rights was superfluous. The anti-federalists had no such trust and demanded the addition of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grant rights of any kind. Rather they enumerate rights that exist for every individual everywhere...whether their government recognizes them or not.
As a result, it is perfectly logical to consider the provenance of the right to keep and bear arms. It is this: I have a right to life. That right is absolute except upon sentencing for conviction of capital crimes-such conviction occurring upon trial by a jury of my sovereign peers. My right to life is not subject to any other process-including the amendment process outlined in the U.S. Constitution. If I have a right to life then it logically follows that I have a right to defend that life. It also follows that this right to self defense is also not subject to any democratic process. Once my right to self defense is thus established; it follows that I have the right to possess the tools necessary to provide for self defense. Those tools are weapons. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be amended.
To do so would break the social compact between the individual and his government. When that rupture occurs, all sovereign rights and powers revert to the individual. He has returned to a state of nature and is, as Tamara asserted, in occupied territory and should conduct himself accordingly.
Therefore, neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grant rights of any kind. Rather they enumerate rights that exist for every individual everywhere...whether their government recognizes them or not.
As a result, it is perfectly logical to consider the provenance of the right to keep and bear arms. It is this: I have a right to life. That right is absolute except upon sentencing for conviction of capital crimes-such conviction occurring upon trial by a jury of my sovereign peers. My right to life is not subject to any other process-including the amendment process outlined in the U.S. Constitution. If I have a right to life then it logically follows that I have a right to defend that life. It also follows that this right to self defense is also not subject to any democratic process. Once my right to self defense is thus established; it follows that I have the right to possess the tools necessary to provide for self defense. Those tools are weapons. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be amended.
To do so would break the social compact between the individual and his government. When that rupture occurs, all sovereign rights and powers revert to the individual. He has returned to a state of nature and is, as Tamara asserted, in occupied territory and should conduct himself accordingly.
[Muzzleblast] "...There are no foreign threats that could or would mount a military invasion of the US. ....."
... This is simply not true, and is unlikely to be so for a very long time. Besides, as the honorable Suzanne Gratia Hupp so succintly told Chuck Schumer, it is so that we can protect ourselves from all of them. This in addition of course to those outside our borders.
As for turning the entire issue over to the states, it can not be a state issue for the fact that it is a right - codified or not. I any case, turning it completely over to the states would allow the federal government to devour each piecemeal via federal funding and other pressures.
... This is simply not true, and is unlikely to be so for a very long time. Besides, as the honorable Suzanne Gratia Hupp so succintly told Chuck Schumer, it is so that we can protect ourselves from all of them. This in addition of course to those outside our borders.
As for turning the entire issue over to the states, it can not be a state issue for the fact that it is a right - codified or not. I any case, turning it completely over to the states would allow the federal government to devour each piecemeal via federal funding and other pressures.
Last edited:
Since my last post way-back-when seems nearly incomprehensible to me now, I'll try again.
Sure, I'd support repeal of the 2A just as soon as the federal government gets rid of all federal gun bans, err, I mean regulations, and disbands the BATFE.
You don't need the 2nd amendment to assert a right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. The Founders understood that; that's why they didn't try to fight the British with rocks and knives. The 2nd Amendment is just window dressing.
I'm really disappointed that the founders came up with a "Bill of Rights" and then didn't immunize them from amendment. It may not have done any good, since people could simply amend the constitution in other ways to gut the BoR. Still, if the BoR, and the 2nd in particular, was the palladium of liberties of the Republic, isn't it downright moronic not to protect it from repeal or amendment?
Sure, I'd support repeal of the 2A just as soon as the federal government gets rid of all federal gun bans, err, I mean regulations, and disbands the BATFE.
You don't need the 2nd amendment to assert a right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. The Founders understood that; that's why they didn't try to fight the British with rocks and knives. The 2nd Amendment is just window dressing.
I'm really disappointed that the founders came up with a "Bill of Rights" and then didn't immunize them from amendment. It may not have done any good, since people could simply amend the constitution in other ways to gut the BoR. Still, if the BoR, and the 2nd in particular, was the palladium of liberties of the Republic, isn't it downright moronic not to protect it from repeal or amendment?
Here is the real problem that the antis have
Even if they manage to repeal the Second Amendment, they face the myriad Constitutions of the states that use the unambiguous language of "person", "individual", "his", "their", etc. There are 32 states that have an individual right to arms in their Constitutions.
I guess the antis will have to move to the other 18.
Even if they manage to repeal the Second Amendment, they face the myriad Constitutions of the states that use the unambiguous language of "person", "individual", "his", "their", etc. There are 32 states that have an individual right to arms in their Constitutions.
I guess the antis will have to move to the other 18.
I think the attacks on 9-11 are not really comparable to a military invasion that could be resisted by a militia.
On the other hand it is true that the only attack that failed that day was stopped because of the actions of passengers. They learned what was happening from their cell phones and acted. Maybe that color coded alert thing isn't so stupid after all.
On the other hand it is true that the only attack that failed that day was stopped because of the actions of passengers. They learned what was happening from their cell phones and acted. Maybe that color coded alert thing isn't so stupid after all.
... being necessary to the security of a free state...
The Founders made it clear that the 2nd Amendment was the answer to the question: How can a government in a free country protect the common man?
The answer was simply: it can't. The best it can do is enable the common man to protect himself, then stay out of his way while he does it.
This is true whether we are talking about armed invasion, about organized terrorism, or about home grown thugs working the streets.
Neither the questions nor the answers have changed in 250 years. There is no security in a free country, without armed individuals ready and able to defend themselves.
pax
The Founders made it clear that the 2nd Amendment was the answer to the question: How can a government in a free country protect the common man?
The answer was simply: it can't. The best it can do is enable the common man to protect himself, then stay out of his way while he does it.
This is true whether we are talking about armed invasion, about organized terrorism, or about home grown thugs working the streets.
Neither the questions nor the answers have changed in 250 years. There is no security in a free country, without armed individuals ready and able to defend themselves.
pax
seeker_two
New member
pax nailed it... 
Even if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, the RIGHT to defend oneself would still remain. It's God-given (no matter which god you believe in) to all people...
We just have to remind our governments of that, sometimes...
Even if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, the RIGHT to defend oneself would still remain. It's God-given (no matter which god you believe in) to all people...
We just have to remind our governments of that, sometimes...
MicroBalrog
New member
Mike Irwin: Actually, the Old Testament mentions, in the Torah, that every person has the right to defend if attacked.
Ergo: We have, if you're Jewish or Christian, the God-given right to self-defense - and, obviously, to the tools necessary.
Moreover, The Book of Samuel mentions gun control openly.
Ergo: We have, if you're Jewish or Christian, the God-given right to self-defense - and, obviously, to the tools necessary.
Moreover, The Book of Samuel mentions gun control openly.