• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gunbrabbers 1 Constitution 0. A test in the Marianas

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mu11et said:
Wrong the 2nd amendment secures all the other amendments. It's the concrete that bonds all the other amendments together. Without the 2nd amendment the constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Click to expand...
Second amendment is about militias providing security for states, not about securing all other amendments for individuals. This is what Republicans don't get. States have been violating individual freedoms with things like slavery, voter suppression and segregation and second amendment didn't do jack except defend the states power over the individual.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 
senseamp said:
Second amendment is about militias providing security for states, not about securing all other amendments for individuals. This is what Republicans don't get. States have been violating individual freedoms with things like slavery, voter suppression and segregation and second amendment didn't do jack except defend the states power over the individual.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Wrong it was about making sure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enforced buy the people for the people. Look at every country around where the people are not allowed gun like here in the US, those people have no way to defend their families or property. Their governments have way more power over their people.
 
ivwshane said:
Wrong. That's simply wishful thinking and fantasy by gun idiots. If it ever came to citizens fighting for their rights with guns it's already too late.
Click to expand...


Sure sure, you would be the first person running to hide behind a gun owner. FACT! Libtards always hate guns till their life is threatened or you could dial 911 and wait for the police you guys loath so much.
 
Last edited:
mu11et said:
Sure sure, you would be the first person running to hide behind a gun owner. FACT! Libtards always hate guns till their life is threatened or you could dial 911 and wait for the police you guys loath so much.
Click to expand...

As you just demonstrated; wishful thinking and fantasy. The shays and bundy's of the world thank you for supporting their brand of stupidity.
 
sounds like they want only the rich to be able to defend themselves. ( i read the whole thing)

my old Russian rifle would be banned because it has a barrel surrounded by wood to prevent my hand being burned. LOL.

(all my guns fell off my boat some time ago and the boat sunk too, sorry to say)
 
mu11et said:
Wrong it was about making sure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enforced buy the people for the people. Look at every country around where the people are not allowed gun like here in the US, those people have no way to defend their families or property. Their governments have way more power over their people.
Click to expand...

Except that for over 200 years of this country that's not how it was interpreted legally. It may be how the current SCOTUS has decided the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted. It goes against the language of the amendment and everything written at the time by those who wrote the amendment, but that's how the far right who had a majority on the court decided to view it. So for now at least it's law.

Now how about those of you on the right protect a woman's reproductive rights and the right to vote with the same veracity you protect the 2nd Amendment. Oh, that's right, it's you who are attacking those other things with 100 times the effort anyone on the left is going after the 2nd Amendment.
 
thraashman said:
Except that for over 200 years of this country that's not how it was interpreted legally. It may be how the current SCOTUS has decided the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted. It goes against the language of the amendment and everything written at the time by those who wrote the amendment, but that's how the far right who had a majority on the court decided to view it. So for now at least it's law.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about? It's pretty much how it's been interpreted the whole time, and if you read the federalist papers and other documentation from the time that's exactly how the founding fathers intended it to be. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was as a check on the standing army that the constitution gave the congress the right to create. A well regulated militia meant all the people, the "well regulated" part doesn't refer to government regulation at all. Sheesh.

Now how about those of you on the right protect a woman's reproductive rights and the right to vote with the same veracity you protect the 2nd Amendment. Oh, that's right, it's you who are attacking those other things with 100 times the effort anyone on the left is going after the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
What is this BS you're spewing? I am 100% in support of the 2nd, just like I am 100% in support of a woman's reproductive rights.

I've often compared those two issues: gun control is to the left what abortion is to the right. They are issues that send those on the left/right into an irrational illogical frenzy. They'll try to do end-runs around the constitution if need be to achieve their goals. They'll use it as an issue to rally the base. They'll lose sight of actual useful goals because of the focus on that one issu etc etc etc
 
Last edited:
herm0016 said:
(all my guns fell off my boat some time ago and the boat sunk too, sorry to say)
Click to expand...

I'd like to take this moment to mourn all of the perfectly serviceable firearms that are lost in tragic boating accidents.

The 2nd is an individual right just like the entire rest of the bill of rights. Commas, etc. I would be glad to read anything purported to be evidence of an alternate theory.

senseamp said:
There is a right to vote, there is no right to afford a gun, otherwise there would be free government provided guns.
Click to expand...

The militia act of 1792 did exactly that. Except that every able bodied male was supposed to get their own weapon, ammo, etc and the States as I recall were supposed to provide compensation after the fact. As I see it, modern gun owners are merely being compliant. Certainly the Gun Care And Affordable Gun Act are ready to pass through the legislature to update this oversight.
 
Last edited:
rudder said:
Leftist gun grabbers have found it difficult to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thanks to the 2nd amendment and repeated pro 2nd amendment rulings in the supreme court (A federal court recently struck down the Marianas handgun ban as well).

But I think there is a quiet little test that Hillary is surely drooling over which is going on the the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Hillary is drooling because she also supports taxing guns.

http://gov.mp/2016/04/11/handgun-law-signed-regulations-now-in-place/

$1000/tax per gun. Thanks in part to some ACA rulings... this seems like something that could take hold. Sure we all have a 2nd amendment right to own a gun.... but it seems the left would love to add a $1000 to a $400 handgun. That and ammo. Of course will all these plans there is no consideration that criminals on the street buying their $100 gun are not subject to this tax. And with the porous southern border a lot of tax free guns can easily be brought into the country.
Click to expand...

Where does it say $1000 per gun?
 
mu11et said:
Wrong it was about making sure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enforced buy the people for the people. Look at every country around where the people are not allowed gun like here in the US, those people have no way to defend their families or property. Their governments have way more power over their people.
Click to expand...

How come 2nd amendment wasn't used by the citizens to end slavery, segregation, and other blatant violations of the Bill of Rights? The Federal Government had to either fight a war or send in national guard to do those things, with 2nd amendment touting crowd usually in opposition.
It was always for defense of State, not the defense of individual rights.
 
I don't get what the deal here is. You don't like purposeless laws intended solely to restrict firearm ownership? Fine. Where are you against purposeless laws solely to restrict abortion?

These laws are dumb for the same reason TRAP laws are dumb, but you will rarely find the person willing to oppose both. Why? Because those principles never mattered to them, they just want the government to enforce their opinions.
 
Knowing said:
The militia act of 1792 did exactly that. Except that every able bodied male was supposed to get their own weapon, ammo, etc and the States as I recall were supposed to provide compensation after the fact. As I see it, modern gun owners are merely being compliant. Certainly the Gun Care And Affordable Gun Act are ready to pass through the legislature to update this oversight.
Click to expand...

game set match.
 
Stick with whatever you care to cite. Me, I'll take D.C. vs Heller:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
Click to expand...

Loosely translated another way: "gun-grabbers trying to use the militia argument to deny individuals... pound sand bitches!"
 
eskimospy said:
I don't get what the deal here is. You don't like purposeless laws intended solely to restrict firearm ownership? Fine. Where are you against purposeless laws solely to restrict abortion?

These laws are dumb for the same reason TRAP laws are dumb, but you will rarely find the person willing to oppose both. Why? Because those principles never mattered to them, they just want the government to enforce their opinions.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point and one I'm going to steal to use on the anti-abortion crowd on a different forum I frequent. 🙂


I'm pro-abortion and pro-gun rights for what it's worth. And pro-legalization, pro-Gay rights, and pro-religious liberties (and that includes not forcing someone to serve someone else against their religious convictions, even if I also support the rights of those they are against).

I want the government telling us what to do as little as possible.
 
thraashman said:
Except that for over 200 years of this country that's not how it was interpreted legally. It may be how the current SCOTUS has decided the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted. It goes against the language of the amendment and everything written at the time by those who wrote the amendment, but that's how the far right who had a majority on the court decided to view it. So for now at least it's law.

Now how about those of you on the right protect a woman's reproductive rights and the right to vote with the same veracity you protect the 2nd Amendment. Oh, that's right, it's you who are attacking those other things with 100 times the effort anyone on the left is going after the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


I am for a woman to choose whats she wants, even though I hate abortion. You make abortion illegal and you will have more orphanages then jails. I didn't fit in your box eh?
 
PokerGuy said:
What are you babbling about? It's pretty much how it's been interpreted the whole time, and if you read the federalist papers and other documentation from the time that's exactly how the founding fathers intended it to be. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was as a check on the standing army that the constitution gave the congress the right to create. A well regulated militia meant all the people, the "well regulated" part doesn't refer to government regulation at all. Sheesh.
Click to expand...


100% correct.
 
senseamp said:
How come 2nd amendment wasn't used by the citizens to end slavery, segregation, and other blatant violations of the Bill of Rights? The Federal Government had to either fight a war or send in national guard to do those things, with 2nd amendment touting crowd usually in opposition.
It was always for defense of State, not the defense of individual rights.
Click to expand...


I bet my life that if you were standing in front of our founding fathers and repeated that ridiculous sentence I bolded you would be laughed out of the room.
 
mu11et said:
I bet my life that if you were standing in front of our founding fathers and repeated that ridiculous sentence I bolded you would be laughed out of the room.
Click to expand...

I doubt it as they had wide ranging opinions on the issue, just like every other issue. They were in no way even remotely a monolithic group. In fact, during the initial debates about the bill of rights after the Constitution was ratified some states wanted to put in provisions for the government to take away everyone's guns in case of unrest. Hell, George Washington himself saw people try and use their guns as a check on federal tyranny. What was his answer? A beatdown.

More importantly though, why should we care what people who have been dead for two centuries think? We should interpret the Constitution by OUR standards, not theirs, as we have to live with the results. I've never gotten the Ouija board school of constitutional interpretation where we try to figure out what long dead slaveholders think about personal liberty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top